• 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


Ukraine’s possible resurgence in the south

JAZZ SHAW Jul 03, 2022 at HotAir:

Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via AP

There are increasing signs being observed by intelligence analysts suggesting that some critics may be jumping the gun in ringing the death knell for Ukraine’s ability to preserve its territorial integrity and prevent Vladimir Putin from permanently taking control of portions of that country. Most of the focus in recent weeks has been on the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts in the east, where Russian forces have been grinding away and taking control of more and more territory. But from the early days of the war, they have also controlled the Kherson Oblast, well to the west of Mariupol and to the south of Kyiv. But as NBC News is reporting, Russia’s grip on that region and its control of access to the Black Sea along that part of the coast has been slipping away. The Ukrainians have been engaged in what appears to be a sustained counteroffensive and they are forcing the Russian army to retreat from portions of the region. If they can manage that much, Russia may be put back on the defensive, perhaps permanently.

For weeks, the world’s attention has been fixed on the battle for Ukraine’s east, where Russian forces have been pressing a painstaking advance. But in the south, recent developments suggest Russia’s hold on territory it seized there may be increasingly fragile.

Moscow’s troops withdrew from a key strategic outpost off Ukraine’s southern Black Sea coast Thursday, the latest blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin in the area. It comes amid a nascent Ukrainian counteroffensive around Kherson as well as growing signs of partisan activity and the Kremlin straining to exert control: The south may be flying under the radar for now, but analysts say it could ultimately prove decisive in the struggle for Ukraine’s future.

Russia has controlled large chunks of Ukraine’s south — including the entire Kherson region — since the early days of the war.

The most recent and notable Russian withdrawal in the south came with their abandonment of Snake Island this week. (Though they started shelling it again 48 hours later.) The Russians claimed it was a “gesture of goodwill,” but it looks increasingly as if the Ukrainians simply drove them out by continually attacking. If the Ukrainians can control not only Snake Island but the entire Kherson Oblast, they would reestablish a serious presence controlling access to the Black Sea coast.

As we discussed just yesterday, with the right sort of help from the United States and NATO, Ukraine could basically drive out or destroy Russia’s fleet of warships in the Black Sea and open those lanes back up for agricultural exports. That would not only be a humiliating defeat for Vladimir Putin, but it would remove the ability of Russia to continue to conduct naval bombardments of Ukrainian population centers from the south.

Perhaps even more importantly, if that control can be solidified it would free up more of Ukraine’s troops and military assets to focus on Donetsk and Luhansk. At least some analysts believe that the result could be shorter, more reliable supply lines for the Ukrainian forces and longer, more perilous supply lines for the Russians.

Up until now, the projections for how the war in Ukraine ends seemed to bounce back and forth between scenarios where Putin decides to withdraw voluntarily or he permanently annexes more territory in eastern Ukraine. But is it now possible that the Russian army could eventually be fully driven out of the country by the Ukrainian forces and demonstrably lose this war entirely against the military of what was arguably among the poorest nations in the region? That would certainly be a stunning development indeed and would likely put a nail in the coffin of the idea of Russia as a global military superpower. Well… except for Putin’s 4,500 nuclear war heads. But that’s an issue for another day.


July 3, 2022

Clarence Thomas a ‘black white supremacist’?

By Eric Utter at American Thinker:

In the aftermath of the Dobbs ruling, Rex Chapman, a former NBA player and former employee of the remarkably short-lived CNN+ streaming service, effectively suggested that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a “black white supremacist.” Chapman, who is white, unilaterally added Justice Thomas to the rapidly growing list of Black white supremacists, as determined by virtue-signaling progressives who believe that black people must believe—and behave—in certain ways…or they are not “authentically” black. Because, to these mostly white wokesters, black people are not to be considered autonomous individuals possessing critical thinking skills or free will.

For some reason, Chapman recently tweeted, “Clarence Thomas would last 20-30 seconds in an NBA locker room.” He added, “Why have you never seen Clarence Thomas at an NBA game? As in — ever?”

And then: “Bill Clinton used to come to our games in Landover with the Bullets. Clarence Thomas – never.”

Ah, I see, Bill Clinton is Blacker than Clarence Thomas! Because, you know, those black folk love their basketball! I bet Clinton has eaten more fried chicken than Thomas has, too.

Chapman’s remarks were both offensive and inane. They would be like inferring Jimmy Carter wasn’t a white southerner (or “cracker”) because he didn’t frequent NASCAR races or drink moonshine.

Chapman took his shots at the distinguished jurist, but they were all airballs. To any sane person, he figuratively “fouled out.”

(And he played for a team called the “Bullets?” How unwoke is that?!)

“Dragging Down Standards Of Living!”

JULY 3, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


It isn’t just the U.S.: around the world “green” fanatics are destroying livelihoods and dragging down standards of living. This instance comes from the Netherlands: “Dutch farmers protest livestock cuts to curb nitrogen.”

In one of their largest-ever demonstrations, the farmers demanded the scrapping of recently announced plans by the Hague-based government, which could see a 30 percent reduction in livestock.

The Netherlands, the world’s second-largest agricultural exporter…

I was surprised to learn this, but it is true.

…is one of the top greenhouse gas emitters in Europe — especially of nitrogen — with much of this blamed on cattle-produced manure and fertiliser.

Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas. I think they mean nitrogen oxide.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte said earlier this month the government’s plan to cut nitrogen emissions “will have an enormous impact on farmers”.

“This sector will change, but unfortunately there’s no choice, we have to bring down nitrogen emissions,” he said.

Of course there is a choice, but greenies don’t like to do cost/benefit calculations.

The Dutch government plans to cut greenhouse gas nitrogen by as much as 70 percent in 131 key areas — many of them close to nature reserves — to reach climate goals by 2030.

For farmers this means a 40-percent drop in emissions is expected, which would require around 30 percent less cattle, according to reports.

So for zero measurable benefit, people get less (i.e., more expensive) meat and fewer dairy products.

The protest has included driving tractors slowly down highways:

Some protesters went to the home of the cabinet minister responsible for the emission-reduction plan. That has been widely condemned:

The protest at Van der Wal’s home came on the eve of an announcement by the government that it planned to criminalize the practice, known as doxing, of publishing online personal details such as home addresses as a means of intimidation.

Something that we might consider here.

O Come, All Ye Faithful

Welcome Mississippi!

How Mississippi Became The State To Take Down Roe v. Wade

BY: BOB ANDERSON at the Federalist:

JULY 01, 2022

History will record that Mississippi, the small and often overlooked state, led the way in protecting the lives of unborn children.

he Supreme Court released its opinion last week in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade and ending nearly 50 years of federal governance over abortion policy. It was a historic moment, with Roe now joining Plessy v. Ferguson in the list of momentous u-turns in Supreme Court case law.

While the decision itself has drawn most of the media attention, another story deserves to be told: How did it happen? How did five decades of battling over one case finally come to an end? To answer that question requires looking to the source of that case, a small Southern state that defied the odds in an epic “David versus Goliath” legal battle.

With little fanfare or attention, Mississippi, the little state that could, showed the rest of the nation what can be done when just a few people believe passionately in their cause and are willing to labor to plant seeds years before harvesting.

Even as former President Donald Trump released a statement on the day of the decision noting that it was “only made possible because I delivered everything as promised, including nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court,” others at the state level were smiling broadly too. Their Herculean efforts went with little notice but paid off — big time.

Seizing the Opportunity

After decades of frustrating battles against an intractable Supreme Court, many legislatures had grown weary of spending time on pro-life legislation, but with the election of President Trump, pro-life advocates in Mississippi saw an opportunity to get a statement win. Jameson Taylor, then acting president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, decided to seize the moment and found early support with Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn, then-state House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Andy Gipson, and bill sponsor Rep. Becky Currie.

Taylor observed that Mississippi had passed a 20-week abortion ban in 2014 and a ban on dismemberment abortions in 2016. Neither had been challenged in court. Diane Deriz, the owner of Mississippi’s only abortion clinic (Jackson Women’s Health Organization) had called the 20-week ban “a totally irrelevant piece of legislation that I’m sure was aimed at the clinic. The clinic goes to 16 weeks, so what difference does that bill make?”  

So, the question arose: “What would be a good next step?”

Identifying a Possible Opening  

As the 2018 legislative session rolled around, the Supreme Court’s balance had not changed, with President Trump simply replacing Justice Antonin Scalia with Justice Neil Gorsuch. It was still a “Kennedy court,” defined by his determinant vote in the middle. Could Mississippi push that court to reconsider the vague “viability” rule that had been created in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)? Would it survive the new “undue burden” standard the court had established to limit states’ regulation of abortion?

Taylor noted that Kennedy had written the decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), which upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Did Kennedy’s support in that case indicate a possible opening to push the viability standard?

Ultimately, Taylor decided it was time for Mississippi to “make a statement to set a new bar for what pro-life policy could look like in red states.” Even so, he concedes “the goal was not to try to completely overturn abortion, but to weaken the Roe/Casey framework.”

As a first step, he reached out to Denise Burke and Kellie Fiedorek, expert attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Burke suggested model language that could build upon Mississippi’s 20-week abortion ban, which was still in place.

Research by ADF and others showed the United States had some of the most permissive abortion policies in the world — aligned most closely with nations such as China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Ultimately, they focused on a plan to try to limit abortion to the first three months, which would still allow a woman ample time to decide but also test the “undue burden” and “viability” standards established in Casey.

Poking the Court with a 15-Week Limit

As the bill took shape in the House, Currie emerged as the sponsor for what would become the 15-week ban bill, formally called “The Gestational Age Act” (H.B. 1510 – 2018). Currie, a licensed nurse, presented a strong defense of the bill to colleagues, recalling her experience holding a 15-week-gestation infant.

The bill itself amplified the medical evidence of life, noting that “at twelve (12) weeks’ gestation, an unborn human being can open and close his or her fingers, starts to make sucking motions, and senses stimulation from the world outside the womb.” Still, the bill limited abortion only after 15 weeks. It was, however, narrow enough to poke at the court and see what might happen.

The bill documented the state’s “legitimate interests from the outset of pregnancy in protecting the health of women” and “in protecting the life of the unborn,” citing Casey as support.

With support from Gunn, the House passed the bill (79-31), but it faced outside opposition in the Senate over criminal penalties against doctors. With an amendment to pivot to limited civil penalties, it was passed with support from Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and sent to Gov. Phil Bryant. He signed it on March 19, 2018, putting into effect what was roundly called “the most restrictive abortion law in the nation.”

Image courtesy Jameson Taylor

Lawyering Up

Within hours, the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the next day U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves issued a temporary restraining order against enforcing the law.

Bryant was undeterred, saying a law “saving more of the unborn than any state in America” was “worth fighting over” in court. Gunn agreed the state was “absolutely” ready to take on the costs of a legal battle, because “I don’t know if you can put any value on human life.”

Even so, Reeves handed the state a stinging defeat, ruling in November that it “unequivocally” violated not only Supreme Court precedent but also the 14th Amendment. He wrote that viability must be determined by trained medical professionals, and the “established medical consensus” is that viability typically begins at 23 to 24 weeks after the pregnant woman’s last menstrual period – a rebuff of Mississippi’s attempt to regulate at 15 weeks.

Mississippi appealed to the Fifth Circuit, but the court ruled against it in December 2019. The opinion said, “In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability,” and “states may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.” It was yet another setback.

Supreme Court’s Balance Swings

Along the way, though, a fortuitous turn of events had occurred. The Supreme Court balance had suddenly changed in late 2018 with President Trump’s replacement of Kennedy with Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Then, just prior to leaving office in 2020, the balance swung further as Amy Coney Barrett was quickly confirmed to fill the seat that had been held by the deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In a blink, the law that had been designed to survive a “Kennedy court” was now headed into a completely different court, one that leaned conservative by a six-to-three margin.

In another fortunate turn, the law got a boost from within the state in 2019 when pro-life Republican Lynn Fitch took over as attorney general from Democrat Jim Hood, who had given the bill a lackluster defense. Fitch, a working mother, took a strong position in defending the law, calling Roe “egregiously wrong” and promoting the slogan “Empower Women, Promote Life.”

She authored numerous articles in the press defending Mississippi’s law, such as “Mississippi’s People Should Choose Its Abortion Laws.” Finally, the law had a solid defense team on its side.

Decision Time

On Dec. 1, 2021, the Supreme Court heard two hours of arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case to determine the fate of almost 50 years of abortion case law. Justice Kavanaugh asked, “Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people being able to resolve this?”

Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito questioned the viability standard, with Roberts commenting that, “Viability it seems to me doesn’t have anything to do with choice. But if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, supported by Justice Elena Kagan, argued for the existing viability standard and admonished her colleagues, asking, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception, that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it’s possible.”

The full weight of the federal government stood against the state of Mississippi that day, with President Biden’s Department of Justice arguing on behalf of the abortion provider that the upholding of Mississippi’s law would represent “an unprecedented contraction of individual rights.”

The drama finally ended when the court released its verdict last week, and by a 6-3 decision both Roe and Casey were overturned. Justice Alito wrote for the majority that “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” The strategy envisioned five years earlier by pro-life advocates in Mississippi had played out better than ever imagined — with some divine twists along the way.

When the news broke on that Friday morning, Taylor simply commented, “Amazing. Praise God!”

History will record that Mississippi, the small and often overlooked state, led the way in protecting the lives of unborn children. And Behind it all was the little army of pro-life warriors who simply did what they could and never lost hope. Local action does indeed have national impact.


Is Trump about to make an early announcement on a 2024 run for president?

KAREN TOWNSEND Jul 02, 2022 at HotAir: 

AP Photo/Joe Maiorana

Has Donald Trump made a decision about running for president again in 2024? If so, is he about to make an early announcement to declare his candidacy? According to some reports, the answer to both of those questions is yes.

This is not a new topic of discussion but it does seem to be rising to the surface more quickly than some of us thought it would. The Daily Mail reports that Trump is set to make his announcement as early as this month. The decision could be due to several things including creating a distraction from the January 6 committee hearings and concern over the rise of interest in Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. An early announcement from Trump would at least initially move the discussion away from all that. Aides are “scrambling” to keep up, according to the New York Times. The Daily Mail uses sources from both the Times and CNN in their report today. (I know.)

Aides, the paper said, are scrambling to build a campaign infrastructure in time for an announcement that could come this month.

‘Every day is different,’ one source told CNN.

‘We get told he’s going to announce imminently, and by the afternoon that has changed.’

Most presidential candidates don’t announce their intention to run until the year before the election. Usually by the time of formal announcements, though, it’s pretty clear who will be running in their party’s primary. It wouldn’t be a surprise to anyone if Trump decides to run but the timing of an announcement can have some real consequences this time. Republicans are counting on a red wave election cycle in November to hand back power to the party in the House and maybe the Senate. That would essentially make Biden a lame duck president for the rest of his term. If Trump announces before the midterm elections in November, he hands Democrats the opportunity to scare voters, particularly Independents, about another Trump run for president.

Trump is eager to capitalize on Biden’s low poll numbers and also to try and clear the field in the 2024 GOP presidential primary. The January 6 committee hearings may be speeding up the process for Trump.

But his desire to expedite a campaign announcement — ditching previous plans to wait until after the November midterm elections — grew even deeper after former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson raised serious questions in a televised congressional hearing this week about Trump’s behavior during the final months of his first term, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Some Trump allies have privately admitted that the House committee’s public hearings have proven more damaging than expected, as congressional investigators continue to air snippets of sworn testimony from current and former Trump advisers undermining his false claims about the 2020 election and raising new questions about his potential legal jeopardy.

The hearings have also clearly weighed on Trump, who spent most of a 90-minute speech to evangelical conservatives last month complaining about them and who has fired off more than a dozen posts to his Truth Social website this week aimed at undermining Hutchinson’s credibility.

In recent days, some of Trump’s advisers have been reaching out to his closest allies to let them know that the former President is seriously considering an earlier-than-expected announcement. One GOP source familiar with those conversations was told that Trump was considering announcing as soon as the first week of July, while others in his orbit cautioned that he does not currently have the infrastructure in place for a major campaign announcement and “doesn’t want this to be a dud,” as a person close to Trump described it.

Team Trump is considering a campaign event and announcement in the battleground state of Michigan.

One thing Trump has continued to do since the last presidential election is to raise money. His PAC has $100M in its coffers. That’s a big consideration when it comes to announcing his candidacy. Campaign finance laws come into play once he announces.

One of the most compelling arguments against an early announcement had been federal campaign finance laws. If and when Mr. Trump announces, he would be ineligible to use any of the $100 million that he has parked in his political action committee to directly support his presidential run. His campaign would also be constrained by a strict $2,900-per-person donation cap for the primaries, meaning he could tap his largest donors only once over the next period of roughly two years to directly fund a candidacy.

But Mr. Trump’s command over small-dollar donors has remained strong, leaving some on his team unconcerned about the fund-raising limits.

It’s impossible to think that Trump’s ego isn’t telling him to stop the movement toward Governor DeSantis by the donor class. Trump is still hugely popular with the party’s base. However, time is not his friend. Voters are ready to start entertaining alternatives to Trump and DeSantis fits the bill. He’s Trump without the baggage. And, he’s young. Trump is 76 years old. It’s time to let the rising stars have a shot. Voters know Trump is up to the challenge of the presidency, if that happens, but voters are growing weary of old candidates on both sides of the aisle. Republicans have a strong bench of younger alternatives. Who do the Democrats have? Besides Joe Biden, they have Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, and so on. Kamala Harris looks young compared to the rest. The Democrat bench is shallow. Republicans need to take advantage of that.

Donald Trump had a successful term as president right up until the coronavirus pandemic. Even then, he managed the creation of the COVID-19 vaccines. We have him to thank for three conservative Supreme Court justices who are returning power back to people via their elected officials instead of the Supreme Court legislating. It will be interesting to see what happens. Will Trump jump in and mix things up before the midterm elections? Maybe he will decide that his role is more of a kingmaker and senior adviser to the party now instead of running for president again. According to these reports, we’ll know soon enough.