• 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

Sterility From The Ages…bareness of ideas; unfruitfulness!

The “Article” above was sent by Mark Waldeland.

“It is more expensive to peddle lies than to tell the truth”.

 AUGUST 22, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


I think that that the impact of money in politics is generally overrated. And it is a good thing, too, since the Left is rolling in dough. In pretty much every contested election, there is more money spent on behalf of the Democrat candidate than the Republican. In my own state of Minnesota, in most races there will be five to six times as much money spent on behalf of the Democrat. My political friends tell me that in this year’s governor election, there will be ten times as much spent on behalf of Democrat Tim Walz as on behalf of Republican Scott Jensen. The race is expected to be close, but it shouldn’t be–Walz deserves to lose in a landslide. And, despite my skepticism about the effectiveness of political money, it wouldn’t be close if resources were even remotely competitive.

Does the Right stand a chance of matching the Left’s financial resources? Probably not, but this is hopeful: “New conservative group gets $1.6 billion donation to spend in midterms and beyond.”

$1.6 billion. Contemplate that.

A conservative nonprofit poised to spend during the upcoming 2022 midterm elections and beyond received a record donation of $1.6 billion last year, Fox News has confirmed.

The group, The Marble Freedom Trust, is captained by Leonard Leo, a conservative strategist known for his leadership of the Federalist Society and work in causes related to abortion law and Supreme Court nominations.

I have not heard of the Marble Freedom Trust and I don’t know Leonard Leo, but understand him to be a solid conservative.

The donation came from Barre Seid, an electronics manufacturing mogul.

I have never heard of Mr. Seid, but $1.6 billion, if spent well–always the key–is potentially a game-changing sum.

The Left needs a lot more money than the Right does, because it is more expensive to peddle lies than to tell the truth. But even the best candidates and the soundest principles need some resources in order to be heard. It would be great if Mr. Seid’s donation ushers in an era when conservative candidates and causes can begin to approach Left-wing candidates and causes in financial muscle.


Another government union official sentenced for pocketing dues money

JAZZ SHAW Aug 22, 2022 at HotAir:

(AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

This may seem like yet another “dog bites man” story at this point, but we’re learning of another union official who has been convicted of fraudulently absconding with union funds for their own personal benefit. The latest story comes to us from Boston, where the president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2617, representing workers at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was convicted of wire fraud and related offenses. Marie LeClair was found to have misdirected nearly $30,000 of her members’ dues away from the union’s bank accounts and into a debit card in her name and used the money for “non-union purposes.” That’s quite a bit of cash to be drained out of a single union local, right? So you might expect that she would face some sort of stiff sentence. In fact, she was eligible for up to twenty years in prison. But strangely, the judge gave her six months of house arrest and ordered her to give back the money she stole. (Government Executive)

A federal judge in Boston sentenced the president of a Transportation Security Administration union local to six months of house arrest after she pleaded guilty to misappropriating nearly $30,000 in funds that were designated for the labor organization.

Marie LeClair, 59, was the president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2617, which represented frontline TSA employees in the Boston area. But according to the Justice Department, beginning in 2015, LeClair transferred money from union bank accounts to a travel debit card in her name without the union’s knowledge or assent and used the money for “personal expenses.”

In one instance in 2018, she made a wire transfer of $3,000 from a union account to the debit card. In total, LeClair misappropriated $29,050 in union funds for her personal use.

LeClair was actually charged back in April and pleaded guilty in June, but the sentencing hearing didn’t take place until this past week. The TSA did not respond to requests for comment.

For repeated thefts adding up to nearly $30,000, six months of home confinement certainly sounds like a very generous arrangement, doesn’t it? And given the lockdowns that we all lived through in 2020, is she really even going to notice? The odds of her repaying the money any time soon don’t seem very good if she needed cash badly enough to take it.

Rather than getting a comment from the TSA or the higher-ups in the union, I’d be interested in hearing from some of the union members at her local. If they have money withheld from their paychecks every month to cover their dues, you’d imagine that they would expect that cash to be going to legitimate union purposes. They can’t just be okay with the idea that the head of their local union office was siphoning it away and spending it on her personal gift card.

But how often do we have to read about these stories before it becomes obvious to the public that labor unions are very often not in business to actually take care of workers or protect people’s rights? If they aren’t just blatantly stealing the money for themselves like LeClair was doing, they’re dumping most of it into the coffers of Democratic political campaigns, regardless of whether the employees support those candidates or not. If you think about it, that’s really just another form of theft.

I’ve never said that we need to do away with labor unions entirely, but they clearly require a lot more oversight than they are currently receiving. And before this case gets swept under the carpet, someone might want to look into how LeClaire managed to get such a sweet deal at sentencing. I wonder if it’s just a coincidence that Judge Indira Talwani was an Obama nominee and that before she took the bench she was a partner at a law firm where she specialized in… wait for it… “claims under labor laws.” As the cool kids like to tell us these days, just sayin‘.


August 22, 2022

Donald the Dynasty Slayer

By Brian C. Joondeph at American Thinker:

America was created as a constitutionally limited republic for many reasons, one of which was to be governed by “we the people” rather than the political dynasties so prevalent in Europe, from where most early Americans and patriots emigrated.

These political dynasties all have in common wealth, sometimes earned legitimately, but more often through inheritance or through the selective use of their political power for which they were remunerated via obscure pathways.

American dynasty names are familiar – Kennedy, Bush, Cheney, McCain, Clinton – just to name a few. These families believe they are entitled to power and wealth simply by virtue of their last names. Political office is their right, regardless of what they do with this power, and they band together in opposition to any challenge to this power.

Despite being of different political parties, they are actually far more similar than different. It is like a group of country club kids creating two baseball or basketball teams, one wearing red shirts, the other blue shirts, but at the end of the game, the shirts come off and the kids all have a fine dinner at the club, then return to their mansions along the golf course, often next door to each other.

This entitled class is known as the ruling class, the establishment, or the elites. It is like the country club where you can’t enjoy the perks of membership without an invitation from existing members.

As George Carlin observed,

It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. They don’t give a f*** about you. Because the owners of this country know the truth: it’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.

I am not in that club, and neither are most readers of this column. Club membership is not solely based on wealth as billionaire Donald Trump is not in the club either. Nor is Elon Musk.

But before he entered politics, Trump was most certainly in the club, a darling of American elites, posing for photographs with presidents, celebrities, and athletes. He hosted a wildly popular television reality show and was a frequent guest of Oprah and other liberal club members.

When he came down the escalator at Trump Tower in June 2015 announcing his improbable candidacy for the presidency, his club membership was put on probation. At first the elites thought his candidacy a novelty, a joke on America, a scheme to sell books or promote his celebrity and television endeavors. He was a regular on Morning Joe, yucking it up with Joe and Mika.

But he soon started challenging the ruling class on his way to securing the Republican presidential nomination, and his club membership was quickly revoked. President Trump gave one of his most significant and prophetic speeches in October 2016, a month before he was elected President. He started with:

Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American People. There is nothing the political establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense. The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself.

These words defined his campaign, presidency, and post presidency years, replacing a failed and corrupt ruling class. Donald the dynasty slayer continues this day to rack up trophies over his fireplace mantel.
He started with the Bush family, branding the presumed 2016 GOP presidential nominee as “Low Energy Jeb,” leaving him to squander $130 million on his three earned delegates. Trump angered the Bush family, including two former US Presidents, over his brash criticism of their tenures in the White House, and then sending their legacy Jeb to the dog house.
This past May, salt was poured on the Bush festering wound when Trump-endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton beat Land Commissioner George P Bush, Jeb’s son, in a GOP primary runoff for the nomination as the Republican candidate for a US House seat. The margin of victory was 68 to 32 percent, almost a 40-point shlonging, similar to another election this past week.
Last week, another club member, Rep Liz Cheney, was primaried out of the GOP nomination and almost certain successful House election by Trump-endorsed candidate Harriet Hageman, 66 to 29 percent, similar to the Bush slaying in Texas a few months earlier.
Several weeks ago in Arizona, Trump-endorsed Kari Lake defeated McCain Family-, Mike Pence-, and Arizona Republican establishment-endorsed Karrin Robson for the GOP nomination for Arizona Governor. Robson spent $18 million while Lake spent less than $4 million, demonstrating that Donald the Destroyer doesn’t need money to slay ruling class dragons.
Hillary Clinton, from another dynastic family, lost the presidency to Donald the Slayer in 2016, and may face “Durham the Slayer,” a Special Counsel appointed by Trump’s Attorney General to investigate Spygate and illegal weaponization of the justice and intelligence agencies to further her political ambitions.
Charlie Kirk tweeted an astute observation regarding Donald the Slayer’s collection of scalps,
After 55 years, January 20th, 2023 will mark the first time since 1967 that no member of the Cheney, Clinton, McCain, or Bush family will hold elected or appointed office in the federal government of the United States of America.
This is what Trump meant by draining the swamp. Lastly are ten Republican House members who voted to impeach President Trump, eight of whom are now vanquished from the US House. As USA Today begrudgingly reported,
Four of these 10 Republicans have lost the primaries, four have chosen not to seek reelection, and two made it through their primaries and are running in November’s general election to keep their seats.
This led Trump to post on his Truth Social account,

Truth Social screenshot
Others may meet a similar future fate, including Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell and other NeverTrump establishment Republicans. Trump will bide his time and strike when the moment is right. He currently holds no political office and is not a candidate, but he still is a major political force. Is this unfinished business for Trump or part of a larger unrevealed plan?
Donald the Slayer spelled this all out when closing the above-mentioned 2016 speech,
We will vote to put this corrupt government cartel out of business. We will remove from our politics the special interests who have betrayed our workers, our borders, our freedoms, and our sovereign rights as a nation. We will end the politics of profit, we will end the rule of special interests, we will put a stop to the raiding of our country – and the disenfranchisement of our people.
Trump is on a roll, along with tens of millions of MAGA/America First hoi polloi, perhaps more powerful out of the White House than in the center of power. This raises the question of who is really running the country. Donald the Destroyer is only getting going, and as he likes to say, “The best is yet to come.”
Brian C Joondeph, MD, is a physician and writer.

Forty Years Of America Growing Fascism and Greed!

AUGUST 22, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:


CDC Director Rochelle Walensky confessed to the agency’s failure last week. What was the agency’s failure? That is not so clear. The New York Times story on Walensky’s comments notes that unnamed others “said it was difficult to judge Dr. Walensky’s moves without more information, including the report she commissioned.” Indeed, Walensky’s “moves” remain almost entirely unspecified and those that are specified lack substance.

It would be pretty to think that Walensky counts the CDC’s guidance on lockdowns and mask mandates and all the rest as mistakes, but I doubt it. In his Wall Street Journal column “Fauci and Walensky Double Down on Failed Covid Response,” John Tierney draws the inference that they mean to give it to us doubleplusgood next time around.

Tierney usefully reviews the data regarding the futility and destructiveness of lockdowns. He numbers 170,000 excess deaths due to non-Covid causes in the United States during the pandemic and comments:

No one knows exactly how many of those deaths were caused by lockdowns, but the social disruptions, isolation, inactivity and economic havoc clearly exacted a toll. Medical treatments and screenings were delayed, and there were sharp increases in the rates of depression, anxiety, obesity, diabetes, fatal strokes and heart disease, and fatal abuse of alcohol and drugs.

These were the sorts of calamities foreseen long before 2020 by eminent epidemiologists such as Donald Henderson, who directed the successful international effort to eradicate smallpox. In 2006 he and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh considered an array of proposed measures to deal with a virus as deadly as the 1918 Spanish flu.

Should schools be closed? Should everyone wear face masks in public places? Should those exposed to an infection be required to quarantine at home? Should public-health officials rely on computer models of viral spread to impose strict limitations on people’s movements? In each case, the answer was no, because there was no evidence these measures would make a significant difference.

“Experience has shown,” Henderson’s team concluded, “that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.” The researchers specifically advised leaders not to be guided by computer models, because no model could reliably predict the effects of the measures or take into account the “devastating” collateral damage. If leaders overreacted and panicked the public, “a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”

This advice was subsequently heeded in the pre-Covid pandemic plans prepared by the CDC and other public-health agencies. The WHO’s review of the scientific literature concluded that there was “no evidence” that universal masking “is effective in reducing transmission.” The CDC’s pre-2020 planning scenarios didn’t recommend universal masking or extended school and business closures even during a pandemic as severe as the 1918 Spanish flu. Neither did the U.K.’s 2011 plan, which urged “those who are well to carry on with their normal daily lives” and flatly declared, “It will not be possible to halt the spread of a new pandemic influenza virus, and it would be a waste of public health resources and capacity to attempt to do so.”

But those plans were abruptly discarded in March 2020…

Tierney’s column is behind the Journal’s paywall, but he covers some of the same ground before Walenksy’s confession but in slightly more detail in last month’s City Journal column “It’s time to award the Covid Nobels (but they shouldn’t to you know WHO).” Highly recommended.

NOTE: See also Jeffrey Anderson’s City Journal column “Masks still don’t work.”

Dems’ Fascist War Against America!

Dems’ war on ex-President Donald Trump is without precedent

August 20, 2022 

Former President Trump
Former President Trump takes the stage at a rally endorsing Republican candidates Adam Laxalt and Joe Lombardo on July 8.RONDA CHURCHILL/AFP via Getty Images
Michael Goodwin


When you cross the Rubicon, there is no going back. Democrats are getting very close to that fateful moment. 

Their dream to indict Donald Trump has turned into determination, putting them on a collision course with history. No president has ever been prosecuted after leaving office, with even Richard Nixon escaping that infamy after Watergate because of how it would tear America apart. 

Yet day by day, the evidence shows Dems have liberated themselves from such concerns and are resolved that this time will be different. The number and fervor of their army of prosecutors reveal a contagious fever, and it often appears they are competing to be the first to file charges. 

Will it be Attorney General Merrick Garland, who approved the raid on Mar-a-Lago and also has a separate investigation of Trump regarding events before and after Jan. 6

Or will the first shot come from Georgia, where the Fulton County district attorney is using a special-purpose grand jury to investigate “election interference” in the state by Trump and his associates after the 2020 election? 

Or maybe the first charges will come from the Manhattan district attorney’s long-running probe into whether Trump broke tax laws by the way he valued his buildings. Having secured a guilty plea from a top company official regarding his personal tax scheme, probers are desperate to get him to turn on Trump. 

Local law enforcement officers are seen in front of the home of former President Donald Trump at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach following a raid on August 9.
Local law enforcement officers are seen in front of the home of former President Donald Trump at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach following a raid on August 9.

These cases raise concerns about conflicts of interest and selective prosecution, but the party’s peanut gallery is blind to everything except the goal. Seeing the Bad Orange Man in handcuffs is a porn-like fantasy for many on the left. 

The fact that an indictment would be a hit with many voters can be seen as a motivating factor for prosecutors. In the midterms, enthusiasm could help Dems stave off a red wave, and on a personal level, charges could do wonders for the prosecutors’ careers. 

Trump endorsement

Trump crashes NY Dem primaries, endorses Dan Goldman and Carolyn Maloney

Take the case of Daniel Goldman, the lead counsel in the House’s first impeachment of Trump, the ginned-up Ukraine farce. Goldman, a Levi Strauss heir, is running for Congress in Manhattan and has spent $4 million of his own money, dwarfing the spending of his primary rivals. 

That’s normally the sort of thing The New York Times hates, but in its endorsement of Goldman, the paper cited his impeachment role and his fatuous claim he was dedicated to trying to “protect and defend our democracy.” 

So while an indictment of Trump would gladden the little hearts of the Dems’ media handmaidens, what would it do to the country as a whole? With political violence and disorder surging, there is a possibility that charges would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. 

The Trump faithful 

Tens of millions of Trump’s supporters are sticking with him, warts and all, because they believe he is the only person in politics who speaks for them and understands their alienation from an elite establishment. Seeing him arrested, especially on borderline grounds, could make their estrangement permanent and create more dangerous rifts in our already-fractured society. Some might become violent militants like hundreds did on Jan. 6. 

There is also concern the unprecedented step would usher in the Third World habit of each administration prosecuting its predecessor. President Biden made it known months ago he was frustrated Garland hadn’t prosecuted Trump, so, presto, it’s happening. 

Why shouldn’t the next attorney general under a GOP president prosecute Biden? 

In fact, there is already more clear evidence that Biden participated in and benefitted from his son Hunter’s corrupt foreign business than there was against Trump when a special counsel was appointed to probe his ties to Russia. 

A vehicle with flags in support of Donald Trump
Supporters drive outside of the courthouse where a case is being presented to make public the affidavit supporting the warrant in regards to the Mar-a-Lago raid.

And how is it kosher that Garland, appointed by Biden, is permitted to hound his boss’ potential 2024 opponent? 

The immediate reaction to charges against Trump would depend on the facts and how they are obtained and presented. If they are clear and convincing and, most important, involve misconduct large enough to justify the break with history, they could earn a consensus of support. 

Trump weighs releasing security footage of FBI Mar-a-Lago raid: report

That was the test I applied to the Mar-a-Lago raid, which Garland flunked. He said little and explained nothing, and is fighting to keep secret the crucial affidavit that led a magistrate to approve the search. 

He also let anonymous officials spread tall tales about confidential documents Trump supposedly had. The Washington Post claim that the papers involved “nuclear weapons” had all the hyperbole of the Russia, Russia, Russia scam. 

The pattern suggests Garland doesn’t understand or care he is playing with fire. His claim that he’s playing it by the book is absurd because there is no book on indicting a former president. 

That’s not an accident. 

On the final day of his presidency, Bill Clinton avoided a criminal charge in a deal where he admitted to independent counsel Robert Ray he lied under oath about Monica Lewinsky. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland
Attorney General Merrick Garland received heavy pressure from Democrats and the media to move against Trump.

“I think it’s a collateral benefit to the country that the new president be given a fresh start if that can be achieved,” Ray told The Washington Post. 

“The best interests of the country would be achieved by letting the past be the past.” 

Ford the peacekeeper 

President Gerald Ford expressed a similar sentiment. In his 1974 inaugural address after Nixon resigned, he declared that “our long national nightmare is over.” 

Nearly a month later, as Nixon’s legal fate was unresolved, Ford issued a “full, free and absolute pardon.” 

In explaining why, Ford cited the fear that “ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would again be polarized in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad.” 

Then-President Ford
Then-President Ford holds a White House Rose Garden news conference Oct. 9, 1974.

He regarded Nixon as a friend, but it was not Nixon’s fate that concerned him. 

“My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as president, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book. My conscience tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquility but to use every means that I have to insure it.” 

Keep up with today’s most important news

Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update.Enter your email address

By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Of course, Trump’s circumstances are different in many ways, especially that he could serve another term as president. Much of the prosecution passion is driven by the desire to make him ineligible to run again because many Dems fear he would win. 

Finally, there is also the chance that the public view of decisions made now will change over time. The Nixon pardon was instantly unpopular — Ford’s approval rating declined by 21% overnight, with 53% opposed to the pardon, a factor in Ford’s defeat by Jimmy Carter two years later. 

But by 1982, Gallup found the nation was evenly split for and against the decision. By 1986, the last time the question was asked, a majority of Americans said they supported Ford’s decision, with 54% approving against 39% disapproving. 

Obama fascistic appointees IN ACTION!

Lindsey Graham’s testimony in Georgia election probe put on hold

KAREN TOWNSEND  Aug 21, 2022 at HotAir:

Senator Lindsey Graham caught a bit of a break on Sunday morning when a federal appeals court agreed to temporarily put on hold a lower court’s order requiring him to testify before a special grand jury investigating the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Graham has been fighting to avoid testifying. A subpoena instructed the senator to appear before the special grand jury on Tuesday.

Last Monday, Graham’s request to quash his subpoena was denied by U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May, an Obama appointee. On Friday, May rejected Graham’s effort to put her decision on hold while he appealed. Graham’s lawyers took their appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Sunday, a three-judge panel of the appeals court issued the order temporarily pausing May’s order declining to quash the subpoena. The panel sent the case back to May to decide whether the subpoena should be partially quashed or modified because of protections granted to members of Congress by the U.S. Constitution.

Once May decides that issue, the case will return to the 11th Circuit for further consideration, according to the appeals court order.

For those keeping score at home, the three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court consists of Judges Charles Wilson (a Clinton appointee), and Kevin Newsom and Britt Grant, (Trump appointees). The court leans conservative.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis opened the investigation last year into a phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. During that phone call, Trump suggested that Raffensperger “find” the votes needed to overturn his narrow loss in Georgia. Willis and her team want to ask Senator Graham about two phone calls he allegedly made to Rafensperger and his staff. Shortly after the 2020 general election, Graham is said to have made the calls to ask about “reexamining certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump,” Willis wrote in a petition seeking to compel his testimony. She also wrote that Graham referenced allegations of widespread voter fraud in the November 2020 election in Georgia. His statements were consistent with those of members of the Trump campaign. She denied a motion to quash his subpoena by arguing that the senator may be able to provide insight into “the extent of any coordinated efforts to influence the results of the 2020 general election in Georgia.”

There is the issue, though, of whether the subpoena infringes on Graham’s legal protections as a member of the U.S. Senate. In 2020, Graham was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The appeals court addressed that in their order on Sunday.

The appeals court said in a two-page order that Graham’s attorneys and prosecutors for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis needed to flesh out arguments about whether Graham is entitled to have the federal courts place legal guardrails on the questioning Graham could face. The 11th Circuit panel’s order said that those arguments should be presented first to U.S. District Court Judge Leigh Martin May, who issued a ruling last week rejecting the arguments Graham’s team raised under the Constitution’s speech or debate clause — which immunizes lawmakers from most legal consequences for actions relating to their lawmaking responsibilities.

His attorneys have argued that those conversations pertained to his official duties as a senator, but May ruled there were indications that the exchanges went beyond “legislative fact-finding.”

“Senator Graham has unique personal knowledge about the substance and circumstances of the phone calls with Georgia election officials, as well as the logistics of setting them up and his actions afterward,” May wrote in her decision last Monday.

“And though other Georgia election officials were allegedly present on these calls and have made public statements about the substance of those conversations, Senator Graham has largely (and indeed publicly) disputed their characterizations of the nature of the calls and what was said and implied. Accordingly, Senator Graham’s potential testimony on these issues … are unique to Senator Graham.”

Now Graham waits for both sides to “flesh out” their arguments. The court also must decide if as a U.S. senator he is entitled to protection from the federal courts.

Today’s Weirdo Lefty America!

AUGUST 21, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


The gender hysteria that has afflicted the Left, and taken over most of our institutions, seems incomprehensible. Frankly, it strikes me as demonic. It can’t be explained by the motives of money and power that usually account for liberals’ behavior. It begins with the false claim that there is something called “gender” which is different from sex, i.e. genitalia and X and Y chromosomes. From this false premise–in fact, “gender” is simply a slightly more genteel word for sex–the ideology spirals into sheer insanity.

For example:

The problem for gender ideologues, of course, is that it is not possible for a man to become a woman and vice versa. But the point of the new terms and euphemisms they have created and mainstreamed is to confuse everyone so much that we all eventually accept as fact something that is not true.

Such is the case with a particularly egregious euphemism: “gender-affirming care.” This is the phrase gender activists have coined to describe irreversible sex-change treatments and procedures, such as puberty blockers and hormonal injections and double mastectomies and vaginoplasties. In fact, it’s the exact phrase being used by a major U.S. children’s hospital to defend administering these experimental treatments to minors.

A series of videos posted on the Boston Children’s Hospital’s website shows its doctors advocating the medical treatment of gender-confused children. In one viral video, a doctor promotes hysterectomies as a solution for gender-confused girls. The hospital has since claimed it doesn’t perform this procedure on minors, but between 2017 and 2020, the hospital reportedly performed 65 double mastectomies as part of its “affirmation” program.

Another page on the hospital’s website, which has since been deleted, says 17-year-olds are eligible for “affirming” vaginoplasties. Other videos show Boston Children’s Hospital medical experts promoting puberty blockers for young children, encouraging gender-confused boys to “tuck” their penises to make them look more like vaginas, and claiming that children as young as 2 and 3 years old can know they are a gender different than their sex.

All of this is child abuse, pure and simple. You may not know what a “vaginoplasty” is:

During a vaginoplasty as part of gender affirmation surgery, the male external genitalia are partially removed and reconfigured. The skin of the penis and scrotum are used to create a vaginal canal and labia.

Much could be said on this subject, but for now I will just note that slicing off a boy’s unit does not affirm his gender.