• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower


Most Of Today’s American Dems Are Rather FOREIGN TO TRUTH! SO MANY ARE GODLESS!

Why Do Democrats Lie So Damn Much?

Derek Hunter

by Derek Hunter at Townhall:

|Posted: Jul 31, 2022

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

If you were alive in the 1990s you saw the fight against HIV and AIDS morph from a serious one to a clown show. Why? Because Democrats wanted to “avoid stigmatizing” people not only most at risk, but those most as risk by a longshot. The left didn’t want to point out that promiscuous, unprotected sex between men was the most common and easiest way to get HIV. Few heterosexuals contracted HIV through sex, and those who did could either trace it back to a man engaging in gay sex or an IV drug user. In other words, HIV was not an easy virus to catch. Still, Democrats lied about it. Why? Pretty much the same reason they lie about everything.

By changing the narrative to one that “anyone can get HIV” – something true, but really only technically – Democrats actually downplayed the danger gay men faced from the virus. If anyone can get it there is no reason to take any special precautions or ever really be careful at all.

MTV was inundated with public service announcements feature all the bands of the day insisting HIV was basically out there stalking you. In reality, it wasn’t. While not impossible, the odds of transmission through heterosexual sex were infinitesimal compared to gay sex. Transmission among lesbians was the rarest of all. But you weren’t allowed to say that, you had to live in fear to avoid the “stigma!” 

How many people died because Democrats prevented people from speaking the truth? 

Now we have the monkeypox outbreak. If you didn’t know any better you swear it was a virus out there stalking everyone, just waiting for its chance to pounce. But the facts tell a different story. 

NBC News reported on a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that, “The global monkeypox outbreak is primarily being driven by sex between men, according to the first major peer-reviewed paper to analyze a large set of cases of the virus.”

In fact, 95 percent of cases were traced to back to gay sex, and the other 5 percent featured someone who lied. 

OK, I have no basis for that last part, other than a sinking suspicion. 

But you can’t say either of those points without being declared a bigot by leftists and libertarians alike. On Fox Business, this truth was denounced as homophobic because the host and the other guests simply didn’t like it. Sorry, but reality is not dependent upon your belief in it.

The idea that some kind of “stigma” would harm gay people is antiquated thinking. It’s a byproduct of the white liberal savior complex – the idea that certain people “need protection” because they simply can’t handle life on their own. 

Gay people, like everyone else the left claims domain over protecting, aren’t a fragile group of snowflakes. And if some of them are, tough. If you want people to stop transmitting monkeypox, and people should, you have to be honest about who is most likely to get it. 

But progressives are committed to the lie, and when they commit to a lie they are more committed than they are to a marriage. 

Monkeypox is a threat to everyone. Two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth does not mean a recession. Joe Biden isn’t a creepy pervert suffering from dementia who profited off his government positions and was a horrible father who raised degenerates. You know, irrefutable facts denied because they are inconvenient to the left. 

You can’t really expect much else from people who attempt to deify violent criminals and junkies, to the point of enabling riots that ruin cities, simply to score some cheap political points. Generations of the people Democrats claim domain over the guardianship of have been irrevocably harmed by the “help” Democrats offer, what’s one more go-round?

Democrats didn’t care enough to be honest about HIV when AIDS was a death sentence, why would the give a damn about something that is only extremely painful and temporary? 

I’m not gay and am married, so monkeypox isn’t an issue in my life. But I care about human beings and don’t want to see them suffer. Plus, I have a little thing I like to call “affection for the truth.” That makes it impossible to sit by silently as people lie for political gain. As I’ve said before, it means I’d make a horrible Democrat. 

Derek Hunter is the host of a free daily podcast (subscribe!), host of a daily nationally syndicated radio show, and author of the book, Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses, and host of the weekly “Week in F*cking Review” podcast where the news is spoken about the way it deserves to be. 

Thank you President Biden!

Pay Attention To The Dutch Farmer Protests Because America Is Next

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON at the Federalist:

JULY 29, 2022

Dutch farmer protests

The same climate policies that are set to destroy private agriculture in the Netherlands are eventually coming to America.

Author John Daniel Davidson profile


Americans should start paying closer attention to the ongoing farmer protests in the Netherlands, which this week transformed long swaths of Dutch highways into what looked like a post-apocalyptic warzone: roadside fires raging out of control, manure and farming detritus heaped across highways, traffic stalled for miles, and massive protests across the country in support of the farmers.

Why is the Netherlands, of all places, experiencing such unrest? Americans need to understand what’s happening over there because the ruinous climate policies that triggered these protests are precisely what President Joe Biden and the Democrats have in mind for the United States.

Specifically, Dutch farmers are protesting a government plan to cut fertilizer use and reduce livestock numbers so drastically that it will force many farms out of business. Earlier this month, farmers used tractors and trucks to block highways and entrances to food distribution centers across the country, saying their livelihood and way of life are being targeted by the government.


And they more or less are. The ruling coalition government claims its radical plan, pushed by Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who branded the protests “unacceptable,” is part of an “unavoidable transition” to improve air, land, and water quality. The goal is to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia, which are produced by livestock but which the government is labeling “pollutants,” by 50 percent nationwide by the year 2030.

The only way to do that, many Dutch farmers say, is to slaughter the vast majority of their livestock and shutter their farms. The government knows this and admitted as much earlier this year, saying in a statement, “The honest message … is that not all farmers can continue their business,” and that farmers have three options: “Becoming more sustainable, relocating or ending their business.” 


The genesis of the scheme was a court ruling from 2019 that said the Dutch government’s plan for reducing nitrogen emissions violated EU laws protecting its Natura 2000 network of supposedly vulnerable and endangered plant and animal habitats — basically a bunch of EU-governed wildlife preserves. These sites span the EU, covering 18 percent of the bloc’s land area and 8 percent of its marine territory.

To protect these wildlife preserves, Dutch farmers are being told they must submit to their government’s ruinous emissions plan.

But the Natura 2000 preserves are only part of the story. European leaders such as Rutte are environmental ideologues who want to transform global food production and eliminate private land ownership, and he sees an opportunity in this court order to reshape agriculture and land use in the Netherlands.

Indeed, Rutte — a walking embodiment of the Davos Man if there ever was one — is a big proponent of the United Nations’ “Agenda 2030” and its Sustainable Development Goals, which aim to squeeze farmers and ranchers around the world in order to reduce “emissions.” The policies that flow from these goals, such as drastically reducing the use of fertilizer, contributed to the recent economic collapse of Sri Lanka, which triggered mass protests that toppled Sri Lanka’s government and ousted its president earlier this month. 

Last year, Rutte spoke to the World Economic Forum about “transforming food systems and land use” at Davos Agenda Week, announcing that the Netherlands would host something called the “Global Coordinating Secretariat of the World Economic Food Innovation Hubs,” whose job would be to “connect all other food innovation hubs.”

In Davos-speak, that means agricultural production and the supply of food will be centrally controlled by intra-governmental bodies and “stakeholders” consisting mainly of the world’s largest food corporations and international NGOs. Private farms and independent farmers will be a thing of the past, supplanted by global bodies making decisions about how much and what kinds of food are produced. The private sector and the independent farmers will have no place in the future that the UN and the WEF are planning.

Dutch farmers understand this. They know Rutte and his ministers want above all to eradicate their farms and way of life. But they’re not going down without a fight.


All of which brings us back to the U.S. This week news broke that congressional Democrats had finally reached a deal on the largest piece of climate legislation in American history. The bill is a tax-and-spend cornucopia of some $369 billion for wind, solar, geothermal, battery, and other industries over the next decade, along with generous subsidies for electric vehicles and incentives to keep nuclear plants open and capture emissions from industrial plants.

After pretending to oppose Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s climate legislation, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin relented this week, clearing the way for the bill to proceed. Senate Democrats say the bill will allow the U.S. to cut greenhouse emissions by 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 — matching up nicely with the UN’s “Agenda 2030.”

Understand that the Senate bill isn’t the end, it’s the beginning. Climate activists and ideologues are working at the highest levels to transform not just the global food supply, but the nature of private property and property rights, all in the name of saving the planet. What Rutte and his government are doing to Dutch farmers, Schumer and Biden are planning to do to American farmers and American industries. 

So pay attention to the roadside fires and blocked highways and mass civic unrest in places like the Netherlands and Sri Lanka. America is next.

Corrupt Dem California To Send Gavin Newsom To FOUL Washington WORSE THAN BIDEN?

July 31, 2022

Just Who Is This Gavin Newsom Guy?

By Terry Paulding at American Thinker:

According to the Wikipedia bio for California governor Gavin Newsom, he seems to have been young when he began to aim for the White House. Only 55, he served six years as a San Francisco supervisor, eight years as San Francisco’s mayor, eight years as California’s lieutenant governor, and now he’s been governor for three-and-a-half years, including surviving a flawed recall attempt. If there was any doubt he’s focused on the presidency, his attack videos on Florida and Texas, along with his recent visit to the White House while Joe Biden was away (some say to “measure the curtains”) seem to confirm it.

Unlike many other politicos, he’s also a businessman. PlumpJack group, which he started in 1991 with investment from family friend Gordon Getty (yes, of those Gettys), includes wineries, restaurants, and hotels. Although he divested from local holdings when he became involved in San Francisco politics, he still has wineries in Napa Valley and an inn in Squaw Valley.

He’s married to actor/director Jennifer Siebel, and the father of four. Newsom’s first marriage, to Kimberly Guilfoyle, ended in a mutually agreed upon divorce.

Image: Gavin Newsom (edited). YouTube screen grab.

Superficially, Newsom seems like the ideal liberal candidate, until you look at the effects of his policies. His gubernatorial term has been universally disastrous for the state and his personal behavior less than exemplary. We all remember the controversial French Laundry dinner during the lockdown and, most recently, he vacationed in Montana, a state to which he prohibits government travel.

The best way to understand how a Newsom administration would work if he were to win the Presidency in 2024 is to look at how he’s governed California.

 California has America’s highest state income tax, ranging up to 13.3% for high earners (and he wants to raise it further), plus a 1% “surcharge” tax for mental health services on those earning over $1 million. On top of this, we have a 7.25% state sales tax—again, the highest in America—to which are added local taxes. We also have America’s high gas tax, which is meant to fix our crumbling highways and streets. Yet these same highways and streets are crumbling just as fast as they were before, filled with potholes, teeming with garbage.

Despite the high tax rate and vast expenditures on education, California schools are failing. California ranks 44th of 50 states on education quality and outcome. Our K-12 curriculum is filled with Critical Race Theory doctrine. Before I retired, I hired a few public high school graduates and can attest to their poor basic reading and math skills.

Then there’s California’s homelessness, drugs, and rampant crime. There’s a laissez-faire attitude toward drug use in the state, despite ample evidence of the problems it causes. Virtually nothing seems to be getting done to stop the sale and use of hard drugs in our cities.

We’ve all seen the video showing school children forced to walk through sidewalks filled with drug-using homeless people. In one homeless encampment in Oakland, on property owned by Caltrans, there have been 200 fires in two years — and because it’s under a freeway, and near fuel storage tanks, the potential exists for a great deal of damage. After the last fire destroyed an unused railroad trestle and damaged the freeway overhead, the city and Caltrans finally decided to clear it but, of course, the action was stopped by a judge. Newsom allocated $4.7 million to relocate these people quite a while ago, but the city hadn’t received the money yet. He’s great at seeming to throw our money at a problem, but not at follow-up to make sure it’s received, or well used.

Crime is a huge problem in our state. We throw money at homelessness with abandon, but the police get short shrift and little support. My local news feed includes nightly shootings, some as near as a mile from my house. There is no leadership from our “leader” in dealing with crime—which, of course, is exacerbated by the rampant drug and homelessness problems. Oh, excuse me. They’re now the “unhoused.”

Then, there’s drought, a fact of life in California that could be remediated with desalination plants, increased storage and, perhaps, a water pipeline. We’ve already allocated the money, after all. A $7.5 billion water bond passed in 2014, $2.7 billion of it targeted at increasing water storage to mitigate drought. It has yielded zero results. Instead, we’ve released stored water to “help” the “endangered” Delta smelt—a 2-inch-long fish nobody’s ever seen. Farmers are getting nothing, even though our central valley farmers have fed much of the country for decades. They are having to destroy some of their orchards because they can’t water the trees. This, in a state that supposedly had a 5-year water reserve just two years ago. Newsom doesn’t seem to care.

Drought certainly increases fires, but we do nothing about those, either. The budget to clear brush and mitigate the problem of fires is small, and direction on how to proceed with it are minimal. Newsom foisted the job onto the Conservation Corps two years ago and, as far as I could tell when I researched for this article, they didn’t succeed in their efforts.

Fires rage uncontrollably every summer and fall. Newsom has ramped up the budget for mitigation, but if the recent fire near Yosemite is any indication, he has a long way to go. This fire threatened an old-growth redwood grove, and fighting it included a seemingly frantic effort to clear the undergrowth and brush around the trees, something that ought to have been a routine procedure, especially given the importance of this grove and its proximity to Yosemite, a national treasure.

We’re on to the next fire now, and there will be more, as surely as the sun will rise.

California’s energy policy is absurd, focused entirely on ending “our dependence on fossil fuels.” It’s not working out too well. Policies are never examined under the cold light of reality, and Newsom’s influence always leads in the wrong direction.

Special mandated fuel formulations cost more and, along with the gas tax, see California’s paying $1 a gallon more than anywhere else in America (something that has been a problem for years). California is moving to eliminate natural gas hook-ups in all new construction, leaving us reliant on electricity—generated, of course, by bird-killing solar and wind. This has led to rolling black-outs. If everyone has an electric stove, an electric car to charge, an electric heat pump set-up at home, we will never keep up with “clean” energy production. People will freeze in brown-outs in winter and swelter in the summer black-outs. Moreover, the solar panels are manufactured in China, electric cars are terrible polluters, and nobody (except the progressive elite, who probably never cook for themselves) wants an electric stove.

Finally, Newsom won’t let go of the emergency powers that forced us to stay shut up in our homes, closed the beaches and parks, kept our kids from school, kept us masked despite clear contraindications health-wise (something LA is trying to reinstitute, as is the BART system), and forced vaccination with an experimental and  dangerous substance for every school-age child. Our legislature needs to vote this power ended!

For a man who has geared his entire career with an eye to the White House, our governor is one dumb cookie. Thinking he can run a state further into the ground (it was already halfway there when he took office) and then promise not do the same to the nation—that’s a leftist fantasy almost as disconnected as the Biden presidency.



 JULY 30, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


The Trump administration completed 450 miles out of a projected 750 miles of Mexican border wall, but President Biden stopped all wall construction on his first day in office. He and his officials have continued to denounce the project.

However, the administration now announces that it will resume construction to plug four gaps in Arizona:

More than 450 miles of barriers were built under Mr. Trump, and Homeland Security had plans for nearly 300 additional miles, but Mr. Biden halted all construction on his first day in office.

That left gaps, including four holes in the fence near the Morelos Dam Project along the Colorado River near Yuma, Arizona. Migrants have streamed through those gaps in recent months.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Thursday authorized Customs and Border Protection to close those gaps.

Why? If the wall is terrible, why aren’t the gaps good?

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre balked at the notion that President Biden is reversing course after vowing not to build “another foot” of the wall.

“We are not finishing the wall,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said Friday. “We are cleaning up the mess that the prior administration made. We are trying to save lives.”

A classic Biden administration response. Meaningless, beyond expressing hate for Donald Trump. Jean-Pierre added that the wall is “ineffective.” So, if it’s ineffective, why are you plugging the gaps?

In a statement announcing the authorization, Homeland Security said the gaps present “safety and life hazard risks” to migrants, who risk drowning in the Colorado River to reach the holes in the fence, and to agents who have to rescue them.

Of course, what creates the risk is not the gaps, but rather the open border policy that draws illegals to the Rio Grande border like a magnet. Whether they want to admit it or not, the administration’s resuming border wall construction is a testament to the failure of the Democrats’ immigration policies.

Now they just have another 300 miles to go.


Is Our Biden TOO CROOKED OR TOO STUPID (or both) To Be President Of Our Once Beautiful America?

July 30, 2022

The Great Flattening of Joe Biden’s Eco-Hammer

By John Kudla at American Thinker:

Yes, folks, Joser the Joserian, the Destructor, AKA Joe Biden, appears ready to unleash his awesome power to screw things up once again.  Not that this would be something new, but the scope of what may happen is significant.  Joser seems ready to issue a Climate Emergency Declaration to save America from climate change.

What is a climate emergency?  Since climate is weather averaged over 30 years or more, no one really knows.

Could it have something to do with the summertime heat wave stressing electrical grids in California and elsewhere?  You might think so, but summertime heat waves are short-term weather phenomena.  This is not climate gone wild.  In other words, a heat wave does not a climate emergency make.

Has there been a sudden demand from the American people to do something about climate change?  Considering that only 1% of American families see climate change as one of their biggest concerns, the answer is no.

Is this somehow tied to our European allies?  Some of them believe so strongly in climate change that they have been closing coal-fired power stations for the past several years, just like the U.S., in order to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.  Unfortunately, these actions are reducing their electrical generating capacity to the point where they are endangering their ability to function as a modern society.  Here is a speech by Europe’s High Priestess of Climate Change, Greta Thunberg, which explains how she and other true believers feel about the subject.

The most sensible question is whether there has been some radical change in the Earth’s atmospheric temperature in the past few months or years.

Based on the chart below showing the temperature change in the lower atmosphere via satellite, it is clear that the temperature has been slowly rising for the past 40 years.  However, the temperatures in 2022 are very similar to temperatures in 2018.  How is that an emergency?

Does it have something to do with the climate change model predictions from the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change — the IPCC?

In 2008, the IPCC created four Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCP scenarios, to model the Earth’s climate out to 2100.  Each scenario is based on the concentration of greenhouse gases assumed to be in the atmosphere over a specific time.  RCP2.6 assumes that CO2 emissions start declining by 2020 and go to zero by 2100, a model that is now obsolete.  RCP4.5 emissions top out in 2040 and then decline.  RCP6.0 has emissions peak in 2080.  RCP8.5, where emissions continue to rise until 2100, is considered the worst-case scenario.  If we are heading for a climate apocalypse, we should be tracking along the RCP8.5 path by now.

However, if we look at global temperature predictions from 2005 and plot the current global atmospheric temperature, we see something curious.  The current temperature is below all 138 model projections.

What conclusions can we draw from this?  Either the IPCC has been lying to us for the past thirty-plus years or its modeling program overstates atmospheric warming from CO2.

Where is the scientific justification for a climate emergency?  There isn’t one because there is no crisis.  In fact, in 2021, the IPCC admitted that the likelihood of RCP 8.5 happening is low.

So, what is Biden up to?  A climate emergency is just an excuse to impose segments of the Green New Deal on the U.S. through executive orders.  Supposedly, the point is to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and increase reliance on renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.  This would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide the U.S. emits into the atmosphere and make the progressive wing of the Democrat party happier.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Joe can affect climate policy only in the U.S.  Note the chart below showing the distribution of carbon dioxide emissions by country.  In 2019, the U.S. accounted for 16% of the worldwide emission of CO2.  Meanwhile, China, India, and Russia together contributed 41%.

Of course, since China’s and Russia’s primary concern is dominating the world, and India’s main concern is pulling itself out of poverty, they probably don’t care about CO2 emissions.  Ditto for the 19% of the rest of the world, mostly poorer third-world countries who want to improve their quality of life.  So, despite all of the happy talk behind the Paris Climate Accords, it is debatable that roughly 60% of the world does not care about CO2 emissions.  Either they know that the whole thing is a farce, or it is not an issue that matters to them.

So, while Joser the Joserian is happily wrecking our energy production and distribution systems, forcing the rebuilding of factories, homes, and other buildings to meet more stringent climate restrictions, and demanding we switch to electric vehicles, the rest of the world will go on its merry way, CO2 emissions be damned.  They get dependable energy supplies, and we get wind and solar farms, which work when the wind blows, and there is bright sunshine, but not so well at other times.

Have you wondered why Joe Biden has been begging foreign dictators in Venezuela, Iran, and our former ally Saudi Arabia to pump more oil?  He has been doing this even though the simple solution is to loosen restrictions and produce more oil in the United States.

The part no one seems to understand is that this whole sham is not about saving the Earth.  Instead, it is about waging an economic jihad on U.S. fossil fuel industries, which are 8% of our nation’s GDP.  It is about using the U.S. government’s power to disemploy and impoverish the roughly ten million people who work in the industry.  This will weaken the economies of at least a dozen states, wreck an entire segment of our economy, and punish the Republican Party by depriving it of campaign contributions from the oil, gas, and coal companies and their workers.

While this happens, industries and unions friendly to Democrats, such as green energy, electric vehicle makers, the UAW, etc., prosper.  Not to mention that Biden’s pals in China will make out like bandits, since we will have to buy most of the windmills and solar panels from them.

Last I checked, Joe is neither king nor emperor.  So if he is allowed to get away with this, what will stop him from declaring an emergency a week and ruling the U.S. by decree?  The damage resulting from this sort of Machiavellian scheme could be severe.


Another J6 rioter goes to trial for “shoving” and “yelling”

JAZZ SHAW Jul 30, 2022 at HotAir:  

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File

Michael Eckerman, of Wichita, Kansas was allegedly one of the people who participated in the Capitol Hill riot on January 6 of last year. (We have to say “allegedly” even though there is photographic evidence to bear out the accusation.) This week, a federal judge ruled that Eckerman will stand trial on November 28th on felony charges of “civil disorder” as well as “assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers.” If the claims about Eckerman’s actions are accurate, he clearly took part in the riot. We do not support rioting here no matter who engages in it and I continue to believe that those who riot should be held accountable. But everyone who breaks the law should be treated equally and their punishment should reflect the severity of their crimes. Today we’ll take a look at Mr. Eckerman’s activities and try to guess what sort of sentence he will receive if he is convicted. (Associated Press)

A Kansas man accused of assaulting a federal officer during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol will go to trial on several felony and misdemeanor charges, a federal judge has ruled.

A federal judge this week set a Nov. 28 trial date for Michael Eckerman, of Wichita, The Kansas City Star reported. He will be the first Kansan charged in the Capitol riot to face trial.

The felony charges against Eckerman include civil disorder and assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers. His attorney declined to comment on Thursday, The Star reported.

Unlike Mark Ponder, who was sentenced to more than five years for “swinging a pole” at some Capitol Hill Police officers (two poles, actually), Michael Eckerman actually entered the Capitol Building, whereas Ponder remained outside on the plaza. But he was not among the first through the doors or windows who damaged the building to gain access.

Once inside, Eckerman is accused of “shoving” an officer, causing him to trip and fall down a short set of steps. The officer was then sprayed with a fire extinguisher by another person, thereby “obstructing” him from doing his duties. The officer was reportedly not injured during the scuffle.

After that encounter, Eckerman made his way among the crowd of rioters to Statuary Hall, where another line of officers awaited. Inside the hall, Eckerman “yelled at officers for several minutes.” He then posed for a selfie in front of a painting of George Washington and departed the building. This is allegedly the sum total of Michael Eckerman’s involvement in the riot.

Now, Mr. Eckerman did (allegedly) make physical contact with one of the officers when he shoved him, so that would technically be an assault. And by causing him to go down the short stairwell I suppose he also “impeded” the officer in the performance of his duties. I’m not sure when “yelling” at someone became a federal crime and it sounds a lot like free speech to me.

Assaulting and impeding are crimes and Michael Eckerman should receive some sort of punishment if he is convicted of those two charges. But do those sound like the sort of crimes that would merit years in a federal penitentiary? One shove against one officer? I only ask because we’ve been seeing a disturbing pattern emerging. As I pointed out in my article about Mark Ponder (linked above), a person who used a pole of some sort and made contact with two officers’ riot shields and struck a glancing blow to the shoulder of a third officer was given more than five years in prison. Will Mr. Eckerman receive a sentence along the same lines just to “make an example of him?”

Just to put this in perspective, let’s close by taking a short walk down memory lane. Revisit this video taken during the BLM riots in Minneapolis during the “Summer of Love” in 2020. Look at what is happening to the police officers there as mobs destroy their police cruisers with the officers inside and attempt to drag them out into the streets. Look at the amount of “shoving” of police officers that’s going on as the cops are forced back toward the burning buildings set ablaze by the rioters. The faces of many of the rioters are clearly visible. They should not have been hard to identify. But as a follow-up report from those riots pointed out, not a single person from these incidents was ever charged. None of them were even arrested. Then ask yourself one question. Do you still think we live in a society where justice is applied equally under the law?


Why is the baby formula crisis still getting worse?

JAZZ SHAW Jul 30, 2022 at Hot Air:  

AP Photo/Eric Gay

You probably haven’t seen many stories about baby formula shortages on the cable news networks or on the front pages of the larger newspapers lately. And that lack of coverage might lead you to believe that the problem has finally been addressed. But you would be incorrect. Actually, the shortage is worse now than it was two months ago, though it varies from region to region. As of this week, 70% of all baby formula brands were out of stock. The people faring the worst are in Rhode Island, where 79.3% of all baby formula brands are currently out of stock. The most popular American brands are almost impossible to find, with imports from places as far away as Europe and Australia being the only ones available. (If you’re lucky enough to find them.) Too many mothers of infants are now complaining that the government is ignoring their plight. (Daily Mail)

The nationwide baby formula shortage has worsened with 70 percent of all brands reported out-of-stock, despite President Joe Biden’s efforts to make infant milk more accessible.

Families in Rhode Island and Vermont have been hardest hit by the shortage with out-of-stock rates at 79 percent and 78 percent, respectively.

Biden and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have made it easier for foreign manufacturers to get shipments into the country, and appealed to companies such as Nestle and Reckitt to step up production.

One mom who has been gaining attention for her efforts to highlight this problem is Amber Bergeron of Louisiana. She’s the mother of a pair of adorable twins (who she named Sky and Storm) and she has been venting her frustration to reporters. Her babies were born one month premature and her obstetrician instructed her to feed them a brand with higher nutrition levels until they catch up on their physical development. But she hasn’t been able to find those brands anywhere for weeks.

Bergeron told Fox News that she feels as if the government has simply forgotten about her and other mothers like her. She also said that she suspects that the babies born to Washinton politicians are still eating well.

So why is this still happening? Well, the Michigan Abbott plant where a very large percentage of American baby formula is produced is now partially reopened and the production lines are rolling. But it’s going to take several more weeks before they can get back to 100% capacity. Joe Biden’s Operation Fly Formula has helped a bit, bringing in the equivalent of roughly 800,000 bottles of formula per flight, but that’s not nearly enough to make up for the standard demand.

French producer Danone has exported more than 750,000 bottles to the United States and is promising another half million next week. They are exporting these products from New Zealand, along with some specialized formula for premie babies. All of these factors are helpful, but there are three million babies born in the United States each year and the majority of them consumes multiple bottles per day. There are still women out there offering their services as wet nurses, but they are few in number in comparison to the demand.

The bottom line here is that the supply chain has once again failed, and in this case, we can’t blame it on China. When a handful of companies consolidate their control over any industry and centralize their operations, that’s good for their bottom line. But it also creates a vulnerability, if their major operations centers unexpectedly go down, as we saw with Abbott. When you add in the complications involved in relying on foreign markets (as we rely on China for too many products ranging from computer chips to batteries and solar panel parts) the vulnerabilities are further increased. We need to be manufacturing more critical products here in the United States and promoting diversification in the supply chain to prevent these types of shortages from happening over and over.

Will Our America WAKE UP?

July 29, 2022

The Transgender Dichotomy

By Thomas Buckley at American Thinker:

What is the difference between sex and gender?

Certain cultural activists have spent the last few years blurring the line, conflating the two, and in general muddying the waters to the point that putative grown-ups are now using — with a straight face (pardon the pun) — terms like “birthing people.”

But in truth, sex is inherent, genetic, encoded, chromosomal.  In way more than 99.9% percent of humans, DNA, etc. determines whether one is male or female (obviously there is the occasional hiccup in the process — that is a fact, that is real, and it should be understood and accepted).

Also, nearly as rarely, the rest of a person can be one sex but, for whatever reason, the brain’s “hardware” does not align — that is also a fact and should be understood and accepted.

And then we come to gender, which is expression of sex but not sex itself; one’s sex is determined at birth but one’s gender is that plus the brain’s “software” getting involved.

In other words, sex is sex while gender is sex plus brain — seems pretty simple.

If it were only so.

Much of the current “discussion” on the topic purposefully ignores — when convenient — this simple fact in order to gain socio-political traction, if not dominance, making following the logic of certain arguments about as byzantine as navigating the Istanbul sewer system without a map.

For example, the term “gender fluid” is used by many, but when one points out that “fluidity” and “being born this way” are by definition contradictory one can expect a mob of “-ists” to descend ferociously on one’s digital doorstep.

Because while being hip and trendy and really really easy to adhere to, the term “fluid” inherently implies mutability, impermanence.  Fluid flows back and forth, obliterating a key argument in favor of performing unchangeable medical procedures and sanctifying immutable rights.  Gender issues are often portrayed in the light of the race-based civil rights movement, but the claim of fluidity means that comparison cannot apply — one cannot simply switch from black to white or white to black — just ask Rachel Dolezal.  (It should be noted that those adult individuals who undergo complete surgical transformation have obviously discarded the notion of fluidity anyway.)

There is also the issue of the brain itself.  It physically changes over time and the thoughts one has running around in it change by the minute.  Therefore, one’s brain “software” — especially in minors — it not something that should be relied upon to make permanent physical changes.  If you are old enough, do you remember the clothes you wore in the 1970s?  Now imagine they were permanently affixed to your body like a tattoo.

Of course, everyday choices like what to wear and what to have for dinner are on a different order of magnitude, but to say that current” fashion” has nothing to do with the choices one makes is preposterous.

Still, transgender activists themselves have created another logical paradox by claiming simultaneously that the recent massive increase in the number — particularly girls — that identify as trans is purely personal has nothing to do with societal influence but has been proudly caused by society’s growing “acceptance.”  Obviously, nonsense on its face, but it does raise the interesting question: how can the phenomena have both been and absolutely not been impacted by society?

If, in fact, gender is fluid than much of the discussion and debate that has taken place over the past few years is utterly meaningless. So why then all the ruckus?

Power and money.

As to the latter, for years thousands of people fought for gay marriage (and other civil rights before that).  They marched, they wrote op-eds, they lobbied Congress, they funded political campaigns — and many got paid to do so.  Once the court ruled gay marriage was fine it occurred to them – after the euphoria had drifted away — that they had successed themselves out of a job.  So how could people and organizations keep the money flowing — and the trans rights campaign was born.  As the March of Dimes did when polio was cured, many professional gay rights advocates simply pivoted to a new, related cause so as to be able to hang onto their financial and social standing. (This is not to cast aspersions on the March of Dimes, an excellent group that used the socio-economic capital it had built up over the years to fight other childhood maladies.)

As for the power aspect, that is rather self-evident.  The ability to shape government policy, social mores, and entertainment content is rather a heady mix.  Throw in the capacity to be able to destroy anyone who doesn’t agree with you, or ever looked at you sideways, or irked you way back in grade school, or was better at your job than you and you had to get them out of the way to get a promotion by destroying them on social media and one can understand the allure of such a life.

There is also power on a more personal level and people from flashers to murderers have already begun playing the gender card to improve their legal lot in life.  On a less awful but far larger scale, the countless tales of men in dresses crashing into formerly female-only groups and activities — Lia “Rudder” Thomas of Penn comes to mind — are not only infuriating actual feminists and disheartening many good old-fashioned lesbians but in fact show the power dynamic at its most basic.  One could call it the zealousness of the converted, but the countless reports of newly-minted women taking over various feminist causes engenders the idea that far too many men did not make the transition because they felt powerless in their own skin but that they thought they could gain power and acceptance and meaning and money and a Teflon shield from any and all criticism by jumping the fence, as it were. 

Mansplaining, indeed.

This gender politics-based dominance brings up numerous at least unattractive and sometimes even violent metaphorical descriptors, but the movement is already starting to eat its own, which is a positive sign that, like a collapsing star, it may be nearing implosion.

From cancellers being cancelled to the distaste an overwhelming number of people feel towards the Khmer Rouge-level of conformity being demanded, the movement has shown its innate implausibility and already sown the seeds of its own eventual downfall.

As gay men are deemed no longer hip enough to be allowed to organize New York pride parades or diverse enough to serve on school board committees in San Francisco of all places, maybe just maybe we’re at least at the beginning of the end.

Thomas Buckley is the former mayor of Lake Elsinore and a former newspaper reporter.