• 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

“Crime Will Be A Huge Issue!”

DeSantis: We Were Able To Show This Border Is A Disaster, The Biggest Stunt Was Biden Reversing Trump’s Policies

Posted By Ian Schwartz at RealClearPolitics:
On Date September 19, 2022

DeSantis: We Were Able To Show This Border Is A Disaster, The Biggest Stunt Was Biden Reversing Trump’s Policies

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.531.0_en.html#goog_1317922897

0 seconds of 10 minutes, 44 secondsVolume 90%

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) on Monday said the status of the Southern border is now a frontburner issue with voters and Republicans have an advantage and should press the case and run on it in an interview with FOX News host Sean Hannity.

“I think what we have been able to do is show that this border is a disaster,” DeSantis said. “Biden failed on this as much or more than any other policy. And now now people are talking about it. And we want solutions as Americans. We want to make sure that Trump’s policies of remain in Mexico can be reinstituted so we can get control over what is going on down there.”

DESANTIS: It was clearly voluntary and all of the other nonsense is not true. And why wouldn’t they want to go given where they were? They were in really, really bad shape and they got to be cleaned up and treated well and then put in a situation — there are jobs available on Martha’s Vineyard. There is lodging available on Martha’s Vineyard. Had they lived up to what they bill themselves as a sanctury jurisdiction.

They could have absorbed those people without a problem. But here’s the thing, they said they didn’t have housing. They said they couldn’t accomondate. Let’s just say that’s true for a minute. But what does that mean for these poor towns in Texas? What does it mean for these other places across the country that see an influx? What does it mean to these small towns that Biden dumped so many people in?

I think what we have been able to do is show that this border is a disaster. Biden failed on this as much or more than any other policy. And now now people are talking about it. And we want solutions as Americans. We want to make sure that Trump’s policies of remain in Mexico can be reinstituted so we can get control over what is going on down there…

They accused of governors of Arizona, Texas and me of political stunts in terms of dealing with illegal immigration. But the biggest stunt was Biden coming into office and reversing Trump’s policies. Not because Trump’s policies weren’t working. He reversed them because he wanted to virtue signal to his base and he wanted to show that he thought Donald Trump was bad and that’s why he reversed it. And he reversed it knowing what would end up happening. He has pulled the biggest political stunt.

People need to press the case in the midterms. We know the inflation, the economy is going to be a big issue. Crime will be a huge issue. But this immigration and border is now a front-burner issue. And I think this is one where Republicans have the advantage without question. So, run on it and if we get majorities in the Congress, they need to do something with that power to hold Biden accountable.

“Crime, the economy, and abortion are the top issues for Minnesota voters…”

SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:

TRAFALGAR POLLS MINNESOTA

Polls conducted by Robert Cahaly’s Trafalgar Group are the ones to which I pay most attention. While other polls have become a recurring joke, Trafalgar’s have established an impressive record in recent years. Trafalgar, for example, was one of the only pollsters to predict President Trump’s 2016 victory and was the second most accurate pollster in 2020.

While other polls in Minnesota and elsewhere have given Democrats heart this summer, Trafalgar’s current polls show Republican Senate candidates doing well in difficult races around the country. What gives?

Cahaly has found those of us who think unapproved thoughts difficult to reach and to poll. This year he speculates on the phenomenon of “submerged voters.” He thinks that other polls are missing them. You can follow Cahaly on Twitter here.

Alpha News (on whose board I sit) commissioned Trafalgar Group to conduct a comprehensive Minnesota survey on the upcoming election. The results include all four statewide races and the top issues for Minnesota voters. Alpha News editor Anthony Gockowski reports the results this morning in “EXCLUSIVE: Jensen surges, Schultz leads in new Alpha News/Trafalgar Group poll.”

The poll shows Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen within three points of DFL Governor Tim Walz. According to Trafalgar, the Republican candidate is at the least running neck and neck with his DFL opponent. The poll shows Republican candidate Jim Schultz is actually leading Keith Ellison in the race for Attorney General outside the margin of error. No Republican has won the office of Attorney General in Minnesota since Doug Head in 1966. It has become a Democratic preserve.

Crime, the economy, and abortion are the top issues for Minnesota voters, in that order, but crime comes in first by a long shot at 41.5 percent. If you have followed Power Line over the past few years, this shouldn’t come as a shock.

The poll results are intensely interesting. Check them out here. I will save my further comments for another post.

DIDN’T THOSE OBAMA DEMS BEGIN OUR BIDEN’S FASCIST AMERICA?

Biden’s ‘60 Minutes’ Interview Proved Once Again He Isn’t Running The Country, So Who Is?

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD at the Federalist:

SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

Joe Biden getting interviewed on 60 Minutes

Biden’s Taiwan blunders and the White House’s repeated walk backs reveal what many Americans have long suspected: Biden is not running the U.S. government.

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

President Joe Biden sat down for a rare, one-on-one interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” this past weekend, and it went about as well as you’d expect.

In addition to dismissing public concerns about skyrocketing inflation and his family’s foreign business dealings, America’s commander in chief decided to lay out his administration’s supposed policy with respect to the ongoing China-Taiwan issue.

“We agree with what we signed onto a long time ago,” Biden said in an apparent reference to the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. “There’s a ‘One China Policy,’ and Taiwan makes their own judgments about their independence. We are … not encouraging [them to be] independent. … That’s their decision.”

Under the “One China Policy,” the United States acknowledges that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the sole government of China and that Taiwan belongs to China. The U.S. does not, however, recognize the PRC’s claims to territorial sovereignty over Taiwan.

While Biden’s remarks about Taiwanese independence fall in line with the United States’ long-standing policy toward the island nation, his next comments almost assuredly left White House staff hopping mad. When asked by CBS News’s Scott Pelley if the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of a Chinese invasion, Biden answered with an unequivocal “yes.”

“So, unlike Ukraine, to be clear, sir, U.S. forces, U.S. men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?” Pelley asked in a follow-up, to which Biden replied, “yes.”

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=ShawnFleetwood&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1571654637647699970&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2022%2F09%2F20%2Fbidens-60-minutes-interview-proved-once-again-he-isnt-running-the-country-so-who-is%2F&sessionId=0b9907577e2b1da1a98af61e33150f486807c585&siteScreenName=FDRLST&theme=light&widgetsVersion=1bfeb5c3714e8%3A1661975971032&width=500px

After Biden’s remarks, Pelley noted how a White House official told “60 Minutes” that “U.S. policy [toward Taiwan] had not changed,” and that “officially, the U.S. will not say whether American forces would defend Taiwan.”

The remarks from Biden, if true, would greatly alter U.S. policy toward Taiwan. For decades, America has practiced what’s known as strategic ambiguity, wherein the U.S. won’t officially confirm whether it would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.

Despite the magnitude of such a policy change, this is hardly the first time Biden has publicly expressed U.S. military support for Taiwan and the White House was forced to release a statement “clarifying” the president’s remarks. During a CNN town hall event with Anderson Cooper last October, Biden was asked point-blank if the U.S. would defend Taiwan from China, to which the president responded by saying, “yes, we have a commitment to do that.”

Not even 24 hours later did a White House official release a statement saying Biden “was not announcing any change in our policy” and that the administration would “continue to oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo.”

A separate incident regarding a change in U.S.-Taiwan policy by Biden also occurred the following month in November 2021, when the president declared Taiwan “independent.” Once again, less than 24 hours later, Biden walked back his remarks.

Factoring in his numerous incoherent statements and ramblings about getting “in trouble” with his staff for engaging with the press, Biden’s Taiwan blunders and the White House’s repeated walk backs reveal what many Americans have suspected for the past year and a half, which is that Biden is not running the U.S. government.

As has long been held throughout American history, it is the president that heads up and steers U.S. foreign policy, not unelected bureaucrats. Yet that is exactly the situation the country finds itself in today.

At every turn of his presidency, Biden has abdicated his responsibilities to unknown White House staffers, who direct and carry out the government’s major policy initiatives while America’s commander in chief slinks away to his Delaware beach house at every available opportunity. In essence, Biden has become nothing more than a puppet, whose strings are being controlled by unnamed, high-level White House officials to shape America and her foreign policy through whatever means necessary.

Whether it’s getting lost on stage after giving a public speech or having his wife prevent him from answering press questions, Biden has demonstrated time and again that he isn’t remotely capable of handling the most basic tasks of a fully functioning human being, let alone those of a U.S. president. Under a different president — a Republican one — left-wing Americans and the media would be loudly calling into question Biden’s ability to serve. But sadly, Democrats are in charge. So instead, we’re stuck with a walker-back-in-chief whose oligarchic presidency is running the country into the ground.

Our Today’s 92 Year Old Fascist “Trillionaire” DEM Originating From Nazi Europe

September 20, 2022

George Soros: The Man Behind The Curtain

By Janet Levy at American Thinker:

Billionaire George Soros is that rare megalomaniac who not only believes he’s a god but revels in behaving like one. “It’s a sort of a disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out,” he once boasted to The Independent.

This god complex, combined with his downright amorality and bizarre ideas about society, makes the 92-year-old extremely dangerous to democracies, especially America. The warning comes loud and clear in Matt Palumbo’s recent book, The Man Behind the Curtain: Inside the Secret Network of George Soros, which documents Soros’sdecades of financial dealings, political operations, and nefarious networks.

Early in the book, Palumbo highlights Soros’samorality, planted perhaps when his Hungarian Jewish family assumed Christian identities and collaborated with the invading Nazis. The teenaged Soros accompanied his phony godfather, who inventoried properties seized from Jewish families sent to concentration camps. Yet, he says he feels no guilt, only detachment.

“I was only a spectator; the property was being taken away. I had no role in taking away that property. So, I had no sense of guilt,” he said in a 1998 interview on 60 Minutes. He likened his actions then to his playing the markets later. “In a funny way,” he said, “it’s just like in the markets – that if I weren’t there – of course, I wasn’t doing it – but somebody else would – would be taking it away anyhow.” He recounts that period as “probably the happiest year of my life” and “a very happy-making, exhilarating experience.”

Image: George Soros. YouTube screen grab.

Besides hubris and amorality, two major ideas drive Soros. He has a personal theory of ‘reflexivity’ and the philosophy of Karl Popper, his guru at the London School of Economics (LSE). Both have inbuilt ironies. While ‘reflexivity’ might be just an eccentric speculator’s hobby horse, Popper’s ideas, riding on Soros’smind and money, could lead the free world into an anarchist-leftist hell.

Simply put, reflexivity says the world is very complex, so humans use perceptual shortcuts like generalizations, dichotomies, metaphors, and decision rules. These, in turn, affect reality via the changes they cause in human behavior. Soros believes that, guided by this concept, he has gamed the markets by recognizing when perception and reality are at enough variance for betting big. Like all ‘systems’ to beat the casino, this is humbug and hubris, for it posits someone immune to the perceptual shortcomings that, by the premise, afflict everyone. But every successful speculator’s theorizing gains some indulgence, never mind the informants and networks he’ll never mention. Nor is Soros innocent of insider trading, either.

That is Soros’sbusiness. What should worry us is his obsession with implementing Popper’s ideas. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper propounded that no single philosophy possesses the truth, no society is superior to another, and ‘closed’ cultures are built on taboos and a single version of reality. In Soros’swords, in ‘open’ cultures, “nobody has a monopoly on the truth; a society which is not dominated by the state or any particular ideology, where minorities and minority opinions are respected.”

This may seem idealistic. But, quoting Eduardo Andino of Philanthropy Daily, Palumbo points out that, if groups must let go of “their truth,” the open society becomes the overarching truth by which its members must live, leaving no diversity. Witness how conservatives and others resisting the left’s anarchic impulses are denounced as authoritarian.

Much of that is because Soros funded leftist causes like Antifa, and BLM through his Open Society Foundation (OSF), the NGO he set up with $32 billion to spend on disruption. He is the largest donor in American politics, spending billions on political projects in 37 countries through over 50,000 grants. With sociopathic aplomb, he has destabilized and toppled governments, broken currencies, and attacked Western democracies and institutions, all in the name of freedom, rights, and equity.

Palumbo calls Soros a “Schrodinger’s meddler,” both denying and boasting about his activities. When President Eduard Shevardnadze’s government fell in 2003, Soros said it was the Georgian people’s will, and he had nothing to do with it. Months later, he told the New York Times: “I’m delighted by what happened in Georgia, and I take great pride in having contributed to it.”

Soros’sinitial projects involved anti-communist activities in Poland, ousting a popularly elected president in Ukraine, and anti-Gorbachev interventions in Russia. The last denied Russians, emerging from 70 years of communism, any chance of economic freedom. As a one-size-fits-all globalist, he sees the European Union as “the embodiment of the idea of the open society,” where like-minded states surrender their sovereignty for the common good.

But Soros’s biggest mission is America’s downfall, which he considers the biggest impediment to an open society. He entered American presidential politics in 2003, opposing George W. Bush and the war on terrorism after 9/11. He started numerous left-wing organizations to influence America’s social fabric. As tax-exempt groups, they receive unlimited funds and use them to influence elections.

Using his hold on the media, universities, and the White House, Soros has been able to push his ideas on racism; ecology and conservation; welfare for illegals; legalizing drugs; going soft on crime; automatic voter registration; canceling student; housing; and medical debt; and cutting military budgets. Equally, he has pushed socialist agendas, such as increasing government dependency, unionizing all jobs, and advancing racial and gender diversity. This may seem unusual coming from someone who made billions in the markets, but it’s a potent strategy to destroy the American ideals of competition, merit, and excellence.

In 2015, Soros began backing state prosecutors who want to dismantle the criminal justice system, portraying it – and America itself – as systemically racist. According to him, one should “blame the system, not the criminal, who is the real victim.” Around the time BLM was growing, he spent hundreds of millions to back candidates who were anti “law and order,” weak on crime, tough on gun control, and opposed to cash bail.

After donating heavily to Barack Obama’s Senate and presidential races and pouring money into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Soros spent even more to defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election. He told the World Economic Forum that Trump’s America First agenda ran counter to the globalist project. While criticizing big money’s influence in politics, he injected $81 million (including $70 million of his own) through the Democracy PAC. Using the pandemic as an excuse, his funding vehicles sought to increase vote-by-mail, expanding opportunities for vote tampering and harvesting.

He war-gamed election outcomes and, visualizing a “despotic” Trump’s refusal to leave office, started the Transition Integrity Project, a backup plan of civil disobedience and revolutionary protests. He infiltrated the Biden-Harris team even before it took office by raising $20 million for transition teams of officials to prepare the duo to “hit the ground running” on Day One.

The same year, Soros budgeted over $63 million to further progressivism in higher education, beginning with the Central European University (CEU) in his native Hungary. He also brought together world leaders and Harvard liberals to create a “multilateral economic system where America is not dominant.” When Victor Orban forced him out of Hungary for supporting mass refugee resettlement in Europe, he turned to funding universities in America and other countries.

Palumbo’s painstakingly researched book also traces Soros’shand in the media, including journalism schools – which is why they push his pet issues and put out “fact checks” to deny his infamous past. Thus, he can shape narratives and target those who don’t match his global vision. As he angles to perpetuate his influence beyond the grave, through his son Alexander, his second wife Susan Weber, and other acolytes, free societies worldwide should brace for a long battle.

*Vice President Harris says “the border is secure.”*

SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 BY STEVEN HAYWARD at Power Line:

THE DAILY CHART: OPEN BORDERS

Let’s look at what’s on everyone’s mind at the moment, especially on the mean streets of Martha’s Vineyard. Vice President Harris says “the border is secure.” Maybe her best nonsense word salad ever. Here’s what “secure” looks like:

Bonus for our first day:

When Did Dem Americans Begin Their Fascist Drive To Make Our Children BELONG TO THE STATE?

September 19, 2022

Will the Democrats’ Stance On Education Be Their Undoing?

By John Dietrich at American Thinker:

Perhaps the most significant issue leading to a Democrat debacle in November is the party’s position on children’s education. Many Democrat leaders are convinced that voters will not punish them at the polls for proclaiming that children, in effect, belong to the state. Governor Terry McAuliffe discovered that mothers will not tolerate leaders who want to limit parental involvement in their child’s education. McAuliffe proclaimed, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” This statement probably decided the Virginia gubernatorial election. 

As the Justice Department intended, many mothers are not speaking out because they have been intimidated. However, they will not be silent in the voting booth.

Opposition to the progressive agenda is portrayed as “far-right extremism” by the education establishment, media and government. Former President Obama commented, “We don’t have time to be wasted on these phony trumped-up culture wars, this fake outrage, the right-wing media’s pedals to juice their ratings.” Congressman Tom Malinowski called parental concerns “made-up cultural bullshit” stemming from a “fringe movement.” 

Democrats are trying to associate protesting parents with white supremacists. Attorney General Merrick Garland claimed, “In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocated for the superiority of the white race.” President Biden announced, “According to the intelligence community, terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today, Not ISIS. Not Al Qaeda. White supremacists.”

Image: Elementary school children (cropped) by rawpixel

Merrick Garland explained, “Threats against public servants are not only illegal; they run counter to our nation’s core values.” MSNBC’s Alicia Menendez commented, “Things have become so scary at these meetings that the organization representing school boards are (sic) asking federal to help, arguing these actions could be equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism.” 

Perhaps they are concerned about Crook County, Oregon, parent Jennifer Stevens. Stevens asserted during a school board meeting: “I’m a mom who’s fearless, and I will come after you.” This “threat” has earned her a file in the National Security Division of the Justice Department. Suburban housewives are now the major concern, not ISIS, not Al Qaeda. 

The mayor of Hudson, Ohio, is also on the NSD’s list of possible terrorists for his comments to a school board: “I’m going to give you a choice. Either choose to resign from the board of Education, or you will be charged.”

What is the “made-up cultural bullshit” causing “fake outrage” that agitates these furious mothers? It is not just the education establishment’s obsession with sex. (At Least 181 K-12 educators have been arrested for child-related sex crimes in the first half of 2022. ) It is their obsession with pathological sex. 

Mrs. Stacy Langton of Fairfax County, Virginia, confronted her school board about two books available to students: “Lawn Boy “and “Gender Queer.“ She commented, “Both of these books include pedophilia, sex between men and boys.” She also commented, “This is not an oversight.” The board responded by turning off her microphone and sending security to remove her from the podium. 

The effort to normalize pedophilia is just beginning. As always, it started in the Universities. An assistant professor at Old Dominion University claims the acronym MAP (Minor Attracted Persons) is the preferred term for pedophiles because it does not carry the stigma. 

A year later, students recorded a high school English teacher telling them to stop calling people pedophiles. “We’re not gonna call them that. We’re gonna call them MAPs, minor-attracted persons. So don’t judge people just because they wanna have sex with a 5-year-old.” Without the video, this incident would have gone nowhere. 

How many other teachers are instructing students in the same fashion? 

Indoctrination starts early. Chicago’s preschoolers (ages 3-5) are taught what “Queer” means and what “Non-binary” means. They are told: “When someone is not a boy or a girl, maybe they feel both, they are non-binary or queer.” Public schools in Portland, Oregon, are defending their decision to teach kindergartners that boys can have vulvas and girls can have penises via a PowerPoint presentation on transgender ideology. The guidelines for “PRIDE Community Circles” issued by Austin’s Doss Elementary School were leaked, showing the school instructing students as young as four years old to keep their LGBT class discussions confidential. 

This indoctrination has been extremely successful. Dr. Erica Anderson told the Los Angeles Times that she believes that some children identifying as trans are falling under the influence of their peers and social media. She neglected to mention the public school establishment. One Austin, Texas, teacher says 20 of her 32 fourth-grade students have ‘come out to her as ‘LGBTQIA+’. The New York Times reported on the sharp rise in transgender young people in the US.

The transgender movement has provided vast opportunities for sociopaths to exploit. The young boy in a skirt who sexually assaulted two female students in Loudoun County is an example. The transgender “woman” who impregnated two inmates at a NJ prison is another. Transvestite Lia Thomas’ University of Penn teammate complains that the trans swimmer doesn’t always cover up “her” male genitals when changing. 

Part of the thrill of being transgender is the attention one receives and craves so badly. Another benefit is the ability to outrage normal people. Critics of the transgender movement are accused of being intolerant. 

Chris Cuomo made this point when he was asked what to tell a 12-year-old girl who doesn’t want to see a penis in the locker room. Cuomo responded, “I wonder if she is the problem or her overprotective and intolerant dad? Teach tolerance.” 

Who will suffer the consequences of this abnormal behavior? An 80-Year-Old Woman was banned from a community pool for complaining about a cross-dressing man watching little girls undress in the locker room. If you want to be accepted, if you want to remain employed, if you want to receive your pension, it is advisable to remain silent when this subject comes up.

John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing). He has a Master of Arts Degree in International Relations from St. Mary’s University. He is retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. He is featured on the BBC’s program “Things We Forgot to Remember.”

“This week, Leslie Stahl of “60 Minutes” interviewed this same theocratic crackpot responsible for Amini’s death wearing a hijab.”

What ’60 Minutes’ Could Learn From Oriana Fallaci

BY: DAVID HARSANYI at the Federalist:

SEPTEMBER 19, 2022

Oriana Fallaci in 1987

It would be nice if journalists were as tough on murderous dictators as they are on their domestic partisan foes.

Author David Harsanyi profile

DAVID HARSANYI

Afew weeks after Iran’s “president,” Ebrahim Raisi, promised stricter enforcement of his nation’s misogynistic dress code, a woman named Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurd, was likely beaten to death by “morality police” for failing to wear her hijab properly. The apparent murder was nothing new for the theocratic “guidance patrols” that have been patrolling cities since the 1979 Islamic revolution, one of the most disastrous events of the late 20th century.

This week, Leslie Stahl of “60 Minutes” interviewed this same theocratic crackpot responsible for Amini’s death wearing a hijab. And it immediately reminded me of Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci’s 1979 interview with Ayatollah Khomeini. The juxtaposition reminds us just how much journalistic integrity has eroded.

Rarely mentioned these days, Fallaci, who died in 2006, was somewhat of a celebrity due to her pugilistic interviews with world leaders in the 1960s and 1970s. A war correspondent for most of her career, Fallaci was shot three times and left for dead during student demonstrations in Mexico City in 1968 in what became known as the Tlatelolco massacre. Striking and sophisticated, uninterested in the ideology or political affiliation of her victims, Fallaci had no patience for moral equivalency. In truth, she was a liberal of the old school, and her infinite skepticism regarding power made her the most formidable interviewer of her time. “Whether it comes from a despotic sovereign or an elected president, from a murderous general or a beloved leader, I see power as an inhuman and hateful phenomenon,” she is quoted in her book “Interviews with History” (which should be required reading in journalism school). “I have always looked on disobedience toward the oppressive as the only way to use the miracle of having been born.”

Kissinger famously referred to his interview with Fallaci as “the single most disastrous conversation I have ever had with any member of the press.” Fallaci asked then-darling of Western leftists, Yasser Arafat, “How many Israelis do you think you’ve killed up to this date?” When Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi began spinning an anti-Semitic “Zionist” conspiracy of his own, she told him that “Hitler would have been a very good friend for you.” After interviewing her for Playboy in 1981, the left-wing journalist Robert Scheer noted it was “the first time in my life, I found myself feeling sorry for the likes of Khomeini, Qaddafi, the Shah of Iran, and Kissinger…”

Did anyone feel bad for Ebrahim Raisi after watching “60 Minutes”? I cringed reading outlets claim that Stahl had “confronted” Raisi over whether he was a Holocaust denier. Stahl asked Raisi: “Do you believe the Holocaust happened? That 6 million Jews were slaughtered?” Raisi answered that “historical events should be investigated by researchers and historians. There are some signs that it happened. If so, they should allow it to be investigated and researched.”

“So you’re not sure. I’m getting that. You’re not sure,” Stahl responded.

Ah, yes. If only someone had thought to research the Holocaust. In any event, that is no confrontation. It is merely a statement confirming the position of the Iranians. We already know that the regime, the world’s leading anti-Semitic entity, not only denies the Holocaust but promises to conduct its own genocide against Jews. And many in the United States government, to their everlasting shame, insist we coddle and empower this regime that is also responsible for the murder of 600 American servicemen — one out of every six fatalities in Iraq.

As Christopher Hitchens pointed out, comparing Dan Rather’s similarly gutless 2003 interview with Saddam Hussein to Fallaci’s grilling of Khomeini, it’s not the quality of the answers from dictators that is the problem, but the quality of the questions.

Fallaci, only months after the Islamic Revolution had occurred and a month before American diplomats and citizens were taken hostage, went, on her own, to Iran to procure an interview with Ayatollah Khomeini. She spent 10 days in the holy city of Qum surrounded by extremists waiting for the chance. (Fallaci writes about the ordeal in “Conversation with Power.”) Perhaps the only reason the Italian was given an audience was that she had also conducted a belligerent interview with Khomeini’s archenemy the Shah of Iran in 1973. (Fallaci: “I’d like to ask you: if I were an Iranian instead of an Italian, and lived here and thought as I do and wrote as I do, I mean if I were to criticize you, would you throw me in jail?” The Shah: “Probably.”)

Fallaci, barefoot and covered in Islamic garb from head to toe, proceeds to challenge every Khomeini lie, confronting him on his fascistic tactics and murders. You really need to read the transcript to comprehend just how masterfully she handles the interview. Here is a snippet of her challenging the Iranian regime’s insistence that she wear religious garb – a “stupid, medieval rag.”

FALLACI: Please, Imam, there are many things I still want to ask you. For example, this chador that they made me put on, to come to you, and which you insist all women must wear. Tell me, why do you force them to hide themselves, all bundled up under these uncomfortable and absurd garments, making it hard to work and move about? And yet, even here, women have demonstrated that they are equal to men. They fought just like the men, were imprisoned and tortured. They, too, helped to make the revolution.

KHOMEINI: The women who contributed to the revolution were, and are, women with the Islamic dress, not elegant women all made up like you, who go around all uncovered, dragging behind them a tail of men. The coquettes who put on makeup and go into the street showing off their necks, their hair, their shapes, did not fight against the Shah. They never did anything good, not those. They do not know how to be useful, neither socially, nor politically, nor professionally. And this is so because, by uncovering themselves, they distract men, and upset them. Then they distract and upset even other…

FALLACI: That’s not true, Imam. In any case, I am not only talking about piece of clothing, but what it represents. That is, the condition of segregation into which women have been cast once again, after the revolution. The fact that they can’t study at university with men, or work with men, for example, or go to the beach or to a swimming pool with men. They have to take a dip apart, in their chadors. By the way, how do you swim in a chador?

KHOMEINI: This is none of your business. Our customs are none of your business. If you do not like Islamic dress you are not obliged to wear it. Because Islamic dress is for good and proper young women.

FALLACI: That’s very kind of you, Imam. And since you said so, I’m going to take off this stupid, medieval rag right now. There. Done. But tell me something. A woman such as I, who has always lived among men, showing her neck, her hair, her ears, who has been in war and slept in the front line in the field among soldiers, according to you, is she an immoral, bold and unproper woman?

It is impossible for me to imagine any reporter showing the skills or guts to engage a bully in this way. Now, no one is expecting Leslie Stahl, or anyone else, to be the next Oriana Fallaci. But it would be nice if contemporary journalists were at least as tough on murderous dictators as they are on domestic conservative foes.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Harsanyi is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of five books—the most recent, Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent.

Washington courts are “made up exclusively of Biden voters because of D.C.’s lopsided Democratic partisanship”.

Trump and His Supporters Cannot Obtain Justice in D.C.

If Trump is prosecuted and hauled into D.C. to defend himself, a conviction is practically guaranteed. 

By Christopher Roach at American Greatness:

September 18, 2022

The jury system is one of our treasured Anglo-American rights. Adding common people to the judicial fact-finding process ensures that state actors do not have all the power, that the sense of the community can be expressed, and that final judgments have some legitimacy because of the infusion of a democratic sensibility into the priest-like judicial function. 

Since the time of the Magna Carta, a jury is described as being of one’s peers. In other words, people from one’s community, one’s neighbors. It is supposed to represent “common sense.”  

One of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence against Great Britain was “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” and “transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.” Laws then permitted a variety of offenses against the King’s property to be tried in England, sometimes before military courts, without the benefit of a jury. 

The idea that juries should not be overly alien from the defendant is something with which we are all familiar. In the military, for instance, enlisted defendants can request that one third of the panel (which functions like a jury) be made up of other enlisted men, on the theory that the officers are likely to be harsher, more socially distant, and possibly more disposed to respond to command influence. 

In civil trials, both sides have substantial influence on the jury, in the form of strikes for cause and peremptory strikes. These are both designed to ensure a fair-minded jury, whose ultimate judgment either side can live with. 

A common criticism of yesteryear’s juries, particularly in the South, is the conviction of a black defendant by an “all-white jury”; there is a widespread feeling (and some evidence) that the absence of a defendant’s racial cohort on the jury undermines the legitimacy of a conviction in a racially mixed community. 

The Supreme Court, while not requiring racially representative juries, did forbid peremptory strikes based solely on race in the 1986 case of Batson v. Kentucky. There, the Court said, “For a jury to perform its intended function as a check on official power, it must be a body drawn from the community.” 

Quoting Blackstone, the Court added, “By compromising the representative quality of the jury, discriminatory selection procedures make ‘juries ready weapons for officials to oppress those accused individuals who by chance are numbered among unpopular or inarticulate minorities.’”

Destroying Trump and his supporters has become the raison d’etre of the Democrats under Joe Biden, as evidenced by his creepy call to arms against “MAGA Republicans” in Philadelphia. Even before this speech, Trump and his associates had been subject to an unprecedented level of harassment, culminating in the execution of a search warrant against Trump at his Florida home. 

The search originated, as did much other chicanery, in the FBI’s Washington, D.C. field office. This is where the earlier Russiagate witch hunt began, as well as harassment of Trump’s associates and lawyers. The current head of the office, Steven M. D’Antuono, was previously head of the Detroit field office which invented and sustained the Governor Whitmer kidnapping plot. 

It is possible, likely even, that the government will attempt to bring any charges against Trump in Washington, D.C.. After all, it appears to have the most compliant and ideological FBI field office. Also, the investigation arises from a dispute with the National Archives located in D.C.; this at least provides a plausible basis with which the government will try to justify bringing charges there. 

The aggressive actions of the Department of Justice are themselves ominous, but there would ordinarily be a check on this in the form of an independent judiciary and a jury made up of the defendant’s peers. Neither of these checks on government power is assured in a D.C. prosecution. 

As a prelude, the D.C. judiciary has been harsh and censorious in its treatment of January 6 defendants, in some cases invoking their political views as proof of their bad character and justification for additional punishment. The few jury trials of defendants have all resulted in conviction.  

It would be fairly easy, for Trump or any of his supporters, to face a jury made up exclusively of Biden voters because of D.C.’s lopsided Democratic partisanship. Ordinary Republicans are a minority in the District. Trump supporters are an even tinier minority. Ensuring a few local Republicans are on the jury will not guarantee reasonable treatment for Trump. Many of these nominal Republicans share the ethos of the “NeverTrump” movement and the broader managerial class’ contempt for Trump. Thus, the jury would perform none of its ordinary functions if Trump were hauled into Court there.

The social and political distance between D.C. and Trump Country could not be larger. Even the immediate environs of Maryland and Virginia have more diverse politics than D.C. In 2020, 92.1 percent of Washingtonians voted for Joe Biden; only 5.4 percent voted for Trump. This is the most lopsided ratio of votes in the country. In a town where the business is government, Trump’s stated ambition to “drain the swamp” is a threat to the livelihoods and an affront to the values of its citizens. 

There are alternatives. Florida, where Trump lives, is a true bellwether, with a nearly 50/50 divided electorate. It is not merely split politically, but it represents the sense of different regions of the country. A Florida jury would ensure that a variety of views are represented, because it lacks the ideological and economic uniformity of D.C.. But if the government pursues a prosecution, there is little chance this alternative will be used because of the Biden Administration’s maniacal focus on stopping Trump. 

If Trump is prosecuted and hauled into D.C. to defend himself, a conviction is practically guaranteed. The prosecution itself, along with the earlier search of his home, is a big enough affront to constitutional norms. Trying him in D.C. will render the proceedings a farce, an insult and an act of violence, the result of which deserves no respect from any American.