• 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


August 4, 2022

What We Must Do to Restore Confidence in Our Elections

By Bert Peterson at American Thinker:

According to Patrick Basham, there are such things as  “non-polling metrics” — things like  comparative party registrations, turnouts in the primary elections, social media followings, attendance at campaign rallies and other measures that had, prior to the 2020 presidential election, predicted the outcome of presidential elections with 100% accuracy.  In 2020, all these measures pointed to a Trump victory.  In attendance at campaign rallies, for example, Trump’s average attendance exceeded Biden’s by a average ratio of 343 to 1. And yet Biden won. 

There were other anomalies: “…Biden could win only one of the 19 battleground counties around the U.S., but he supposedly won all of the battleground states.”  And there were hundreds of affidavits charging malfeasance, and there were whistleblowers in Pennsylvania and Georgia.  There were audits in Arizona and Montana showing potential fraud.  And, most recently, there was True the Vote/Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary 2000 Mules, which, through cell-phone geo-tracking and surveillance videotapes, showed persons, often in the dead of night, apparently stuffing ballot drop boxes. 

None of these, at least so far, have been sufficient evidence for bringing a charge of vote fraud against specific individuals.  But, the assurances of Democrats, major media and others notwithstanding, they certainly cast legitimate doubt on the integrity of the 2020 election.

In the face of such grounds for doubt, do we, with regard to future elections, really need to prove that the 2020 election was in fact stolen?  In order to take remedial action, shouldn’t it be enough to prove that it (and others) could have been stolen? 

Indeed, should we even need to do that?  Shouldn’t we, simply as a matter of course, have the most secure system possible, so secure that doubts do not even arise.

That is, in fact, what Article 4, §4 of the Constitution — the Guarantee Clause — asserts:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government… [that is, one ruled with the consent of the people].”

Obviously, a government that rules by means of vote fraud does not rule with the consent of the people.  And the clause requires no reasonable grounds for suspicion before its guarantee is activated.  It is eternally activated. 

Of course, neither the United States, nor any earthly authority, can actually “guarantee” that no state will be subverted by vote fraud.  All it can guarantee is that it will take every step to ensure that such an insidious, contemptible crime does not occur. 

In fact, all steps have not been taken.  And we did not need the 2020 election to tell us that.  A variety of vulnerabilities, including absentee voting, were addressed in 2004 in John Fund’s book, Stealing Elections. How Voter Fraud Threatens our DemocracyWith respect to absentee voting, a 2005 commission on federal election reform — co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III identified absentee ballots as “the largest source of potential voter fraud.”  And in 2012, again on postal voting, Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote:

Despite such warnings, we have not restricted mail-in voting to only those for whom it is necessary and requested, but have extended it to those for whom it is neither necessary nor requested.  The stated rationale is that such voting is more convenient, and so increases turnout, and the more turnout, the better.  The first and second parts of that rationale are true, the third — apparently premised on the idea that one votes simply to promote his/her own self-interest — is debatable at best. 

In any case, if mail-in such voting also increases voter fraud, then other effects are irrelevant.  The Constitution guarantees election integrity, not convenience or turnout.
Under it, either Congress or, (through a Constitutional challenge) the Supreme Court could act.  Of course, individuals in either of these institutions may be beholden to voter fraud efforts themselves.  Of the two, however, it is certainly Congress members who would be the more vulnerable.
And while Congress members would certainly be more answerable to the people, it is not the legislative, but the judicial process — one in which the opposing arguments are refined, distilled, and made public — that actually provides the most definitive answer — which would make it the preferable option. 
If our ballots were not secret, it would be easy to prove vote fraud after the fact. All a voter would have to do is check the public record to see if his or her vote were recorded correctly.  But, for good reason, our votes are not public, and, if they are falsely cast or are not counted, there is, after the fact, no way of proving it.
In a case challenging unnecessary mail-in voting, the plaintiff would not have to prove that compared to in-person voting, mail-in voting was more vulnerable to fraud; conversely, the defendant state would have to prove that it was not.
Certainly, federal courts would have jurisdiction over such an issue.  But, what about the states?   While there appears to be no state constitution that expressly “guarantees” that the state would be ruled only by the consent of the governed, many if not all are premised on that proposition.
For example, Art.  1, Sect.  1 of the Wisconsin Constitution reads:
All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights… to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
If all the laws of the state are presumed to be enacted with the consent of the governed, and that fact itself comes into question, does the state court have jurisdiction to address such an issue?  The Wisconsin Constitution doesn’t expressly assert such jurisdiction, but if the court does not have it, and the legislature itself has been corrupted by voter fraud, then what remedy is there? 
Assuming that plaintiff/petitioners bring such issue to the courts, they would not have the luxury of conceding the 2022 elections to potential voter fraud while the legal process unfolds. For if such fraud occurs, and Democrats gain an operational majority in Congress, they have told us what, through “election reform,” they will do: federalize elections, require the option of discretionary mail-in voting and of ballot harvesting, and effectively eliminate the requirement for voter IDs.  In separate measures, they would end in the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court. 
In such case, there could be no confidence in the integrity of the federalized elections, and no remedy for it. To eliminate the possibility that we arrive at such a scenario by means of unnecessary mail-in voting — the very kind of voting that would be being challenged — the courts should issue an injunction against such voting until its constitutionality is legally resolved. 
If we are to ensure honest elections, 2023 may be too late.  The time to act is now.

Where Do Those DEM Savages Come From? Is George Soros Involved?

AUGUST 4, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


This afternoon gang violence erupted inside the Mall of America. Details are still sketchy, but apparently members of rival gangs got into an altercation in or outside of the Nike store at the mall. One or more of the participants pulled guns, and a number of shots were fired. Apparently at least one person was wounded, but no one stayed around to talk to the police. As of this moment, there is no report of an arrest.

This video shows the first of what I understand to be the beginning of the gunfire.


This one shows normals fleeing the central entertainment area after gunshots were heard. Many of them are young children. Newspapers will report that the only victim was a gang combatant, but these people are all victims too. As are the store owners and employees at the Mall.


The incident prompted a massive law enforcement response. There is a Bloomington Police Department precinct station under the building. I once had the opportunity to tour it as a member of the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Community Advisory Board. It is an impressive operation and they take security seriously. As they should: the MOA has long been seen as a possible target of terrorism, and Stephen Hunter wrote a good novel about an Islamic terrorist attack there.

What happened today was less serious, but it is impossible to overstate the impact of this sort of lawlessness on the affected businesses and on the quality of life of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.

One more thing: one of the Mall’s problems is that it is a stop on the local light rail system. Few people ride the trains, and many fewer pay to ride them. They are a magnet for low-level crime and generally disgusting behavior. Among other things, the trains funnel criminal elements into the Mall of America. The Twin Cities metro area would be vastly better off if the entire light rail system, which serves hardly any useful purpose, were dismantled.

Yesteryear, When Babies Were Born…

Abortion: Lessons from the Early Church


Missouri Synod, Lutheran Church….article sent by Mark Waldeland:

AUGUST 3, 2022

(Unsplash/Bonnie Kittle)

With the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which means the limitation of abortion in many states and the increase in others, it is time to increase the church’s understanding of abortion, including how the Early Church viewed it. I invite you to read and consider the following excerpt from an article written in 1968 by the German/Australian Lutheran historian, Hermann Sasse (1895–1976), a longtime friend of the LCMS. This essay was published in The Lonely Way, Vol. 2 (347–53), which is still available from Concordia Publishing House. It is used with permission. — President Matthew C. Harrison

In almost all cases where we hear of murder [in the documents of the church of the first centuries], abortion is meant. There is from the very beginning a really remarkable agreement within the church that abortion in the sense of willful termination of pregnancy is murder. …This principle contradicts the view expressed in the Roman law: Foetus pars viscerum matris [“The embryo is a part of the body of the mother”]. [In this view] the human person begins to exist with birth, not with conception … [and] the wrong in abortion is not the wrong to the fetus, but rather to the mother or to the father of the unborn child.

From where does the idea stem that the unborn embryo is already a human person whose life is to be regarded as sacred? [Second-century Christian convert] Athenagoras refers to reason. “It would be inconsistent to maintain that the embryo is already a human being and to kill the child after he has been born or to expose a child, because such exposition would be equal to killing him.” … But this [emphasis on reason] cannot be the root of the Christian view of abortion. …

It is the firm conviction of the OT that the embryo in the mother’s womb is a living person. One may think of Jacob and Esau in Rebecca’s womb (Genesis 25), or of Jeremiah 1:[5]: “Before you came out of the womb I consecrated you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” … It is the Christian view, underlying the pertinent passages of the NT (Luke 1:41), and of greatest importance for the understanding of the incarnation of the Son of God. …

In the medieval church, this view was darkened by the reception of Aristotle’s view of the beginning of the animated life of the embryo. He taught “that the future child was endowed at conception with the principle of vegetative life only, which was exchanged after a few days for an animal soul, and was not succeeded by a rational soul till later,” as his followers thought . …

One of the great contributions of Christianity to human civilization was, among others, the restoration of the biblical concept of the sanctity of the life of an unborn child, who is already an object not only of God’s providence, but also of God’s grace. Christianity came into a world which did not recognize this sanctity and, therefore, did not hesitate to destroy such life when this was desired for whatever reasons. The legislation of the Christian nations followed in this the Christian understanding of pregnancy. If in wide parts of our Western world the legislation of the state is being changed so as to correspond with the views held by the majority of the people, who no longer understand the Christian principle, it is up to the church to educate its own members and to uphold in its midst the eternal law of God. …

I give an actual example which may illustrate the problem [of] how the law of the state and the law of the church may be in an insoluble conflict. At the beginning of the third century, Callistus, bishop of Rome, allowed marriages in the church between persons who could not enter a full marriage according to the laws of the Roman Empire. There was no connubium [“marriage”] between persons from senatorial or equestrian rank and persons of the lower castes, such as slaves and persons freed from slavery. Since in the church there were more women than men of the higher classes, a Christian woman could not easily find a husband if she wanted to marry within the church. Callistus declared that such marriages were possible within the church because no law of God forbade them. …

We find here a most illuminating example of the ethical conflicts in which Christian women found themselves 1,700 years ago in the problems of childbirth and birth control. The offspring of their ecclesiastically valid marriage would never be able to inherit their own and their family’s fortune. No public career would be open to such a child. 

And yet they loved their Christian husbands and desired a child, as every healthy woman does, a child who from the very beginning of his existence in his mother’s womb would be God’s beloved child. What terrible conflict! Can we imagine that indeed some of these women succumbed to the temptation of an abortion? Who is here prepared to throw the first stone? … 

What has the church to learn from these centuries when it was thrown into a sex-obsessed world, full of adultery and murder of the unborn? The church at that time did not try to make the world a better place to live in. How could she have been able to do it? This is never the task of the church. [Sasse does not reject or discount the mercy work of the church by stating this.

We live in a world cursed by the sins of many generations. To this world we have to proclaim God’s Word in Law and Gospel, and we have to show how a Christian individual and the Christian congregation have to live and can live so as to be a living witness to the eternal truth of God. As citizens we have to share in the responsibility of making the laws for the state in which we live.

What have we to do?

First of all we have to witness to the eternal truth, which has not been invented by the church, that abortion means to kill a human person. There are cases when a human being has to die in the interest of preserving other human lives. So there may be cases when the termination of a pregnancy is the means of saving another life. These are, however, exceptional cases, carefully to be decided by a jury of impartial doctors. The [63 million cases of abortion in the U.S. since 1973, and 1 billion abortions worldwide are, apart] from the exceptional cases mentioned, mass murder with all the consequences for the nation concerned. This we shall have to tell the world on the authority of the living God.

To prevent this crime and to discourage the terrible practice, a thorough instruction in all matters of sex is required. Such instruction is valueless if it is not based on clear concepts of what is right and what is wrong in these matters. One has not to be a Christian to know that any extramarital sexual intercourse is fornication. One has not to be a Christian to know that the fetus is more than a part of the body of the mother to be removed at will.

It will be up to the church to instruct first of all its own members, married and engaged couples, our young people, and the Christian congregation as a whole. The doctors, lawyers, and law makers who belong to the church, but also others, may benefit from it, as they should share in an enlightened Christian instruction on these problems. 

What we have to give up is the utopian idea that our society will suddenly accept the ethical standards of the church if it will not accept even standards and rules that are written in all men’s hearts. We do not live any longer in a Christian society, if ever such a society has existed. We are in the same position in which the ancient church found itself. But by giving their witness with intrepid hearts, the early Christians made an inestimable contribution to the future of mankind.

Posted Aug. 3, 2022


Whoopi: If God didn’t want us to have abortions, he wouldn’t have made us smart enough to have them

ALLAHPUNDIT Aug 03, 2022 10:01 PM ET

 Share  Tweet  

Via Newsbusters. Imagine having this thought, and also having such confidence in it that you would say it aloud.

On national television.


It reminds me of the common reply to the old saw that “If God had wanted men to fly, he would have given us wings.” He gave us the intelligence to build airplanes, didn’t he?

Well, same with abortion. If God hadn’t wanted babies to be disarticulated in the womb, he wouldn’t have given us the brainpower to develop scalpels and bonesaws.

The special conservative guest today was OG “View” host Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who somehow maintained her composure when Goldberg cited the Golden Rule as the basis for her position on this. To Whoopi, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you means not telling a pregnant woman how to resolve her pregnancy if you wouldn’t want someone else telling you the same thing. To Hasselbeck, doing unto others means, ah, not killing your child if you wouldn’t also want to be killed.

By Goldberg’s logic, presumably murder is also divinely sanctioned since God wouldn’t have given us the intellectual capacity for that if he didn’t want it to happen. She’s a Christian and I’m not, but I thought Christianity 101 was that man is fallen and routinely abuses God’s gift of free will by applying it to evil ends. The fact that you have the brains required to seek out help to terminate your pregnancy doesn’t mean God’s on board with the plan. It just means that he’s not going to stand in your way as you sin, as usual.

Honestly, if Whoopi is desperate for evidence of divine will in pregnancy because “God doesn’t make mistakes,” it’d be far more straightforward for her to assume that God wants every viable pregnancy to end in birth. If he didn’t want a child to be born, he wouldn’t have allowed it to be conceived, right?

Meh. There’s no arguing with her because, as usual, her position boils down to the belief that a fetus is just another part of a pregnant woman’s body, not any sort of individual with its own interests in being born alive. If it’s only a big tumor until it’s delivered, then sure, all of us can understand why she’d resent being told by the state whether she can treat that tumor. Once you assign the baby an ounce more significance than that, the entire complexion of the moral question changes. No wonder Hasselbeck quit this show years ago. I bet she’s never looked back.

Dems ARE STARS IN BIG LIES. Otherwise, How Could They Sell Their Fascist Product?

The Big Lies We Cannot Question

The biggest lie is to suggest that Republicans are spreading lies and misinformation, and the Democrats are not.

By Edward Ring at American Greatness:

August 2, 2022

The following was posted on social media recently by a widely respected California-based journalist:

I don’t like being an alarmist but the epidemic of misinformation is becoming critical and increasingly dangerous. It was bad enough when we had a lying POTUS but it is now clear that it’s become a political tactic of a large part of one of our main political parties. And, if one major party can get away with mass lying, so can the other one, so I fear this will spread across ideological boundaries.

It’s fair to say this reflects a majority opinion among journalists throughout the American media, and it invites a response. This journalist accuses “one of our main political parties” of engaging in “mass lying,” obviously referring to the Republicans and obviously blind to the lies promulgated by the Democrats.

The biggest lie allegedly spread by Republicans, now called “The Big Lie,” is to claim the 2020 election was illegitimate. But even if the 2020 election was not compromised due to a relentlessly hostile and partisan media, endless political persecution designed to damage Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, voting rules that were violated and manipulated in swing states, Zuckerbucks, and possibly much more, this assertion still isn’t a Republican “lie.” For better or for worse, there are diverse opinions within the ranks of Republicans. Some think it was a stolen election; others don’t.

But no such dissent exists among Democrats over some of the biggest lies ever told.

The lies Democrats unanimously affirm, with the active complicity of almost every major American institution, are treated as background facts. To deny any of them is to spread “misinformation.” They have become the premises upon which reports are prepared, decisions are made, debates are framed, and policies are imposed. They’re so ubiquitous that if you’re not a skeptic, you don’t even notice. 

Collectively, these lies are destroying our civilization.

Perhaps the biggest lie in terms of how it is going to damage the prosperity and freedom of Americans is the so-called “climate emergency.” Almost every major news network now devotes a significant portion of its headline content to what used to be relegated to local television weather reports. Once in a great while, a massively destructive hurricane used to dominate national news. Nowadays, every major heatwave and every big storm is heralded as evidence of devastating “climate change.” These events are often tragic and should never be trivialized, but the implication is that any measure, no matter how draconian, is justified to supposedly stop them.

The reality of climate change is not in dispute. The Big Lie is that we face a “climate emergency.” That lie, in turn, is built on many lies: Anthropogenic CO2 is the sole cause of climate change. The most likely climate scenarios are catastrophic if we don’t act now. Weather has never before been this extreme. Renewable energy is more sustainable and climate-friendly than conventional energy. We can accomplish dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions without destroying the American middle class. It is feasible to replace fossil fuels. Humans have to be concentrated in cities because that is more “climate-friendly.” Other nations will follow our example, regardless of the consequences. People who question the climate emergency are “deniers” and should be marginalized if not prosecuted. Global warming is certain to cause more harm than good.

An honest fact checker would rate every one of these assertions as “mostly false.”

These lies are necessary for politicians, backed up by opportunistic industries, aggrandizing public bureaucracies, and fanatical zealots to further their interests at the expense of the American people. These lies are not subjected to even the mildest objective scrutiny by America’s media or academia, much less the withering, hopelessly biased analyses those same journalists and academics use to debunk any challenges to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.

Another assortment of big lies arises in the Democrat adherence to woke race and gender ideology. Some of the many lies attendant to this ideology include: 21st-century America is systemically racist against people of color. America can have open borders without reforming its system of welfare entitlements. A colorblind meritocracy is racist. SAT scores are not predictive of success in higher education. Mathematics and engineering pedagogy is racist. White supremacists commit the majority of hate crimes. Incarceration of criminals does not deter crime and reduce crime rates. Men can menstruate and have children. Women can have penises. Teaching 5-year-old kids that they can choose their “gender” does not confuse them. “Gender-affirming” puberty blockers are a legitimate medical treatment for children. The list goes on.

If the big lie of the climate emergency will leave Americans destitute and without their freedom, the big lie of woke ideology is going to destroy American culture. Maybe that is the intent. Underlying most of the woke lies is the notion that cultural norms and expectations don’t matter or do more harm than good, and that instead the most important goals for a society should be to achieve equality of outcome across every institution and at every level, and to avoid offending anyone. This is impossible.

A vivid example of woke ideology personified is Sam Brinton. This man has decided that he can publicly flaunt his revolutionary sexuality while simultaneously performing his role as the deputy assistant secretary of spent fuel and waste disposition in the U.S. Office of Nuclear Energy. It isn’t necessarily Brinton’s choice to live as a “nonbinary” that is the problem—it’s that he chooses to dress in a manner that he knows will distract nearly anyone with whom he has official interactions from issues that involve the security of nuclear waste, to instead notice the bright red lipstick he’s applied immediately beneath his thick mustache.

If Brinton wants to be an LGBTQ activist, he should do that. It’s still a free country. But it is selfish and unprofessional for him to make sure the first thing people notice about him are his eccentricities when he has a serious government job that is completely unrelated to his sexuality.

A lot of conservatives, myself included, have not focused on gender issues. When gays got the right to marry, many of us said live and let live. But the sexually correct expectations of woke society have progressed well beyond accepting gay marriage, to the point where we cannot look at someone as obviously performative as Sam Brinton representing our nation, and say “that’s weird and inappropriate.” If we say this, Democrats call us bigots. And that, too, is a lie. Norms exist for a reason. They are a survival trait. Reluctance to precipitously discard them is not bigotry, it’s sanity.

The biggest lie, then, is to suggest that Republicans are spreading lies and misinformation, and Democrats are not. In any healthy democracy you are going to have hyperbole emanate from every side. And our media, backed up by our once trusted institutions, are doing everything they can to marginalize as hyperbolic and untruthful the political party that is still dedicated to preserving our prosperity, freedom, and culture. At the same time, they are promoting countless harmful lies that constitute the base currency of their partisan favorites, the Democrats.

Partisan journalists claim to be concerned about “mass lying.” But their ideological bias prevents them from questioning the lies they believe, or considering the truth in things they don’t believe. As a result, the epidemic of misinformation they help spread is becoming critical and increasingly dangerous.


AUGUST 3, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


Scott wrote a little while ago about the debate between Minnesota governor candidates that took place earlier today, at FarmFest in southern Minnesota. FarmFest is like a State Fair for farmers and the ag industries. My wife and I spent the day at FarmFest helping to man the American Experiment booth there, and we attended the debate.

This is our booth. We had a wheel you could spin to win prizes and merchandise, and a steady stream of rural Minnesotans passed through all day:

The debate between far-left Democratic Governor Tim Walz and Republican challenger Dr. Scott Jensen was interesting on many levels. Here are some observations:

* Tim Walz is unpopular in rural Minnesota, as Democrats are generally throughout the country. He infamously told a gathering of Democrats that there is no reason to worry about Greater Minnesota–everything other than the Twin Cities metro area–because there is “nothing there but rocks and cows.” So today’s crowd was a good one for the Republican candidate.

* The crowd was huge, bigger than a vast building could hold. Interest in this year’s election is sky-high.

* If Phil Spector perfected the “wall of sound” in popular music, Tim Walz is the “wall of sound” politician. If he were getting paid by the word, he would be the richest man in town. He doesn’t try to persuade an audience, he tries to yammer his audience into submission.

What was striking today was how angry Walz seemed. He is the incumbent governor, so why is he so mad?

I think Walz is one of many Democratic politicians who think they have bought the voters’ ballots fair and square, with government programs. If voters hesitate, they are being ungrateful, so Walz is frustrated when he meets opposition. But anger is not a good look. A farmer from Sauk Centre who is not political watched the debate and came away asking, “Why is Walz so angry?” That was a common reaction.

* Republican candidate Scott Jensen is not a politician but a practicing doctor. Walz looked slovenly because he was trying to impersonate a Minnesotan, while Jensen dressed respectably:

* Maybe the details of today’s debate are unique to Minnesota, but in reality the main issues are the same almost everywhere. Our experience manning the American Experiment booth was that the price of energy is easily issue number one. Rural Americans understand the Left’s war on fossil fuels, which is in effect a war on rural and small town life. My organization has done perhaps the most sophisticated work of any group in the country on energy issues, but it is remarkable how little explanation the people who stop by our booth need to hear. They get it. And, for what it is worth, I didn’t encounter a single “green” energy advocate at FarmFest. The energy issue is death for Democrats at the polls.

* So who “won” today’s debate between a professional politician who is an incumbent governor, and a superficially less-polished challenger who is a doctor, not a politician? I think it did not go well for Governor Walz, for several reasons.

* One, a politician who comes across as angry is generally not winning.

* Two, Dr. Scott Jensen’s closing remarks were greeted with cheers and a standing ovation. Walz’s, to put it mildly, were not.

* Three, when the debate was over, a journalist immediately started peppering Dr. Jensen with questions about Donald Trump: Has Jensen been endorsed by Trump? Has he sought Trump’s endorsement? Has he been to Mar-A-Lago? This is an obvious attempt to change the subject. The two gubernatorial nominees have just gone at it for an hour and a half in a truly substantive debate, and the Democratic Party journalist wants to deep-six all of that and talk about Donald Trump. She obviously thought Walz lost the debate.

I am not sure whether there will be any more debates between Tim Walz and Scott Jensen. Walz seems to view any challenge as an act of Lèse-majesté, and given how poorly he fared today he might not agree to any similar events in the future.

In the end, though, it doesn’t matter, at least as it relates to rural and small town voters. The Democratic Party has nothing to offer to the overwhelming majority of such voters. So politicians like Tim Walz, who came from rural origins and pretend to understand rural issues, are fighting a rear-guard battle. They are slaves to the forces that control their party, and have nothing to offer residents of rural communities. The same is true, no doubt, in many other states.

I would be remiss if I didn’t add that you can contribute to Dr. Jensen’s campaign here.

Is Our Civil America Beginning To Appear Again?

Pro-Trump Candidates Largely Prevail, Kansans Support Abortion Rights

By Susan Crabtree – RCP Staff

Tuesday’s primaries in five states – Michigan, Missouri, Arizona Washington state, and Kansas – cemented Donald Trump’s role as a powerful force in the Republican Party. Several of his endorsed candidates emerged victorious, while three GOP House members in Washington state and Michigan were fighting for their political lives amid a populist backlash over their votes to impeach Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

But the most surprising outcome wasn’t the result of a battle between two candidates. Instead, abortion rights forces are celebrating a big win in a red state that voted for Trump by a margin of 15 percentage points in 2020.


Voters across Kansas rejected by a roughly 20-point margin an amendment to the state constitution that would nullify the right to an abortion. Such an amendment would have paved the way for Republican state lawmakers to place new limits on abortion. The vote marked the first time since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade that the right to an abortion was on the ballot.

Heading into Tuesday, it was viewed as a referendum on whether abortion politics have truly shifted in the wake of the high court’s decision earlier this summer and could play a role in the state’s gubernatorial contest. Democrat Gov. Laura Kelly, who opposed the amendment, is up for reelection in November and is considered one of the most vulnerable Democratic governors in the country.

Republican state Attorney General Derek Schmidt, who won the party’s nomination for governor, backed the need for such an amendment.

President Biden and the Democratic National Committee hailed the result in a red state as a major victory for abortion rights that buoys the party’s hopes that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade will override concerns about inflation and the economy.

“Voters in Kansas turned out in record numbers to reject extreme efforts to amend the state constitution to take away a woman’s right to choose and open the door for a state-wide ban,” Biden said. “This vote makes clear what we know: The majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own healthcare decisions.”

The DNC predicted that the Kansas decision would have a ripple effect in November’s midterms and boost their chances for retaining their House and Senate majorities.

“Kansas Republicans’ attempt to lay the groundwork for an extreme and wildly unpopular abortion ban failed,” the DNC said in a statement. “While the right to defend abortion access in Kansas and across the United States is far from over, today’s victory is a reminder that voters will hold Republicans accountable for their extreme anti-choice agenda.”


Trump’s influence loomed large in the top statewide race, as well as in a grudge match against a Republican House member who voted for his second impeachment.

Tudor Dixon, the Trump-endorsed candidate vying with several other Republicans to challenge incumbent Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, cruised to victory in the crowded primary with more than 40% of the vote, nearly twice as much as her most competitive GOP rival. Dixon’s decisive win immediately generated excitement from prominent Republicans across the country, instantly transforming this challenge to Whitmer into a closely watched national race.

“Tonight, families came out and voted a family friendly Michigan, and we’re doing to deliver it and hold [Whitmer] accountable for her terrible record here in the state of Michigan,” Dixon told Fox News after being declared the primary winner.

Whitmer quickly responded with her own statement, labeling Dixon a “dangerous force for women” that would “drag Michigan backwards.”

“Dixon’s plans to ban abortion with no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother and throw nurses in jail, gut funding for public education, reverse progress rebuilding Michigan’s infrastructure and sow distrust in democracy are dangerous for Michigan women and families,” she said.

The backing of Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Education secretary and a powerful force in Michigan politics, is credited with resurrecting Dixon’s campaign, with Trump giving an added push with his Friday endorsement. As recently as May, the former conservative commentator was polling near the bottom of the crowded GOP field. But Dixon benefited from chaotic missteps of her chief rivals, two of whom were disqualified for allegedly collecting fraudulent signatures.

On Friday, Trump issued a long-expected endorsement of Dixon, 45, offering his unqualified backing as well as some kind words. “When I met Tudor Dixon, she was not well known, but I could tell she had something very special,” the former president said.

Businessman Kevin Rinke, Dixon’s top rival, responded Monday that Trump made the wrong choice, based on advisors’ misinformation, and said he is the true MAGA conservative in the race. Other GOP contenders included Ryan Kelley, who was arrested in June on four misdemeanor charges for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, businessman and chiropractor Garrett Soldano, and pastor Ralph Rebandt. Early Wednesday morning, Rinke was trailing Dixon 21.9% to 40.5% with Soldano coming in third at 18%, with 77% of the vote reporting.

The ongoing Trump revenge campaign hit the the Grand Rapids-area Third Congressional District hard Tuesday night, where freshman GOP Rep. Peter Meijer lost a close race with Republican challenger and Trump-backed John Gibbs.  

Gibbs served in Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development. Meijer was one of 10 House Republicans to vote for Trump’s second impeachment, while Gibbs wholeheartedly embraced Trump’s contention of the state’s 2020 election results.

The Gibbs campaign got a calculated boost from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, an unorthodox effort by Democrats to provide an assist to a candidate they believe Democrats have a better chance of defeating in November. The DCCC spent more than $300,000 on ads lauding Gibbs’ conservative credentials. A pro-Meijer group funded a television ad over the weekend that took aim at the Democrats’ meddling.

“West Michigan must say no to Nancy Pelosi’s handpicked candidate for Congress,” the ad warned.


In the primary race to replace retiring GOP Sen. Roy Blunt, Trump was torn and eventually hedged his bets. On Monday evening, the former president endorsed “ERIC.”

Which one? Eric Schmitt or Eric Greitens? On that question, Trump responded, Missouri Republicans would need to “make up their own minds.”

This oddball endorsement aside, one of the two Erics prevailed Tuesday. It was state Attorney General Eric Schmitt, easily finishing with a decisive victory. Scandal-plagued Eric Greitens was in third place, just behind  social conservative Rep. Vicky Hartzler. As of early Wednesday morning, Schmitt had garnered 45.7% of the vote to Hartzler’s 22.1% and Greitens 19%, with 95% of the votes reporting.

The strong Schmitt victory was a welcome relief for Republicans in Missouri and Washington. Just four years ago, Eric Greitens resigned as Missouri governor amid allegations of sexual assault and blackmail from his hairdresser that sparked an ethics probe and a criminal case against him. Prosecutors eventually dropped the charges, but the political damage could not be overcome. More recently, in May, his ex-wife in a custody battle accused Greitens of domestic abuse against her and her young son.

The bruising series of accusations, which Greitens denied, didn’t stop Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. and fiancée Kim Guilfoyle from pressing for an endorsement. But Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel was equally adamant in warning against doing so, worried that the GOP would have to spend far more shoring up a Greitens Senate campaign with a strong possibility that Greitens would still lose in the general election.

Greitens, a former Navy SEAL, was roundly criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike for running an ad threatening military-style assaults against “RINOs” – a conservative Republican pejorative for centrist party members, labeling them Republicans in name only – as well as shots of himself firing high-powered weapons.

Schmitt gained ground in the final weeks before the primary with the help of a series of outside groups that ran ads highlighting the allegations against Greitens. Schmitt also burnished his conservative bona fides in recent years by filing a class-action lawsuit against Missouri schools attempting to enforce mask mandates. He was just one of 10 state attorneys general to sue the Biden administration over its coronavirus vaccine mandate for federal workers.

In November, Schmitt will face Democrat Trudy Busch Valentine, a retired nurse and beer-fortune heiress.


In the battleground state of Arizona, Trump is engaged in a fierce proxy war with his former vice president over the direction of the party. In the Republican contest to replace term-limited Gov. Doug Ducey, Mike Pence endorsed Karrin Taylor Robson, while Trump sided with Kari Lake. With 81% reporting as of Wednesday morning, the race was still too close to call.

The race, which may take until late this week to be determined, turned into a brutal two-woman slugfest in the final weeks after former Rep. Matt Salmon dropped out and endorsed Taylor Robson, a real estate developer. Lake, a former local television anchor, centered her campaign around arguments that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, and argued that Taylor Robson’s refusal to say whether she would have certified that election was “disqualifying.”

Taylor Robson, relying on personal wealth, dominated the television ad war with negative ads, labeling Lake “a fraud” and an opportunist by highlighting her support and donations to President Obama in 2008 and an early 2017 Facebook post that had “#notmypresident” pasted across Trump’s face a week before his inauguration. Nonetheless, Lake managed to rack up endorsements from Trump world, including Donald Trump Jr., Dinesh D’Souza, and Bernard Kerik, the former New York police commissioner, while Pence, Ducey, and his predecessor Jan Brewer, along with former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, lined up behind Taylor Robson.

In Arizona, which swung for Joe Biden by just 10,000 votes in 2020, Trump’s endorsement undoubtedly propelled Lake into the frontrunner position. Tuesday’s GOP victor will face outgoing Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who easily won her race against former Nogales Mayor Marco Lopez.

Lingering GOP resentment over Trump’s loss in the purple-trending state also helped fuel Senate candidate Blake Masters’ win over businessman Jim Lamon and state Attorney General Mark Brnovich. All three were vying for a chance to challenge Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly. Kelly, a top GOP target, defeated Republican Sen. Martha McSally by just 2 percentage points in 2020. Brnovich, who came in third in Tuesday’s primary, certified Biden’s 2020 win in Arizona, and then, during his Senate campaign, issued a report raising questions about the early ballot handling and verification. Masters, a venture capitalist with close ties to Peter Thiel, won Trump’s endorsement in early June and benefitted from a $15 million infusion from Thiel’s super PAC.

Beyond the governor’s mansion and the Senate, Mark Finchem, a state senator who claims Trump won the 2020 election and was in Washington on Jan. 6, was holding a more than 8-point lead ahead of rival Beau Lane in his primary campaign for secretary of state, the position that ensures elections are run properly.

Washington state

In the Pacific Northwest, Trump’s efforts to exact revenge against two House GOP members who voted in favor of his second impeachment, appeared to be getting mixed results in an open primary system in which registered Democrats and Republicans can both vote. Rep. Dan Newhouse in the 4th District is engaged in an intense fight with Doug White, a Democrat, with his Trump-backed GOP challenger Loren Culp, a former police chief, trailing both in third place. As of early Wednesday morning, Newhouse was holding on to a slight lead, 27.3% against White’s 26%, with Culp attracting 21.8% of the vote.

In Washington’s 3rd District, Democrat Marie Perez was in the lead as of Tuesday night, with GOP Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler in second place (31.8% to 24.5%), with 57% reporting. Trump-backed Joe Kent, a retired Army Special Forces chief warrant officer, was trailing both with 20.1% of the vote.

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics’ White House/national political correspondent.

Tiny Delaware Produced “UNCLE JOE!”

Delaware’s Plan To Allow Widespread Unsupervised Voting Violates Its Constitution, Lawsuit Says


AUGUST 03, 2022

mail-in ballot

A Pennsylvania case outcome shows how far activist justices will go to reach a desired result, even in conflict with the constitution.

Author Margot Cleveland profile

by MARGOT CLEVELAND at the Federalist:

Delaware’s Legislature used its emergency powers and the excuse of the pandemic to authorize no-excuse mail-in voting for 2020, but now, without bothering to lean on Covid as a crutch, the Democrat-controlled state legislature has passed a law providing for an unlimited right to vote by mail as well as authorizing same-day voter registration. A new lawsuit filed last week, however, seeks to have both laws declared unconstitutional under the Delaware constitution before this year’s midterm elections.

Before the 2020 election, the Delaware General Assembly approved no-excuse mail-in voting, even though Article V, Section 4A of the state constitution expressly provides for absentee voting only where a qualified elector is “unable to appear to cast his or her ballot” “at the regular polling place of the election district,” under limited, enumerated circumstances. Specifically, absentee voting is authorized under the state constitution if an elector cannot vote at his polling place “either because of being in the public service of the United States or of this State, or his or her spouse or dependents when residing with or accompanying him or her, because of the nature of his or her business or occupation, because of his or her sickness or physical disability, because of his or her absence from the district while on vacation, or because of the tenets or teachings of his or her religion.” 

The Republican State Committee of Delaware and two registered Delaware voters challenged the no-excuse absentee voting provision before the 2020 general election. While the Delaware Department of Elections agreed that the list of citizens entitled to vote by absentee ballot, set forth in Article V, Section 4A, was meant to be exhaustive, the state argued that the legislature properly invoked its emergency powers under Article XVII, Section 1. That section provides that “in order to ensure the continuity of State and local governmental operations in periods of emergency resulting from … disease,” the state legislature shall have the power “to adopt such other measures as may be necessary and proper for ensuring the continuity of governmental operations.” 

A Delaware state court found that the legislature had the authority under Article XVII, Section 1 to authorize no-excuse mail-in-voting, in light of the “epidemic of airborne disease” and the “health emergency declared by the Governor.” But as the court stressed, the statute at issue applied “only to the 2020 primary, general, and any special elections,” and by its terms expired on January 12, 2021. 

Now with the 2022 midterms mere months away, however, the legislature late last month passed a new statute, signed by Delaware’s Democrat Gov. John Carney, that authorizes no-excuse absentee voting. Specifically, Section 5603A provides that to vote by mail, a Delaware elector must submit a completed, signed, and dated application that includes either the voter’s last four digits of his social security number or the number of the voter’s state-issued driver’s license or non-driver identification card number. Upon determining that the applicant is qualified to vote under the state’s election code, the newly passed statute requires the Department of Elections to provide the voter with a mail ballot for the election district in which he resides, along with instructions for completing and returning the ballot, and a ballot envelope.

Unlike the 2020 statute that relied on the legislature’s emergency power under the Delaware constitution, the General Assembly did not rely on Covid or its emergency constitutional authority to ensure “the continuity of State and local governmental operations” to pass Section 5603A. And there is no end date to the mail-in voting law. Rather, the statute converts Delaware to a no-excuse mail-in-voting state, notwithstanding the constitutional limits to absentee voting. 

The Delaware Legislature, in addition to authorizing no-excuse mail-in voting, passed a statute eliminating the requirement that voters register to vote by “the fourth Saturday prior to the date of the election” and authorized same-day voter registration. The General Assembly also removed the statutory provision requiring registered voters to update address or name changes the “day prior to a primary or general” election, permitting such changes on election day.

Again, the state constitution addresses the time period for voter registration, with Article V, Section 4 providing that “the General Assembly shall enact uniform laws for the registration of voters in this State entitled to vote under this article.” Significantly, the Delaware constitution mandates that there “be at least two registration days in a period commencing not more than one hundred and twenty days, nor less than sixty days before, and ending not more twenty days, nor less than ten days before, each General Election.” That section also provides that registrations “may be corrected at any time prior to the day of holding the election.” Further, the Delaware Supreme Court previously made clear that Section 4 of Article V “provides that all questions of the qualifications of voters should be determined before election day.” 

In response to these state statutes, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filed suit on behalf of two Delaware residents, including a candidate for state representative, against the Delaware Department of Elections, arguing the no-excuse absentee voting and same-day registration violates the Delaware constitution. 

“These mail balloting and same day registration laws conflict with the Delaware Constitution,” PILF President J. Christian Adams said. “States cannot pass laws that conflict with their constitutions. It’s egregious that Inspectors of Elections are forced to choose between obeying the same day registration law or following the state constitution. Delaware lawmakers should read their own constitution before passing election laws.”

While the legislature’s adoption of no-excuse mail-in voting and same-day registration seems to represent a clear violation of the plain language of the Delaware constitution, the state Supreme Court will be the ultimate arbiter of the question. And currently, all five Delaware Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democrat governors. 

Of course, politics does not necessarily dictate the outcome of cases, and given the clarity of the Delaware constitution, the state Supreme Court justices may nonetheless hold that their fellow Democrats in the legislative branch overstepped their authority. But at least in Pennsylvania, where the constitution was similarly clear, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court yesterday in a 5-2 decision upheld the legislature’s approval of no-excuse voting, with the five-justice majority consisting of Democrat justices and the sole two Republicans in dissent.

The outcome of the Pennsylvania case shows how far activist justices were willing to go to reach a desired result, even when it conflicted with the plain language of their state constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision also reveals the lack of concern the Democrat justices place on election integrity because at the time the constitutional provisions were adopted by the people in Pennsylvania, citizens recognized that absentee voting would “break down all the safeguards of honest suffrage.” 

If Pennsylvania and public sentiments prove prescient, the Delaware Democrat justices will care no more about election integrity than their fellow Democrats.