• 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

As In 2020, Trump Brain Solved Tens of Thousands of Problem Units; Biden Stole Votes!

September 6, 2022

As in 2020, Trump speaks to tens of thousands and Biden speaks to tens

By Andrea Widburg at American Thinker:

In 2016, Trump spoke to tens of thousands, and Hillary spoke to hundreds…and Trump won.  In 2020, despite COVID, Trump spoke to tens of thousands, and Biden spoke to…well, not even tens.  Maybe to fives, all of whom sat in little marked circles far away from each other.  And yet it’s Biden who’s in the White House.  Now it’s 2022, and once again, Trump is speaking to tens of thousands, and Biden is speaking to tens.  What can and should we take away from that?

The head-to-head comparison comes from Benny Johnson, who put together a video showing Trump’s and Biden’s appearances in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.  It’s important to note that Wilkes-Barre is part of Luzerne County, a Republican-majority county.  However, that majority is not equal to, say, San Francisco County, where Biden claimed 85.26% of the votes to Trump’s 12.72% — something that’s a totally believable result if one knows that San Francisco is self-destructing because of its unopposed leftism.

In Luzerne, the vote split 56.7% for Trump versus 42.3% for Biden.  In other words, although Trump carried the day with almost 87,000 votes, over 64,000 people still supported Biden.  Both men have a lot of supporters who can turn up at their rallies.


Image: Biden speaks to empty bleachers.  Twitter screen grab.

When it comes to Wilkes-Barre rallies in 2022, the video from Trump’s rally makes it look as if all 86,929 of Trump’s voters tried to squeeze into the venue, and all the attendees are wildly enthusiastic.  Meanwhile, the video from Biden’s rally shows what looks like a debate at a high school gym when the candidates are the two pathetic losers whom no one in the school likes.  The room is mostly empty, and the energy is nonexistent:

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1566230943693676544&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Fblog%2F2022%2F09%2Fas_in_2020_trump_speaks_to_tens_of_thousands_and_biden_speaks_to_tens.html&sessionId=5b74feaeaa8bb2e16568a85e870d02e1d3b3fd29&siteScreenName=AmericanThinker&theme=light&widgetsVersion=1bfeb5c3714e8%3A1661975971032&width=550px

So what do these videos mean for 2022?

In 2016, Democrats didn’t take steps to address the possibility that Trump could actually win, so he won.  In 2020, Democrats took lots of steps to address the possibility that Trump could win (none of which included a viable candidate), so he lost.

We can anticipate that, in 2022, which Democrats are making a referendum on Trump even though he’s not on the ballot, the Democrats will take lots of steps to ensure that any candidate who might possibly support Trump loses.  They’ll probably get help from the pooh-bahs in the Republican Party who view Trump as a threat to their power.

However, unlike 2020, when the Democrats could focus their energy on a single candidate (Trump), plus a few important Senate seats, this year, there are too many local elections for Democrats to impose a top-down victory across the board.  What will make the difference is turnout.

If Republicans allow themselves to be disheartened by polling (which no one should trust anymore), the ones who aren’t attending rallies may not vote.  That’s a sure path to defeat.  It’s a simple corollary: winners never quit, and quitters never win.

The answer for us is to do exactly what Rush Limbaugh always said: get out there and vote for the most conservative candidate who can win.  And vote in numbers that will exceed the margin of fraud.  Just remember, Trump is still filling stadiums, and Biden, with his “81 million votes,” can’t fill a high school gym.

One more thing: Remind your local GOP and/or candidate that they need to speak to voters first about the issues that matter: the economy, national security, and crime.  Then talk about how appalling Biden and the Democrats are. 

Hillary Cobra In Quiet Action (with her hiss!)

Turley: Say, whatever happened with Hillary’s obstruction?

ED MORRISSEY Sep 06, 2022 at HotAir:

(AP Photo/John Locher)

Good question, and one I’ve also raised in the past.

The Department of Justice has signaled in recent days that it might pursue obstruction charges as a way to avoid the Hillary Clinton comparisons over any attempted charging of Donald Trump over mishandling classified information. That strategy apparently opened up when Trump and/or his attorneys allegedly misled the DoJ and National Archives on which classified documents were retained by Trump even after their arrangement to return material earlier in the year.

A prosecution focused on obstruction would allow the DoJ to bypass the Hillary Rule, which then-FBI director James Comey declared in 2016. He set the precedent that the Espionage Act would only be used to prosecute people who mishandled classified material in a malicious manner, letting Clinton off the hook. However, as Jonathan Turley argues, Hillary Clinton’s four-plus years of storing and transmitting classified material on a server was not the only legal issue at the time, although the violations were more profound in that case:

A criminal charge of obstruction against Trump would offer certain political benefits for Garland. As previously discussed, the government has routinely elected not to prosecute high-ranking officials for improperly removing classified material or has sought mere misdemeanor charges in the most egregious cases.

Prosecuting Trump for a misdemeanor for possessing or removing classified documents would seem gratuitous, while prosecuting him for a felony would raise questions of biased or selective prosecution. After all, in 2016, Hillary Clinton had not just 113 documents containing classified material but some documents “classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level” on her private email servers. (In Trump’s case, the government allegedly found roughly 100 documents in the Mar-a-Lago raid in addition to roughly 150 handed over by the Trump team under an earlier subpoena.)

Clinton’s documents were even more vulnerable to being compromised via her unclassified email account and, according to the FBI, “hostile actors gained access” to some of the information. Yet she was never subjected to a raid, let alone a charge.

That won’t be the DoJ’s only problem, either. Clinton obstructed the FBI probe into her mishandling of classified material in several different ways, and yet faced no legal repercussions for it:

In addition to the transfer of top-secret and other classified documents to her private server, Clinton and her staff did not fully cooperate with investigators. During the investigations of her conduct, some of us marveled at the temerity of the Clinton staff in refusing to turn over her emails and other evidence to State Department and DOJ investigators, including laptops holding suspected classified information. The FBI had to cut deals with her aides to secure their cooperation.

Later, more classified material was found on the laptop of former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who was married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin — 49,000 emails potentially relevant to the Clinton investigation.

After Congress sought these emails, Clinton’s staff unilaterally destroyed thousands of emails with BleachBit. Clinton was aware that Congress and the State Department were seeking the emails in 2014. Her lawyers turned over about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted 33,000 others while insisting they unilaterally deemed them “personal.”

Turley’s not the only person with long memories on this point. Michael Doran e-mailed me last month to remind me of the extent of Hillary’s obstruction — and its length as well. Her obstruction began in 2014 when the select committee on Benghazi finally uncovered the secret e-mail system and didn’t end until right before the 2016 election. His NRO column from 2018 covered all these points as well:

Particularly damning was the form this material took. It is impossible to paste a classified document into an unclassified email accidentally, because the three computer systems (Unclassified, Confidential/Secret, and Top Secret) are physically separate networks, each feeding into an independent hard drive on the user’s desk. If a classified document appears in an unclassified email, then someone downloaded it onto a thumb drive and manually uploaded it to the unclassified network — an intentional act if ever there was one.

One of Clinton’s emails suggests that downloading and uploading material in this fashion was a commonplace activity in her office. In June 2011, a staffer encountered difficulty transmitting a document to her by means of a classified system. An impatient Clinton instructed him to strip the classified markings from the document and send it on as an unclassified email. “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Clinton instructed.

On three separate occasions staffers got sloppy and failed to strip the “nonpapers” of all markings that betrayed their classified origins. The FBI recovered one email, for example, that contained a “C” in parenthesis in the margin — an obvious sign that the corresponding paragraph was classified “Confidential.” When an agent personally interviewed Clinton, on July 2, he showed her the document and asked whether she understood what the “C” meant. For anyone who has ever held a security clearance, “C’s” in the margins are more ubiquitous than “C’s” on water faucets — and no more baffling. But Clinton played the ditzy grandmother. She had simply assumed, she said, that the “C” was marking an item in an alphabetized list.

In the 2,500-year life of the alphabet, this was a first: a list that started with the third letter and contained but a single item. The explanation was laughable, but any sensible answer would have constituted an acknowledgement of malicious intent. Her only out was the “well-intentioned but careless” script that Obama had written for her. In other words, she lied to the FBI — a felony offense.

Bear in mind one other key difference between these two situations as well. Trump took these records out at the end of his presidency, when one would expect that a former president would begin culling through his papers for an eventual presidential library. Hillary Clinton mishandled classified material for six years — all through her term as Secretary of State and beyond — and actively lied to courts about it when challenged for e-mails on FOIA demands.

All of that will make it rather difficult for the DoJ to explain why they may prosecute Trump after ignoring Hillary’s obstruction as well as Espionage Act violations. Such a choice will make at least one of those decisions look veeeeerrrrrry politicized — and almost certainly both.

Why Do Dems Lie So Much? The Schools They Went To? No Dads? Laziness?

SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:

TEAR DOWN THIS WALZ: TOM BEHRENDS SPEAKS

At Alpha News Liz Collin reports the suppressed and little-known story of Governor Walz’s misrepresentation of his National Guard service record. Walz fancies himself a retired Command Sergeant Major, but his true successor as such in the Guard (Tom Behrends, now retired) blows the whistle on him in the interview with Liz (video below) and in her story “Fellow veteran speaks out on Walz’s misleading statements about military record.” Behrends tried to get the story out himself together with Command Sergeant Major (retired) Paul Herr in a paid 2018 endorsement letter published in the West Central Tribune and, according to Behrends, through the Minnesota media.

Liz notes: “A spokesperson for the Minnesota National Guard previously said Walz wasn’t able to retire as a command sergeant major since he failed to complete coursework and other requirements related to the rank. Documents show the Army corrected Walz’s service record. He was reduced in rank to an E-8 master sergeant after retirement.”

I take Walz’s nondenial as a classic of its kind: “A spokesperson said this has been in the news before and pointed Alpha News to a past story where Walz said ‘normally this type of partisan political attack only comes from one who’s never worn a uniform.’”

Behrends struggled to get the story out in 2018 without notable success. Liz now reports that she reached out to the Star Tribune for comment “but didn’t receive a response.”

Stalin’s USSR Still Alive!?

Russia: Nord Stream 1 is closed until sanctions are lifted

JAZZ SHAW Sep 06, 2022 at HotAir:

(Stefan Sauer/dpa via AP, file)

As John reported last week, Russia has kept the Nord Stream 1 natural gas pipeline to Germany shut down for more than a week now. They originally claimed that they needed to close it for routine inspections and then claimed that the inspections had revealed a problem that needed to be addressed. Nobody was buying these stories. And even before the most recent shutdown, they were pumping less than one-quarter of the volume that had been flowing as recently as June. Yesterday, the Russians apparently decided to rip off the mask and just say what everyone was already thinking. The pipeline could be up and running at any time, but they are going to keep it closed entirely until the “collective West” lifts sanctions against them. So we’ve now reached the stage of open blackmail. (Business Insider)

The Kremlin has issued its sharpest comments about cutting off Russia’s natural-gas flow to Europe via the key Nord Stream 1 pipeline on Monday, saying supplies would not resume until the “collective West” lifts sanctions against Moscow.

“Problems with gas supply arose because of the sanctions imposed on our country by Western states, including Germany and Britain,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov during a conference call, Reuters reported on Monday.

“We see incessant attempts to shift responsibility and blame onto us. We categorically reject this and insist that the collective West – in this case, the EU, Canada, the UK — is to blame for the fact that the situation has reached the point where it is now,” Peskov added, per Reuters.

I’m being overly simplistic by describing this move as blackmail, though it certainly is. The Kremlin knows how reliant various parts of Europe are on that natural gas and they are nowhere near ready to be energy independent to the point where they could live without those supplies. But if we’re being honest, the west has been blackmailing Russia since the invasion began, believing that by isolating them financially from the rest of the world we could force Putin to withdraw his forces from Ukraine. This is all part of the modern interpretation of economic warfare and the Russians are clearly ready to play that game as well.

The hardest hit by this news will be Germany. Russia supplies more than 40% of the natural gas used in central Europe, with the majority of that amount flowing through Nord Stream 1. Germany became increasingly reliant on that gas as they moved to eliminate their own coal-fired generation and nuclear plants. They were already facing a significant energy crisis before Nord Stream 1 dried up.

Does the west really have the option of negotiating in this situation? All of those sanctions were put in place with the understanding that we planned to leverage the situation and convince Putin to withdraw his forces from Ukraine. Russia is still in the country and fighting in force, with no indication that they plan to leave any time soon. If we turn around and begin lifting key sanctions just to prevent central Europe from going dark and cold as winter approaches, Vladimir Putin will effectively have won the standoff, at least in terms of the ongoing economic warfare.

But failing to negotiate will leave our central European allies in a terrible bind. They’re already removing outdoor lights and regulating where people and businesses can set their thermostats just to keep the power grid from going fully to its knees. And demand will only increase as summer wanes and the colder months approach. Everyone seems to have assumed that we would eventually outlast the Russians and that their economy would collapse. But it turns out that they’re selling more oil than ever and finding other ways to adapt. Meanwhile, the entire world appears to be picking sides for what could become a new world war. Did Putin game all of this out before deciding to go into Ukraine? If so, we might be in a lot more trouble than some of us had previously anticipated.

The Collapse OF OUR AMERICAN CONSTITUTION!!?

BY STEVEN HAYWARD at Power Line:

WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM CHILE

There’s an old joke that French libraries filed their nation’s constitutions under “Periodicals.” I also recall Walter Berns once telling me the story of a visit he took to South America—it was either Argentina or Chile, I don’t recall which country he specified—where one of his academic hosts dismissed the American Constitution with the comment, “You’ve only had one constitution, while we’ve had lots of them.”

This all came back to mind with regard to the referendum this weekend for a proposed new constitution for Chile, the product of its recently installed socialist government that appears to be losing popularity at a rapid rate.

I didn’t follow the story closely, but understood that the new proposed constitution was nearly 200 pages long, with nearly 400 articles, and about 100 new “rights,” which included the usual lefty goo-goo “rights” to a clean environment, “gender equity,” and so forth. This is the kind “prolix” constitution, typical of recent decades, that John Marshall warned would never be understood by a democratic people.

I didn’t bother to try to find the draft and read it. All I needed to know was that the American left, which remains almost as obsessed with the long-departed Picochet as they are with Trump. I saw a pile of articles from the usual lefty outlets about how wonderful the proposed Chilean constitution was.

CNN: “Chile is voting on one of the most progressive constitutions in the world.”

[It is] conceived to fix the country’s stark inequality. The country’s current constitution was written during Augusto Pinochet´s dictatorship and — despite many amendments — most Chileans say it lacks legitimacy and is too free-market oriented. . .

If approved, Chile’s constitution would become one of the most progressive in the world, giving the state a front-line role in the provision of social rights. The draft puts a strong emphasis on indigenous self-determination and on the protection of the environment; the highly privatized water rights system will be dismantled, among other things. Gender equality will be required in all public institutions and companies, and the respect for sexual diversity is also enshrined.

These articles all saved me a lot of time and trouble.

So the Chilean people rejected it in the referendum by a 60-40 margin. Maybe they looked and decided they didn’t want to become Venezuela after all:

Too “free market” indeed.

P.S. The New York Times has a case of the sads over the outcome:

Dem Liberals Are Already Pelosi Thermostat Fascists!

SEPTEMBER 5, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:

A MAN’S THERMOSTAT IS HIS CASTLE?

We all use thermostats to control the temperature in our homes. In the winter, we adjust our thermostat to warm to the desired temperature; in the summer, to cool to a comfortable temperature. We do this with an eye to the cost of energy: we don’t necessarily heat our homes, or cool our homes, as much as we might wish. Like most things in life, it is a trade-off.

But if the liberals have their way, we may lose control over our homes altogether. Energy expert Isaac Orr has the story:

Denver News reports that Xcel Energy locked out 22,000 customers in Colorado from adjusting their thermostats as temperatures rose into the 90s.

[W]hen thousands of Xcel customers in Colorado tried adjusting their thermostats Tuesday, they learned they had no control over the temperatures in their own homes.

Temperatures climbed into the 90s Tuesday, which is why Tony Talarico tried to crank up the air conditioning in his partner’s Arvada home.

“I mean, it was 90 out, and it was right during the peak period,” Talarico said. “It was hot.”

That’s when he saw a message on the thermostat stating the temperature was locked due to an “energy emergency.”

“Normally, when we see a message like that, we’re able to override it,” Talarico said. “In this case, we weren’t. So, our thermostat was locked in at 78 or 79.”

That is a key point. These are customers who signed up for Xcel’s Colorado AC Rewards program:

“It’s a voluntary program. Let’s remember that this is something that customers choose to be a part of based on the incentives,” said Emmett Romine, vice president of customer solutions and innovation at Xcel.

Customers receive a $100 credit for enrolling in the program and $25 annually, but Romine said customers also agree to give up some control to save energy and money and make the system more reliable.

It is voluntary, for now, but you have to read the fine print: if the utility wants to take over your thermostat and prevent you from changing the temperature to make your home more comfortable, it can do that:

This is the first time in the program’s six year span that customers could not override their smart thermostats, Romine said. He said the “energy emergency” was due to an unexpected outage in Pueblo combined with hot weather and heavy air conditioner usage.

But Talarico said he had no idea that he could be locked out of the thermostat.

Does anyone think that liberals will be satisfied for long with voluntary measures? If they get their way, and fitful wind and solar play a larger role in our energy system, “emergencies” will inevitably multiply as utilities try to minimize blackouts. In the end, the only way to keep the rickety system functioning will be by shutting off your air conditioning or your heat.

Watch for it: along with blackouts, loss of control over your own home is coming your way, if you allow it.

Presidents Trump And Biden Held Rallies In Wilkes-Barre Last Week!

 SEPTEMBER 5, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:

WILKES-BARRE HAS SPOKEN

Donald Trump and Joe Biden held rallies in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania last week. How did they go? These videos tell the story:

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=powerlineUS&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1566230943693676544&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2022%2F09%2Fwilkes-barre-has-spoken.php&sessionId=aaf358deb324decbe9c530adb193ec64cf6341c7&siteScreenName=powerlineUS&theme=light&widgetsVersion=1bfeb5c3714e8%3A1661975971032&width=550px

America Has Become Systematically Stupid FROM PELOSI, HER LIAR CREEPS AND MITCH MCCONNELL!

September 5, 2022

Seven Practical Ways to Make America Great Again

By M.B. Mathews at American Thinker:

I am guilty, like many of my fellow conservatives, of complaining about everything that has gone wrong since COVID.  That includes massive inflation, the loss of small businesses because of a messed up COVID response; supply chain problems; gas prices; the border sieve; the swallowing up of the mainstream media by Great Resetters and MASA Democrats (Make America S— Again); the Afghanistan defeat and weaponry giveaway; the billions and trillions spent on Ukraine; the paying of people not to work; the Luciferian malignancy of CRT, DEI, and ESG infecting our institutions, schools, and businesses; and the litany of other complaints MAGA Americans get so justifiably indignant about.

But what can the average American do to actually take down this behemoth of leftism that is strangling liberty, free speech, and prosperity?  It may take a while, but it is doable with small things to start with.

First, cut off the blood supply to all businesses and groups that hire any DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) personnel.  Stop paying them, and stop using their services.  You do have choices.  These vengeful, hateful people have managed to convince producers of goods and services that they must right the wrongs of slavery in their business and private endeavors.  This is wrong and wrong-headed.  No U.S. person alive today owned slaves, nor did his parents.  Would you hold your grandchild responsible for killing millions of Jews and Christians during the Holocaust?  Nor should the living be responsible to pay for the sins of the dead.  Say no to any business that thinks you should.

In some cases, this will cost you more money or may delay your deliveries a week or so.  So what?

America is not systemically racist.  The left uses racism as its cudgel, assuming we will back down and kiss their derrieres.  The epithet “racist” long ago lost its effect, yet some white people still melt like snowflakes under its utterance.  Refuse to accept racism no matter what color is doing it.

Second, write emails and letters and make phone calls demanding to know how your representative plans to vote on a given issue.  If it’s not how you want them to vote, tell them so.  Strongly.  Many people say this is a useless tactic, but I disagree.  Do it often enough, and it will get through, but it takes persistence.  You never know just when it will be your email or phone call that does what you want.  Your reps may ignore a few dozen complaints, but yours may be the proverbial straw/camel situation.

Never think, “My one complaint won’t matter.”  It does matter, because it may be your “one” that is one too many to ignore.  In the same way, if your rep is sending you emails that say, “Contact me” or “What do you think?” on a given issue, do not hesitate to do it.  Again, yours may be the decisive “one.”

Third, attend school board meetings and political strategizing groups where possible.  Give your input.  Don’t think, “I hate public speaking.”  It may be your public speaking that puts an agenda over the top to clean up CRT or drag queen perversity in your schools.

Fourth, vote and be certain your friends vote.  There are too many destructive rumblings from Republicans who say they won’t vote because “nothing ever gets done.”  If you don’t vote, more nothing will get done.  Not voting puts another Machiavellian Democrat in office.  Just as your one email may be the one that matters, your one vote may be the one that tips an election in your favor.  Not to vote is selfish; other conservatives may suffer from your refusal to vote.  At this time in our history, with evil everywhere and few heroes stepping up, be the hero.

Fifth, don’t be afraid to hurt someone’s feelings or to get aggressive in the cause of making yourself heard.  Democrats have for too long cornered the market on aggressiveness, never expecting Republicans to fight back.  And we didn’t because we’re too nice.  No more.  The survival of liberty and free speech is on the line, and we can turn that paradigm of systemic meekness on its head.

If you are able, protest.  If you can, show up and talk to attendees.  Don’t be afraid to use leftist tactics that are non-violent.  Remember that they are mostly petty narcissists who can’t take what they dish out.  Take a lesson from Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Michael Knowles, and Charlie Kirk, all of whom go into hostile territory to spread the conservative word.  These are our heroes, in part.  Our microphones are not as big as theirs are, but our mouths can be.  Be prepared to answer such accusations as, “Your presence here makes me feel unsafe.”  Ask how they would actually be “unsafe” by your words.  They’d hear an opposing point of view, God forbid?  Show up and show them up as the whinging, cringing, sniveling snowflakes they are.

If that’s not your style, there is another way: employ the 1 Peter 3:15 biblical method of apologetics: “Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

Sixth, write letters to editors of local newspapers and websites.  Express your opinion fairly, strongly, and with conviction.  Never lapse into profanity or inanity; leave that to leftists, who reveal their shallowness by doing so.  By contrast, you will always look measured, reasonable, and assured, thereby being more likely to be listened to.  You don’t have to be a sophisticated, refined writer to matter.  It just requires honest passion and coherence.

Seventh, become informed so that when someone asks you your sources, you can cite something other than Breitbart, which will immediately elicit guffaws and incredulity from your leftist target.  Recall how you react when a leftist cites NPR or the New York Times as his source.  Breitbart is fine, but find an additional source that is somewhere in the middle or, ideally, on the left so as to defuse yet another leftist criticism and maybe get you listened to.  Dan Bongino is particularly adept at this.  All that said, getting any leftist to actually listen to a reasoned argument is almost futile, but you can make the attempt.

The main point is that you do have ways to increase the flood of conservative actions and arguments that may push someone with some power over the edge into your camp.  Don’t assume your one comment won’t matter.  It may just be the “one” to make someone in power say, “Enough.  Maybe he’s got a point.”  Be the final word and be the one to whom your liberal friends, if you have some, will come to get your side of the story.

Toxic liberalism wasn’t built in a day.  They had to start somewhere.  So must we, and we will be victorious.

UPDATE FROM ANDREA: One of our readers sent in an eighth way you can fight back:

There is an eighth way to be added to this list: Any shareholder of individual stocks should make sure to note the time of a company’s annual meeting and submit questions to the board via their online portals which is universally offered to shareholders and simple and convenient to use.

It’s quite an effective way to get to the head of the snake.


It’s Nice TO HAVE 10,000 LAKES AROUND!

 SEPTEMBER 5, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:

A MAN’S THERMOSTAT IS HIS CASTLE?

We all use thermostats to control the temperature in our homes. In the winter, we adjust our thermostat to warm to the desired temperature; in the summer, to cool to a comfortable temperature. We do this with an eye to the cost of energy: we don’t necessarily heat our homes, or cool our homes, as much as we might wish. Like most things in life, it is a trade-off.

But if the liberals have their way, we may lose control over our homes altogether. Energy expert Isaac Orr has the story:

Denver News reports that Xcel Energy locked out 22,000 customers in Colorado from adjusting their thermostats as temperatures rose into the 90s.

[W]hen thousands of Xcel customers in Colorado tried adjusting their thermostats Tuesday, they learned they had no control over the temperatures in their own homes.

Temperatures climbed into the 90s Tuesday, which is why Tony Talarico tried to crank up the air conditioning in his partner’s Arvada home.

“I mean, it was 90 out, and it was right during the peak period,” Talarico said. “It was hot.”

That’s when he saw a message on the thermostat stating the temperature was locked due to an “energy emergency.”

“Normally, when we see a message like that, we’re able to override it,” Talarico said. “In this case, we weren’t. So, our thermostat was locked in at 78 or 79.”

That is a key point. These are customers who signed up for Xcel’s Colorado AC Rewards program:

“It’s a voluntary program. Let’s remember that this is something that customers choose to be a part of based on the incentives,” said Emmett Romine, vice president of customer solutions and innovation at Xcel.

Customers receive a $100 credit for enrolling in the program and $25 annually, but Romine said customers also agree to give up some control to save energy and money and make the system more reliable.

It is voluntary, for now, but you have to read the fine print: if the utility wants to take over your thermostat and prevent you from changing the temperature to make your home more comfortable, it can do that:

This is the first time in the program’s six year span that customers could not override their smart thermostats, Romine said. He said the “energy emergency” was due to an unexpected outage in Pueblo combined with hot weather and heavy air conditioner usage.

But Talarico said he had no idea that he could be locked out of the thermostat.

Does anyone think that liberals will be satisfied for long with voluntary measures? If they get their way, and fitful wind and solar play a larger role in our energy system, “emergencies” will inevitably multiply as utilities try to minimize blackouts. In the end, the only way to keep the rickety system functioning will be by shutting off your air conditioning or your heat.

Watch for it: along with blackouts, loss of control over your own home is coming your way, if you allow it.

THE BIDEN MESS!

NYT’s panic attack: “Elements of the right” want a fully constitutional Convention of States!

by ED MORRISSEY Sep 05, 2022 at HotAir:

Just last week, the mainstream media cheered on Joe Biden’s hypocritical and dishonest wrapping of himself in the Constitution while demagoguing his political opponents. Today, the New York Times hits the panic button over the use of a legitimate constitutional measure as a means of limiting Washington’s power. In its haste to hysteria, the NYT manages to miss a fundamental point about Article V and a state-called constitutional convention.

But if “elements on the right” want to use it, it must be dangerous:

“We are very concerned that the Congress, if it becomes Republican, will call a convention,” said Mr. Feingold, the co-author of a new book warning of the risks of a convention called “The Constitution in Jeopardy.”

“This could gut our Constitution,” Mr. Feingold said in an interview. “There needs to be real concern and attention about what they might do. We are putting out the alert.”

While the rise of election deniers, new voting restrictions and other electoral maneuvering get most of the attention, Mr. Feingold rates the prospect of a second constitutional convention as just as grave a threat to democratic governance.

“If you think this is democracy’s moment of truth, this is one of those things,” he said.

Elements on the right have for years been waging a quiet but concerted campaign to convene a gathering to consider changes to the Constitution. They hope to take advantage of a never-used aspect of Article V, which says in part that Congress, “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

What’s the difference between a congressionally approved constitutional amendment and one produced by an Article V convention? Other than the absence of Congress, nothing at all. The NYT makes a dishonest attempt to suggest one, emphasis mine:

Throughout the nation’s history, 27 changes have been made to the Constitution by another grindingly arduous route, with amendments originating in Congress subject to ratification by the states.

With sharp partisanship making that path near impossible, backers of the convention idea now hope to harness the power of Republican-controlled state legislatures to petition Congress and force a convention they see as a way to strip away power from Washington and impose new fiscal restraints, at a minimum.

This is the only mention of ratification in the entire article (other than a passing mention without that word made near the end), and it’s a red herring so badly constructed as to appear intentional. A constitutional convention can’t pass amendments, let alone replace the entire Constitution, on its own — their work has to be ratified by the states as well. Apparently, no one at the NYT bothered to look into what happened at the original convention of states.

After the first convention adopted the Constitution in 1788, the finished document still needed ratification by the states. The ratification process in 1788 is what produced our Bill of Rights, in fact, since several of the states refused to ratify it until specific guarantees on civil liberties were included in the document. Shortly after the constitutional era started in the fall of 1789, Congress proposed and approved twelve amendments, ten of which were ratified by enough states to be added to the Constitution by 1790.

And there is nothing illegitimate, radical, or extremist about using a well-known constitutional process to advance questions to the states. The framers included Article V as a way for states to bypass a potentially imperial Congress that would act to usurp sovereign authority from the states. Had the framers only allowed Congress to act as gatekeeper to the amendment process, states would have had no other recourse. We haven’t had an Article V convention until now, but arguably we haven’t had a pressing need for one until recent years. The writing on the wall for the necessity of an Article V convention can be traced back to the 17th Amendment, which transformed the Senate into a forum for state interests into a populist copy of the House, and which touched off an arrogation of authority by Washington that accelerated over the last several decades.

But what happens when “elements of the right” at such a convention propose radical and extreme amendments to or replacements of the Constitution? Unless those “radical and extreme” proposals are wildly popular with the state legislatures or constitutional conventions in 38 states … nothing at all. The rules of the current Constitution would apply throughout, and as Eugene Volokh points out, it will stamp out any proposals except the most mainstream:

If a constitutional convention is called and proposes amendments, they still have to be ratified by legislatures or conventions (the convention gets to decide which) in 3/4 of all states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Maybe I’m wrong, but I expect that this will be a pretty serious bar to any particularly radical proposals. If you disagree, tell me this: What amendments do you think a convention could propose that would get the support of legislatures or conventions in at least 38 of the 50 states, and how conservative (or liberal) do you think those amendments would be?

So what would likely happen in an Article V convention? There may be a lot of unusual proposals, such as repealing the Second Amendment, banning abortion, or even legalizing abortion until the moment of birth. Those would likely fail on the floor of the convention anyway if all 50 states participated, and none of them would get a 38-state supermajority for ratification. The proposals most likely to succeed would be a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance its budget every year and perhaps one that seriously limits the Interstate Commerce Clause that Washington has abused for nearly a century at the expense of state sovereignty.

That explains why Feingold and NYT are having panic attacks at the thought of the states bypassing Congress to apply limits to its power. It’s no more a deep and abiding love of the Constitution, no more than Biden’s shrieking on Thursday night. It’s about Congress getting held to account and limited in its social engineering capabilities, and the end of the power of progressives.