• 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

Knowledge Is Wonderful!

OCTOBER 3, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:

WHO OWNS SCIENCE?

Science is a method that can, in principle, be practiced by anyone. So no one can “own” it. But don’t tell that to the United Nations and the World Economic Forum.

This is chilling:

Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary for Global Communications at the United Nations at [World Economic Forum] ‘Disinformation’ event: “We partnered with Google,” said Fleming, adding, “for example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.

I googled “climate change” to see whether it is really true that Google has altered its usual algorithm to privilege United Nations content, which historically has proved grossly unreliable. It is, sadly, true:

There is nothing accessible from Google’s front page of search results other than global warming propaganda–zero information about the debate over climate that has been raging for years.

Much more, including videos, at the link. A few highlights:

The U.N. and WEF understand that they aren’t particularly trusted, so they have devised PR strategies:

During last week’s WEF panel, the UN global communications rep went on to admit that people didn’t trust institutions like the UN when it came to information related to COVID, and so to counter this, the UN looked to influencers to get its messaging across through the backdoor.

“Another really key strategy we had was to deploy influencers,” she said, adding, “influencers who were really keen, who have huge followings, but really keen to help carry messages that were going to serve their communities, and they were much more trusted than the United Nations telling them something from New York City headquarters.”

It seems remarkable that, after just about everything the public health establishment said about covid turned out to be wrong, these people have not acquired the slightest bit of humility.

The head of the World Economic Forum is especially noxious:

Moderating last week’s “Tackling Disinformation” panel was WEF managing director Adrian Monck, who in recent months has been name-calling critics of the WEF and components of its great reset agenda as white supremacists and anti-Semites engaged in far-right disinformation campaigns.

When addressing CNN’s Rachel Smolkin, Monck said that CNN was part of a political war strategy to “own the narrative.”

“CNN is both an organization that’s trying to make sense of the world and trying to establish the facts; it’s also part of a political war on who owns the narrative,” he said.

It certainly is! Happily, it is a war that CNN has been losing badly.

This, from a professor of Global Economic Governance (!) at Oxford, is telling, and reflects a remarkable lack of self-awareness:

The good news is the elites across the world trust each other more and more…The bad news is that in every single country they were polling, the majority of people trusted their elites less.

There is a lesson there, but it is one that those who purport to rule the world would rather ignore.

Are Latinos Awakening TO JOIN “AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL”?

Here come the Hispanic Republicans

Latinos are voting exactly like an earlier wave of immigrants

October 2, 2022 | 10:53 pm

FROM THE MAGAZINE

hispanic

Written by:

Patrick Ruffini from the Spectator:

Acoveted working-class demographic that has been loyally Democratic for generations stands poised to vote Republican in record numbers. Its voters are upwardly mobile, having risen from the deep poverty of their immigrant ancestors to a decent middle-class life. Their incomes are rising quickly and are soon expected to reach the national average. They start businesses at rates that exceed the native born. Recent government data shows them moving into the suburbs from ethnic enclaves in the cities. All of this has coincided with their political shift to the right.

This demographic is family-oriented and deeply religious. Nativist elements have occasionally questioned their loyalty to the United States, but they join the military at rates matching the population as a whole; opinion surveys reveal them to be deeply patriotic, with above average levels of support for the police and the military. Their traditional values stand in contrast to those of the nation’s educated elite, whose shift to the left has alienated them from the old-school, working-class Democratic Party.

As people who have worked their way up, they are deeply suspicious of government handouts to people who don’t work. They draw a sharp distinction between programs like Social Security, which they have paid into all their lives, and recent expansions of the welfare state that hand out benefits regardless of work. If they have worked hard and played by the rules, why can’t everyone else?

And yet they have to date been reliable supporters of the Democratic Party. But at the last election, their support for the Democrats has waned. Since then, the media and Democratic operatives have been obsessed with why. Now, polls show them to be something approaching a swing-voter group. Some even predict that within a few decades they will start voting exactly as the country as a whole does, or even lean Republican.

All this might describe the Hispanic vote in America in 2022, especially with polls that show Republicans competitive for, even tied, with Hispanic voters in this November’s midterms. But all of it is also true of white Catholic voters in the 1960s — once the backbone of the urban Democratic machines in America’s northern cities.

Ethnic politics began almost as soon as the Irish stepped off the boats in the nineteenth century, starting in tight-knit communities organized around the Roman Catholic Church. When they became citizens, their choice of party was an easy one: Andrew Jackson’s Democrats — the “party of the people” fighting against the mercantile interests most closely aligned with England, the colonial oppressor they despised. The next wave of arrivals, from Italy, were harder to wrangle politically, having come from the country’s south, where national government barely existed. They were migrant workers who went back and forth to their country of origin freely, loyal to their local villages rather than any nation or political party.

They all rallied behind John F. Kennedy, who received 78 percent of the white Catholic vote in 1960. Kennedy faced suspicion from the Protestant majority for his “papist” religion, but ultimately won thanks to the children of immigrants who had reached critical mass in the industrial swing states. In the same way, both blacks and Hispanics voted in record numbers for Barack Obama, with Obama’s share of the Hispanic vote reaching 72 percent in 2012.

For white Catholics, and Hispanics fifty years later, it was downhill for Democrats in the elections that followed. A major warning sign came in 2016, when Democrats lost ground with Hispanics, even campaigning against Donald Trump, whose entire campaign seemed premised on offending as many Hispanics as possible. In 2020, having mostly dropped his hard-edged immigration rhetoric, Trump made double-digit gains with Hispanics. So it was in the 1960s, when the white Catholic children of immigrants began their migration to the political center. By 2000, they were voting the same way as the country as a whole. They didn’t stop there: by 2020, Trump was winning the white Catholic vote by double digits.

Both Hispanics and white Catholics also joined the march from the city to the suburbs. Once they arrived, they joined a multiethnic majority no longer defined by sharp neighborhood borders along ethnic lines. In the 1960s, this suburban migration made places like Westchester County and Long Island a Republican counterweight to heavily Democratic New York City. In Texas today, the Hispanic population is growing fastest in higher-income suburbs and exurbs — like Conroe and The Woodlands outside Houston — and dropping fastest in the Hispanic-majority neighborhoods of central cities: In the suburbs, the rate of Hispanic participation in Republican primaries is almost three times higher than in the inner-city neighborhoods they left behind.

Suburbanization has also meant greater economic opportunity. While higher incomes today signal a leftward shift for whites, the opposite is true among Hispanics, where higher income equated to stronger support for Trump in 2020. And overall Hispanic income levels are rising quickly, jumping 22 percent between 2014 and 2019, more than in any other racial or ethnic group.

For Democrats, this was not how things were meant to go. Hispanics were supposed to be part of an “emerging Democratic majority” consisting of educated and non-white voters, whose growing numbers and Democratic lean were supposed to sound the death knell for conservative politics. The theory began to show cracks with the election of Donald Trump. A further blow was dealt in 2020, when Trump nearly won the Electoral College with a coalition that fused increases among minority voters with continued strength among working-class whites. Both of the “emerging majority” theory’s originators, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, have recanted it, with Teixeira becoming a fierce critic of his party’s fixation on identity politics.

One of the myths that came under scrutiny was that Hispanics could be treated as “voters of color,” a naturally Democratic group like African Americans, who would vote based on group solidarity. The left’s ill-conceived focus on skin color ignored the fact that Hispanics always had more in common with nineteenth-century European immigrants than with Blacks. Like white Catholics, Hispanics chose to come to America, thinking they might build a better life here. Blacks came here enslaved and lived under a regime of legalized oppression, bonding them together. Hispanics have also come to the United States from a panoply of different countries with about as much in common as Portugal and Poland.

In fact, the most common way that Hispanics in America identify themselves is not as Hispanic or Latino, or as members of a specific nationality, but as Americans. Polling my firm helped conduct among Texas Hispanics for Texas Latino Conservatives found them predominantly identifying as “American,” with nearly twice as many responses as the second most popular answer, “Texan.” “Hispanic” or “Latino” ran a distant third. Teixeira has also highlighted polling from the Voter Study Group that reveals that Hispanics would rather be citizens of the United States than any other country by a three-to-one margin.

Elements of both the left and the right have gotten Hispanics wrong at a fundamental level. They are neither an oppressed minority ready to be activated for a progressive agenda, nor third-world subversives ready to undermine the country’s Western heritage and traditions. They are something far less exotic: normal Americans. Just like the normal Americans of generations past who hailed from foreign lands, they eventually became recognized as members in good standing of the American mainstream and began voting like other Americans did.

Most explanations for the shift in the Hispanic vote have overemphasized tactical factors or issues specific to the 2020 election, like the specter of socialism or the issue of defunding the police. If socialism had been a decisive concern, the rightward shift would have been stronger in heavily Cuban and Venezuelan South Florida than it was in the Rio Grande Valley, where the population is Mexican or native to the region — but the shift was just as clear along the Rio Grande.

Both precinct and polling data from 2020 reveal a deeper realignment in most immigrant-heavy neighborhoods. Ideology seems to have played a role: Among non-white voting blocs, there is a significant mismatch between voter ideology and candidate choice; conservative nonwhites tend to support the Democratic candidate far more often than conservative whites. That mismatch shrank in 2020, as conservative nonwhites in every racial group swung towards Trump by a net margin of at least twenty-five points. There’s every reason to expect the ideological polarization will continue.

In November, the Rio Grande Valley will be a test case of whether this shift will stick. This June, Mayra Flores became the first Republican in more than a century to win a congressional seat there. She is defending it under more Democratic lines, and polls show her to be competitive. Flores is part of a trio of Latina Republicans — Monica de la Cruz in the 15th district next door and Cassy Garcia in the Laredo-based 28th district — who could make the Valley solid red in the next Congress.

In the Valley, the value of hard work seems to be a catalyst for the rightward shift among Hispanics. The idea that the Democrats “[support] government welfare handouts for people who don’t work” is what Hispanics have said they most dislike about the party, more so in the Valley, where voters were also likely to raise economic rationales for moving towards the Republican Party. “Hard work” was more readily associated with Republicans than Democrats by a fifteen-point margin.

The left has also lost the plot on border security, falsely assuming that Hispanics are activists for open borders. By a two-to-one margin — more in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas Hispanics choose stronger border security over letting in more asylum-seekers. The border patrol is a top employer in the region, and illegal migration is seen as an unwelcome incursion that makes their own neighborhoods less safe.

It is too soon to tell if Republicans will be successful in riding economic themes and border security to victory in the Valley’s three Congressional seats. Right now, they are favored in one — de la Cruz’s 15th — while the others are uphill fights against longtime Democratic incumbents. But even coming close would signal a durable shift among Hispanic voters in a region where Democratic incumbents were winning by more than twenty points in 2016. In either event, the long-term trajectory of Hispanics seems clear.

It might be a cliché to say that Hispanics only want what other Americans want. Of course, all groups differ from the norm to some extent. But the idea that Hispanics are fundamentally different from average Americans — resembling something closer to African Americans, with immigration as the new civil rights — led Democrats badly astray.

Like the ethnic whites of yesteryear, the predominant desire of Hispanics — and all immigrant groups — is to be more like other Americans, starting with the decision to depart their homelands in the first place. Being more like the rest of America has meant voting more like it.

This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 2022 World edition. 

By Patrick Ruffini

“A rebooted Ukraine is clamoring for more offensive arms”.

Pushing the Envelopes in Ukraine

So how does it all end, and Russian, Ukrainian, European and U.S. agendas become compatible? It doesn’t, and they won’t. 

By Victor Davis Hanson at American Greatness:

October 2, 2022

For all the dramatic late-summer Ukrainian success, we are witnessing yet another deadlock in the war—one that supposedly will be resolved by escalations on all sides.  

Mutually Exclusive Agendas 

A rebooted Ukraine is clamoring for more offensive arms. It claims it can win the war, with victory now giddily defined as sending every Russian back home in disgrace.  

Russia is screaming threats about using nuclear weapons—though how Vladimir Putin would use them remains in dispute. Putin is ominously no longer qualifying his Strangelovian threat with the adjective tactical, as he calls up 300,000 more troops.  

An addled and non-compos mentis Joe Biden only nominally remains the leader of the West. He initially refused to send offensive arms to Ukraine, and then offered to evacuate President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But now Biden 2.0 has blasted Putin as a killer, someone equivalent to the domestic semi-fascists he blasted in his Phantom of the Opera hate speech.  

Biden has called for Putin’s removal. But until Putin’s demise, he wants still more sanctions against Russia. Yet it is hard to distinguish who is more detached from reality—Biden, suffering from cognitive decline as he talks to dead people and shakes the hands of ghosts, or a physically ailing and paranoid Putin. Meanwhile American Vice President Kamala Harris is rambling about a mythical American alliance with lunatic North Korea and the need to disperse federal help to storm-ravaged Florida on the basis of race. 

The United States is sinking knee-deep into recession. Once again it is hit with spiraling fuel prices. No matter: Biden promises to borrow still more billions of dollars for Ukrainian aid as he drains the last drops of the strategic petroleum reserve that he inherited almost full. 

Biden is on record that there will not be a negotiated end to the war. He instead believes, to paraphrase Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, that the proxy disaster must serve the permanent weakening of Russia, the deserved humiliation of Putin, and his removal from office.

So how does it all end, or will it all end, with so many mutually exclusive and escalating agendas? 

The Ukrainians survived the initial Russian effort to decapitate their government and absorb Western Ukraine. Months later they are still frantically trying to push Russians back to, and even well beyond, their areas of control prior to February 23.  

Ukraine’s ultimate hopes seem threefold: (1) reestablishing their pre-2014 borders, (2) finding permanent collective security within the West, formally through NATO to acquire future deterrence from the Russian war machine, and (3) weakening the economic and social fabric of Russia itself to the point that it is no longer a superpower capable of such aggression. Translated that means Ukraine wishes to be a permanent proxy of the West, which will pledge its own strategic security on behalf of Zelenskyy’s agendas. 

Russia Has Other Plans 

As for the Russians, their idea of dissecting Ukraine by incorporating its eastern half and then gradually wearing down, whether economically or militarily, Western Ukraine, for now has failed.  

But Vladimir Putin is not entirely foolish. He has pivoted by redefining victory as institutionalizing and declaring as “Russian” the disputed borderlands, and soon Crimea, that he grabbed in 2014. To fight there, he will allege, is to go on the offensive inside Russia. He believes his misadventure in a year or two will still be seen as worth the terrible costs to the Russian people and the thousands of Russian and Ukrainian dead—if he can brag that he still insidiously continues to reclaim lost lands of the Russian Empire.  

In the mind of Putin, Russians’ current popular furor at his meat-grinder, at the sanctions, and at their global cultural ostracism will all fade—once Putin achieves his newly defined victory and brags that he turned back the intrusive proxy efforts of a decadent West.  

Putin’s propaganda constantly escalates. Now it focuses on the idea that Mother Russia is threatened by Western Nazi-like aggressors. Like the duplicitous Stalin, Putin turns his own September 1939-like aggression into June1941-like victimhood. 

So again, how do all these parties find pathways to their mutually incompatible versions of victory and thus see the war end?  

Ukrainian Dreams 

Ukraine would like to push the Russians out of its former territory before the winter sets in and an additional Russian 300,000 recruits, despite their poor quality, are streamed into the invasion forces. Russians are now de facto on the defensive. But they are also the beneficiaries of shorter interior lines and more effective propaganda that the soil of Mother Russia is now imperiled from the aggrandizing West.  

The use of American intelligence to assassinate Russian generals, and raid into Russia, and of sophisticated weapons to blow up Russian conscripts, and sink billion-dollar Russian ships only feed into Putin’s narratives. 

Meanwhile Ukraine—waging mobile and encircling offensives on its borders against a country of 145 million and an economy 10 times larger—soon will punch too far beyond its weight. Millions of Ukrainians are leaving the country. The Ukrainian economy is in shambles. Putin has inflicted trillions of dollars in damage to Ukrainian infrastructure that is beginning to resemble 1918 occupied France and Belgium. And Zelenskyy’s appetite for far more, and more lethal, Western weapons is insatiable.  

Ukraine also needs a far greater stream of replacement parts and ammunition. It demands much more Western money and economic aid. And it harangues for greater political and military Western solidarity to ensure that Europe and the United States, via NATO, would be permanently willing to deter a humiliated and defanged Russia from opportunistically resuming its aggression a few years down the road.  

Strategically, Ukraine feels that it must bleed the Russian military by hitting supply and staging areas inside Russia, and on the Black Sea. It apparently assumes such risky retaliatory escalation is achievable by denying these very attacks—and, if undeniable, justifying them because “Russia, not us, started it and they, not us, invaded a neighbor.”  

Even before victory is achieved, Ukraine talks of multitrillion-dollar reparations for the horrific damage and death inflicted upon it by a criminal Russian war machine. That demand is certainly justified and understandable. But historically, reparations are the stuff of postwar haggling among the victors—and commence only after the enemy is first defeated and helpless

Stefan Sauer/picture alliance via Getty Images

Western Reality Checks 

Will Ukraine then end up achieving all its long-term strategic goals? 

 Not likely and for a great number of reasons.  

A once haughty and sanctimonious green Europe is more terrified of returning to premodern winter cold and scarcity than ensuring it remains a loud model of postmodern energy sustainability. It is one thing to give Churchillian speeches in the Bundestag about new German solidarity with NATO, but quite another to send even a few multimillion-Euro Leopard tanks to Ukraine to blast away at Germany’s decade-long gas supplier. Remember, as the hated Donald Trump once warned, it was the diabolical Putin’s once dirt-cheap and reliable natural gas that gave German moralists the margins of error to push their suicidal green gospel upon the world. 

Critical Russian natural gas shipments to Europe are no longer guaranteed. It will take years for Europe to find comparable alternative new sources. Yet in these months before its impending 19th-century winter, the European Union still remains hostile to its own fracking and horizontal drilling, nuclear power, and coal generation.  

Under Joe Biden’s pressure, Europe passed on the win/win EastMed Israeli/Cypriot/Greek natural-gas pipeline. Some Americans talk grandly of saving Europe by shipping massive amounts of American liquified natural gas to new German terminals. But at home, Joe Biden has shut down pipelines as well as oil and gas fields. No president in the last 80 years has issued fewer new federal natural gas leases.  

Europe is still wounded by greens who, albeit more quietly, prefer unaffordable gas and oil prices. Bankrupting the fossil-fuel-guzzling middle class they believe will at least spur greater use of windmills, solar panels, and batteries.  

European leaders, however, who won over the American Left to their ritual cannibalistic green policies, now reverse course and beg the United States to drill all the hot-burning natural gas it can export. So, by next January, cold, broke, and immobile Europeans may resent even one more lecture from Volodymyr Zelenskyy about the need for more sacrifices on Ukraine’s behalf.  

American weapons are the best in the world—and apparently the most expensive and difficult to produce in massive numbers.  

Supplying Ukraine has squeezed America’s tactical and strategic weapon reserves down to dangerous levels—the military equivalent of Joe Biden’s draining the strategic petroleum reserve, even as global oil prices are once again spiraling, and the weather disrupts supply.  

Joe Biden has a bad habit of exploiting the petroleum and weapons bounty that he inherited from Trump, depleting and not replenishing it, and then covering his tracks by blaming Trump. 

The more our Ukraine proxy advances to the border, the more it sinks Russian capital ships and the more it conducts raids into Mother Russia, so all the more it relies, de facto, on the American or NATO nuclear umbrella in the face of Putin’s contrived threats.  

But are these ultimata completely empty intimidations?  

An aged and ailing Putin now cites America’s first use of a bomb over Hiroshima (that saved millions of lives by ending the Pacific war abruptly against Soviet Russia’s erstwhile four-year, non-aggression partner Japan.) To justify a nuclear strike, Putin weirdly insists U.S. World War II-area bombing was inhuman, forgetting that it served as a second front until June 1944 and thus forced the Wehrmacht to redirect homeward thousands of flak guns, fighter aircraft, and troops away from the Russian front.   

Surveillance photos show Russian transference of strategic bombers nearer to the Ukraine border. All the while Putin seeks ever more diabolical ways to decouple Ukraine’s sponsors.  

In sum, are the strapped American people now willing to up their nearly $100 billion supply pipeline to Ukraine, with assurance that its own cities are to risk Armageddon to deter Russian missiles over Kyiv? 

As for Russia, a wounded Putin knows even empty nuclear threats must be taken seriously. But they are just one tool in his apparent ample kit to frighten off Ukraine’s suppliers. Meanwhile, Russia keeps selling oil to its new, anti-American partners China and India—40 percent of the global population. He mobilizes more manpower. He transforms his stale propaganda from posing as a reluctant, legitimate oppressor to a noble oppressed victim. He watches the West slide into recession and mutual bickering, Biden slide into utter incoherence, and America slide into dangerous pre-midterm factionalism.

No End in Sight? 

So how does it all end and all these agendas become compatible? 

It doesn’t and they won’t. 

The once American, isolationist, and antiwar Left is now mimicking the old, interventionist, neocon Right. After the failure of the Russian collusion hoax and the various impeachments, it wishes to construct the war as proof that it was right all along about demonic Vladimir Putin—as if anyone ever doubted that he was a dangerous adversary who should never have been appeased by the embarrassing “resets” of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama—and Joe Biden.

Hillary Clinton’s own stealthy hiring of Igor Danchenko and Christopher Steele’s use of eager Russian sources to find dirt on her political opponent Donald Trump are ironic ways to warn about the dangers of Russian election interference. 

America, then, no matter its economic and fuel woes, no matter the dangerous loose mouth of a grumpy and fading Joe Biden, and no matter the loss of American strategic deterrence in 2021-22, apparently will supply Ukraine until the last Russian leaves the borderlands.  

As for Russia, it cannot fulfill even its limited goals, even with more oil money, more manpower, and more weapons—unless it can sever the supply of Western arms. So far nuclear threats, blown-up pipelines, fuel cutoffs, and Chinese, Iranian, and Indian help haven’t ended the Western-Russia proxy war.

So, Putin will still try to peel off individual NATO members with hyped threats of attack. He will hope he can sell his fuel to new customers and cut off, for good, his old dependent Western buyers. And he will search for new targets and areas for leverage, be it through cyberattacks, satellite interference, terrorism, fresh proxies, or Chinese help. 

The mere idea of a negotiated ceasefire or settlement that allows plebiscites overseen by third parties in the disputed territories between 2014 and 2022 is an anathema to all sides. So, the battlefield alone will apparently be the final arbiter—as it is so often in history.

Apparently, Ukraine, Russia, NATO, Europe, and the United States all believe their own war aims can be achieved and the unfortunate losers will accept the verdict and crawl away to lick their wounds.  

Good luck with that in the age of nuclear contestants, transcontinental cyberattacks, continental-sized energy dependencies, gain-of-function plagues, and globalized markets and interdependence.  

Or to put it another way, everyone is signing up for a very long, very cold winter.

Dem’s Lefty Fascist FBI IN ACTION!

October 3, 2022

The Seth Rich Case: The FBI’s Other Laptop Scandal

By Jack Cashill at American Thinker:

This is the tale of two laptops, one tale definitely damaging to the Democrats, one potentially so. What they have in common is that the FBI did its damnedest to bury both.

For all the hubbub about the Hunter Biden laptop, there has been little talk about the laptop owned by DNC data analyst Seth Rich. In the way of brief summary, the 27-year-old Rich was beaten and then shot by unknown assailants on a Washington, D.C. street in the early morning hours of July 10, 2016. His attackers appear to have taken nothing—not his wallet, not his phone, not his watch.

Seth Rich (photo credit: Linkedin via The Epoch Times)

Rich’s laptop was in his apartment not far from the scene of his murder. For six years, its fate has remained a mystery. In less than two weeks, however, thanks to a recent federal court decision, the FBI will be compelled to share its secrets, presuming there are any secrets and presuming too those secrets have not been scrubbed.

The FBI’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop is well enough known. The FBI took the laptop into possession in October 2019. If the New York Post had not revealed its existence and some of its highly incriminating contents in October 2020, the public might not be aware of it even today.

FBI whistleblowers and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley have pushed the Biden laptop back into the news. In a July 25  letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray, Grassley noted that the FBI allegedly “developed information in 2020 about Hunter Biden’s criminal financial and related activity,” but FBI Headquarters “improperly discredit[ed] negative Hunter Biden information as disinformation and caused investigative activity to cease.” The agent who blocked the Biden investigation from proceeding, Tim Thibault, resigned under a cloud a month ago.

The FBI’s M.O. on the Seth Rich laptop appears scarily similar. Its contents, like those of the Biden laptop, could have major geopolitical implications. Two weeks after Rich’s death, international man of mystery Julian Assange raised the interest level in his murder by strongly suggesting on Dutch TV that Rich was his source for the DNC emails then stirring up the hornets’ nest known as the Democratic Party. Assange subsequently offered a $20,000 reward to find Rich’s killer.

Three days before the November 2016 election, Assange reportedly told liberal media analyst Ellen Ratner that Rich was, in fact, his source for the DNC emails. Soon after Trump’s inauguration legendary investigative journalist Sy Hersh cited an FBI report confirming Assange’s claim.  Later that year, DNC head Donna Brazile dedicated her book, Hacks, to Rich and questioned whether the Russians had “played some part in his unsolved murder.”

A half-century or so ago, journalists would have been all over a story so rich in political intrigue. Not in 2016. Despite the stakes—or perhaps because of them—no major publication or network except for Fox News has even attempted to solve the still unsolved murder. The media quickly settled on a “botched robbery” scenario and scolded those who dug deeper. Fox News tried, and its execs rather wish they hadn’t. Fox got sued into submission by Rich’s parents. In fact, just about every independent investigator that took up this case has been sued or cancelled or dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Among those sued for his efforts was Ed Butowsky, a Texan financial advisor and occasional TV commentator.  In January 2017, he recorded a phone conversation with the profane and refreshingly candid Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner.  It was Hersh who alerted Butowsky and others to the FBI involvement in this seeming street crime. According to Hersh, the D.C. Police called in the FBI when its cyber unit failed to open Rich’s computer. The FBI’s “hot s—” cyber team succeeded and filed a report. 

As Hersh related, the report detailed how Rich “submitted a series of juicy emails from the DNC” to the WikiLeaks drop box and asked Assange for money in exchange for more emails. Hersh, however, had not seen the report itself. He cited a source on the inside who had been “unbelievably accurate” in providing Hersh information in the past.

Attorney Ty Clevenger, who represented Butowsky, has been working with “Texas man” Brian Huddleston to find out what the FBI knows. Clevenger began by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suits on behalf of Huddleston regarding Rich’s “involvement in DNC e-mail leaks” as early as August 2017. 

Judge Amos Mazant’s 53-page “memorandum opinion and order” documents each phase of FBI stonewalling from denial to the reluctant acknowledgement of 20,000 relevant files. “Had it not been for Huddleston’s persistence,” writes Mazant. “It is likely that the failure to locate over 20,000 pages of potentially responsive records would have gone unnoticed.”

The FBI denies Hersh’s version of events. Michael Seidel, an FBI official, contends in a declaration to the court that the FBI “offered to assist the MPD with its investigation; however, the MPD declined the offer.” As a consequence, the FBI “did not open an investigation into the death of Seth Rich nor did it provide investigative or technical assistance to the MPD.”

The FBI concedes that it has the contents of Rich’s laptop in its possession but also claims that it “had no involvement in the extraction of the data.” An unnamed “confidential source,” Seidel contends, provided that data to the Bureau. Not having extracted the data itself, the FBI cannot validate whether the information in its possession was actually on Rich’s laptop “at the time of his death.”

In a curious parallel, three months before Rich’s murder the DNC rejected the FBI’s help with the alleged hack of its computers, and then, too, the FBI rolled over. DNC staff alerted a DNC attorney at Perkins Coie, and he, in turn, recommended a private cyber security firm called CrowdStrike to clean up the mess. The Soviet-born Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike co-founder and chief technology officer, identified two hacker groups, “both working for the Russian government,” as the culprits. The media and the FBI accepted Alperovitch’s word as gospel.

Although claiming only a superficial knowledge of the content of Rich’s laptop, the FBI argued that his survivors have a “privacy interest” in withholding that information from the public. Mazant ruled otherwise: “The Court finds the FBI improperly withheld this information under FOIA.” He ordered the FBI “to produce the information it possesses related to Seth Rich’s laptop and responsive to Plaintiff’s request with 14 days of this order.”

In the movie version, the Washington Post newsroom is abuzz with the information contained in the Mazant memorandum. Reporters would want to know, at a minimum, who on the MDC rejected the FBI’s offer to help, why did the FBI so meekly accept the rejection, how could the FBI have been so indifferent to the laptop’s contents especially given its five-year fight to deep-six it, and who, finally, was the FBI’s confidential source? In the real-world version, unfortunately, the Washington Post shames those who ask such questions.

Three weeks after Rich’s murder, the FBI opened operation Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation into potential Trump-Russia collusion. This investigation would consume the FBI for the next several years. If Rich—and not the Russians—proved to be the Wikileaks source, the whole Trump-Russia narrative would implode, and the fallout would singe half of official Washington. In short, the FBI had even more motive to suppress the contents of the Rich laptop than it did the Biden one.

FBI techs have had six years to scrub the data. Pollyanna herself would be downright skeptical of retrieving anything of value. That conceded, the FBI went to considerable length in its declarations to distance itself from the contents of the laptop. No sane person would bet on this outcome, but those contents would make for a wonderful October surprise.

That Crooked New York Times In Action!

New York Times Helps Biden Pretend He’s Fixing Border Asylum Scam, When He’s Literally Making It Worse

BY: EDDIE SCARRY at the Federalist:

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

Border Patrol and migrants
For a fleeting moment, I was almost convinced by The New York Times that President Biden has taken even an infinitesimally small step in trying to manage the appalling numbers of illegal migrants flooding into the U.S. at the southern border. But per usual, anything read after the first three paragraphs of any immigration article at the Times will show that Democrats never care to do anything meaningful to halt illegal border crossers.

The story in question on Tuesday, no doubt the product of one quick call from an administration official to a couple of friendly reporters, declared at the top that “after months of debate in the White House, the Biden administration has begun to address a small slice of the problem: the woefully backlogged process to decide who qualifies for asylum, or protection from persecution, in the United States.”

The backlogged asylum litigation — which remains close to 1 million cases, each one taking an average of nearly five years to resolve (when the illegal border crosser actually bothers to show up for court) — isn’t “a small slice of the problem.” It’s the biggest problem. Protection for asylum seekers is intended for foreigners persecuted by their governments for political or religious beliefs. It wasn’t supposed to be a back door for all of South and Central America’s destitute to come here for jobs and welfare.

But word has gotten out south of Texas that Washington doesn’t really care. Both Republicans and Democrats have for years sat on their thumbs as impoverished Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans have dumped themselves by the hundreds of thousands into the care of the American taxpayer. More recently, it’s Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans. The surest way to buy time in the U.S. after breaking in illegally is to claim asylum. And it’s just enough time to disappear into the country (even with those very serious and stern court order papers destined for an outdated address).

The Times report went on to say that the Biden administration is attempting to process asylum seekers “faster” by giving the power to determine the validity of their claims to a number of officers who can make a decision quicker than it takes for the case to reach an immigration judge in court.

“Migrants will be interviewed 21 to 45 days after they apply for asylum, far faster than the years it can take in the existing immigration court system,” the report said. “A decision on whether the migrant is granted asylum must come quickly — within two to five weeks of the interview.”

The Times asserted that only a quarter of the 99 asylum seekers evaluated under the new rules were granted permission to stay. The rest were told to pack their bags and get the heck out.

Just kidding! The ones denied asylum status were then simply thrown into the mix of other migrants to appeal their cases in normal court proceedings.

In other words, it’s now easier to gain asylum status by illegally invading the country.

(By the way, 99 asylum seekers is almost .05 percent of the total number of migrants who illegally crossed the border in just August. There’s that Biden efficiency we’ve come to rely on!)

This would be like claiming to be pro-law enforcement by supporting the hiring of more police officers who have no authority to arrest suspected criminals.

Finally, in the 10th paragraph, the Times admitted the administration’s changes do absolutely nothing to mitigate the overwhelmed border. “The new rules … will not change the overloaded system for dealing with immigrants who do not claim asylum,” the report said. “And the challenge of how to quickly deport those denied asylum will remain.”

Cue the overhead lights and confetti. Surprise! You’ve once again been had!

It’s another reminder that Democrats don’t see the crush of migrants as a problem to be stopped, but as an opportunity (new voters) to be managed.


Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone.”

Biden, The Fascist Without A Brain!

The Democrat demographic god that’s failing

By Andrea Widburg at American Thinker:

For decades, Democrats have been certain that demographics would lead them to ultimate power. That wasn’t because they were having babies—actually, they were aborting them—but because America was becoming less White, and non-Whites were and would be forever reliable Democrat voters. Ah, hubris! It turns out that non-White people, just like White people, want a safe, clean, secure, and prosperous country, and the Democrats aren’t delivering. Surprise! Demography is not destiny.

From the day that Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and reputedly said “I’ll have those ****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years,” Democrats have taken for granted the votes, not just of Blacks, but of all non-White voters. In their mind, the one-time slave-holding party was certain that it “owned” these voters.

By 2002, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira had written an entire book on the subject: The Emerging Democratic Majority. The fact that Black women, a Democrat party staple, were sometimes aborting more babies than were being born, was irrelevant. Unlimited immigration was the answer. The Democrats happily added Hispanics and other non-White groups to the roster of voters they “owned.”

The Democrats’ certainty that the future was theirs (a certainty that invariably reminds me of this song; leftists are always so certain of their historic destiny), they forgot one thing: good governance. Under Trump’s watch, the economy soared, crime was at more or less normal levels, the border was becoming increasingly secure, and people of all races were benefitting.

In the twenty months since Biden took office, all those benefits have been reversed—and it’s obviously because the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Crime is soaring, the border is gone, the economy is tanking, we’re on the brink of a possible nuclear war, and the Democrats are using schools to turn our children into mentally ill, broken, racist people who don’t even know what sex they are. Outside of academia and Washington, D.C., these trends are viewed as complete policy failures. For all their talk, Democrats can’t govern.

No wonder that, according to the Wall Street Journal, there’s a huge and significant shift for all non-White voters, especially Hispanic and Asian: They’re trending Republican and doing so hard and fast.

The shift started during Trump’s administration, although it was offset by the fact that minorities in 2020 were still voting for Democrats and they (or, at least, their mail-in envelopes) turned out in greater numbers than usual in 2020 to vote for Biden. With Biden proving to be quite possibly the worst, most damaging, most divisive and, of course, most demented president in American history, the pro-Republican trend is continuing:

To find where the inroads for the Republican Party might prove most influential, The Wall Street Journal looked at census tracts—in essence, neighborhoods—in which 70% of residents are Latino, Asian-American, Black or from a mix of minority groups. We then compared how those neighborhoods voted in 2020 to the outcome in 2016.

The shift was most significant in heavily Latino neighborhoods—those in which Latino residents accounted for 70% or more of the population. The median shift across those neighborhoods was a 7.2-point increase in support for then-President Donald Trump, compared with his share of the 2016 vote, the Journal analysis found.

Keep in mind that the shift described above was before Biden destroyed the border and the economy, and Democrats welcomed a new era of violent crime, all of which strongly affect heavily minority (and, therefore, less affluent) neighborhoods most. One must imagine that anti-Democrat disaffection has grown since then.

Steven Hayward, at Power Line blog, has reprinted two of the most telling charts showing how dramatic the pro-Republican trend is among non-White voters. His post title says everything you need to know: “The Daily Chart that should terrify Democrats.”

Only one thing can destroy this heartening trend: Republican politicians and the Republican party. They are that stupid and that tone-deaf. It’s entirely possible that, mired in the past, they’ll continue to ignore the rising conservativism among minorities and, instead, keep trying to win young, college-educated middle-class Whites who are, mostly, a lost cause. I wish it weren’t so, but these young people haven’t been sufficiently mugged by reality to understand how the world works. They’re still invested in Democrat fantasies about the economy, immigration, gender, race, etc. It’s people in border towns and minority communities in both cities and suburbs who know the score.

Why Do Dems HIRE SO MANY CROOKS?

Within the last few days, the letter that the FBI sent to Peter Strzok when it fired him has been made public. The letter is dated August 8, 2018, and was signed by Deputy Director David Bowdich. Its rebuke to Strzok is stinging and unqualified. Here it is:https://www.scribd.com/embeds/597902354/content?start_page=1&view_mode&access_key=key-x5p6FSJaKVIOYYAXRExQ

View this document on Scribd

The language is largely quotable:

[I]t is difficult to fathom the repeated, sustained errors of judgment you made while serving as the lead agent in two of the most high profile investigations in the country.
***
[Y]our sustained pattern of bad judgement in the use of an FBI device has called into question for many the decisions made during both the Clinton e-mail investigation and the initial states of the Russia Collusion investigation. In short, your repeated selfishness has called into question the credibility of the entire FBI.
***
In my 23 years in the FBI, I have not seen a more impactful series of missteps which called into question the entire organization and more thoroughly damaged the reputation of the organization.

And yet, Peter Strzok is regarded as a hero by many Democrats. Check out his GoFundMe page, where he collected over $450,000 in donations from liberals. (Conservatives are often barred from using the GoFundMe platform, but the site had no problem with raising money for Strzok.) This raises the broader issue of the role of the Russia Collusion Hoax in modern history.

One might liken it to France’s Dreyfus Affair. In the end, there was no doubt about the fact that Dreyfus was innocent, and was vilely framed for political reasons. And yet, as Proust records, those who were pro-Dreyfus–those who were right–were never quite welcome in polite society. For many years, against all the evidence, some continued to insist that Dreyfus was guilty.

We see something similar with the Russia Collusion Hoax. Can you name a single Democrat who has expressed regret at the perpetration of the fraud? I can’t. Have the main organs that propagated the hoax–the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and the FBI and CIA–apologized, or done anything to bring about an accounting and make amends? No: the firing of Peter Strzok and one or two others by the FBI comes closest. And polls indicate that a great many Democrats still believe in the hoax. No doubt that is why so many were willing to pony up cash to support Peter Strzok.

In my opinion, the Russia Collusion Hoax continues to hang over our public life. It will continue to cast a shadow until Democrats are finally willing to admit that the whole thing was a lie, intentionally perpetrated by them and by their press organs and captive agencies, a lie that continued long after the truth was known.

But I suspect that acknowledgement will never come.