• 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

“The Democrats are getting ever closer to their train stop”.

November 14, 2022

The left’s newest stealth attack on free speech

By Andrea Widburg at American Thiinker:

America’s two most important rights are free speech and the right to bear arms. Without the first, no people are free; and without the second, there is no first. Totalitarians always go after both; that is, they silence and disarm them. For decades, the left has been open in its war on the Second Amendment. They’ve struggled more with the war on speech, but they may finally have come up with a new approach that will sneak around constitutional muster.

When it comes to speech that incites violence or is otherwise imminently threatening, the law has always been clear: The threat must be very explicit and imminent for the speech to lose its First Amendment protections. At the most simplistic level, saying, “I wish so-and-so were dead” is not an actionable opinion. However, saying, “I’m going to kill so-and-so this week” or “You all need to kill so-and-so; I’ve got a plan” is criminally actionable speech. (The standard is more sensitive when speech is directed at the president, of course.)

This constitutional limitation on making (conservatives’) political speech criminally actionable has long vexed the left. They’ve trained their young acolytes that speech is violence (so much so that almost half of college students say “hate speech” should get the death penalty) but, so far, courts haven’t fallen for that gambit. Unless speech creates an imminent threat, it gets a pass.

Lately, though, the left has come up with a new concept that seeks to say that any speech that opposes leftist policies is actual and imminent “terrorism.” Or as leftist academia calls it, “stochastic terrorism.”

Christopher Rufo discusses the concept in an important City Journal essay. He begins by revealing that he is being identified as someone who is directly responsible for the attack on Paul Pelosi:

I browsed the news recently only to discover that, according to a popular science magazine, I was responsible for the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi, husband to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

In an opinion piece for Scientific American, writer Bryn Nelson insinuated that my factual reporting on Drag Queen Story Hour was an example of “stochastic terrorism,” which he defines as “ideologically driven hate speech” that increases the likelihood of unpredictable acts of violence. On the night of the attack, Nelson argued, I had appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to discuss my reporting, and, hours later, the alleged attacker, David DePape, radicalized by “QAnon” conspiracy theories about “Democratic, Satan-worshipping pedophiles,” broke into the Pelosi residence and attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer.

Rufo points out that he had no contact with DePape, that he did not target DePape with his communications, and that it’s highly unlikely that DePape had ever come across Chris Rufo’s words. But according to Bryn Nelson, Rufo is in the line of liability for inciting violence against Paul Pelosi. How’d he do that? “Stochastic terrorism,” of course.

The scheme works like this: left-wing media, activists, and officials designate a subject of discourse, such as Drag Queen Story Hour, off-limits; they treat any reporting on that subject as an expression of “hate speech”; and finally, if an incident of violence emerges that is related, even tangentially, to that subject, they assign guilt to their political opponents and call for the suppression of speech. The statistical concept of “stochasticity,” which means “randomly determined,” functions as a catch-all: the activists don’t have to prove causality—they simply assert it with a sophisticated turn of phrase and a vague appeal to probability.

Though framed in scientific terms, this gambit is a crude political weapon. In practice, left-wing media, activists, and officials apply the “stochastic terrorism” designation only in one direction: rightward. They never attribute fire-bombings against pro-life pregnancy centers, arson attacks against Christian churches, or the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice to mere argumentation of left-wing activists, such as, say, opposition to the Court’s decision in Dobbs. In those cases, the Left correctly adopts the principle that it is incitement, rather than opinion, that constitutes a crime—but conveniently forgets that standard as soon as the debate shifts to the movement’s conservative opponents.

In other words, your opinions are terrorist threats that, ideally, should lead you to a long stint in a federal prison, while my opinions, which may be considerably more violent and imminent than yours, are nevertheless the beneficiary of First Amendment protections. Although the left hasn’t managed yet to criminalize stochastic terrorism, it is already using it successfully (with help from the DOJ) to silence speech it doesn’t like.

Lately, I’ve taken to reminding people of what the President of Turkey, Recip Erdogan, was reputed to have said some twenty-plus years ago: “In the mid-1990s, the mayor of Istanbul, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was quoted as saying, ‘Democracy is like a tram. You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off.’”

The Democrats are getting ever closer to their train stop. At that point, you can expect the Constitution to morph from being the shield of citizens against a tyrannical government into being the sword of government against those citizens who refuse to get with the program.

“So now it’s time to figure out who to blame”.

We can blame Mitch McConnell, too

His disastrous approach to spending money cost the GOP the Senate

November 14, 2022 | 8:52 am

mitch mcconnell

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Getty)

Written by:

Ben Domenech at the Spectator World:

So now it’s time to figure out who to blame. The post-election spin from the world of Mitch McConnell is that the GOP’s failure to flip the Senate is on Donald Trump and National Republican Senatorial Committee head Rick Scott, and that candidate selection and expenditures are the reason that we don’t have a Republican majority in the upper house. For anyone who paid attention, this doesn’t pass the smell test.

In the wake of a number of fractious primaries, GOP Senate candidates essentially went dark in the summer, their ad budgets expended and without the resources to get back on the air. Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer and the DSCC defined the Republican outsiders for a new audience of general election voters. Scott’s NRSC spent money early to push back — while McConnell sat on his resources and waited. McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund adopts a strategy that hasn’t worked for a decade of not spending until later. If Democrats convince over half the voters, in June and July, that the  Republican candidate is unacceptable, you cannot and will not change their minds in September and October, no matter how much you spend. Holding your fire until Labor Day just doesn’t work.

A comparison between Ron Johnson and Dr. Oz is enlightening here. By adhering to a strategic principle that hasn’t worked for a long time, McConnell and his SLF set up a number of candidates for failure. Just look at the discombobulation of New Hampshire, where they spent millions against Don Bolduc before he won the nomination, millions for him afterward, then pulled it because he said some not nice things about McConnell. The SLF exists in all practical terms for maintaining McConnell as Leader, not achieving a Republican majority.

Our leaders will learn nothing from these elections

If its purpose was the latter, then what happened in Arizona wouldn’t have happened. There, Peter Thiel offered to come in in October with additional spending for Blake Masters under an agreement where the SLF would match his spending. The SLF money never materialized, and the Masters team believes it’s because he said mildly critical things about the need to have generational change in GOP leadership.

McConnell’s approach in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election lost the Senate. His policy and campaign approach was a disaster in the twin Georgia runoffs. He is not a deserved leader in any sense of the word. He caves to the Democrats on every major vote. He refuses to advance any kind of agenda or plan or vision for what Republicans will do. His general attitude is one of calculated surrender. He is at his best when he does nothing — as he did with the Merrick Garland nomination. McConnell does nothing like a champ.

Denying McConnell the ability to exit the stage as a Majority Leader is bittersweet for Republicans who had strong hopes of taking the Senate. But their terrible showing may finally help them address the obvious failures of an aged leader obviously unsuited for the role in the modern era. McConnell’s approach was disastrous, and in an election with a long list of sins to go around, the most unpopular politician in the country should not escape blame.

“Now, was it good for socialists/Marxists/radicals to wash their hands of the Democratic party, and vice versa?”

Freddie deBoer

SubscribeSign in

The Agony of the Radical Democrat

things were simpler when radicals didn’t bother to ask anything of the Democrats

Freddie deBoer FDB

6 hr ago

Consider a certain kind of progressive who would prefer to think of himself as left-of-liberal. He’s a policy guy of some type. Like a lot of people these days, he fancies himself a critic of establishment liberals. Liberals are useless squishes! We need bold, radical action these days, says Left-of-Liberal. And you know who’s not giving us bold, radical action? The Democrats! And so they complain about the Democrats. Again and again. And again. What’s more, thanks to social media, the distance between Left-of-Liberal and the Democrats he despises is very short. They can’t avoid each other in the hothouse that is the online space. So he complains at Democrats and the people who advocate for the party, and they complain back, again, and again, and again. Thus a very bad vibe has spread across the land.

What I’d like to advance today is less of an argument and more of a story. The left-of-liberal scenario certainly was not unheard of, in my earlier days in politics, but it happened much less often. It happened much less often because it used to be the case that radicals and Democrats lived in very different worlds. When I was in college (2000ish to 2004ish) I was very active in my campus’s Progressive Student Alliance, which was the far-lefty group that was (unsurprisingly for the times) mostly devoted to anti-Iraq War, anti-War on Terror activism. Separately, I went to meetings where a couple of guys tried to get the College Democrats off the ground. (It may say something about college, or only my non-competitive commuter public school, that the PSA had dozens of committed members while the Dems could never attract more than a handful of people.) Here’s the thing: as far as I’m aware I was the only PSA member who ever attended a single College Dems meeting while I was there, and this was not at all surprising to anyone. Because the PSA was for socialists and radicals, and socialists and radicals did not get invested in the Democrats, understanding them to be a capitalist imperialist etc. party, and most Democrats would not get involved with groups like the PSA, seeing it as a hive of unrealistic sanctimonious purists etc.

Now, was it good for socialists/Marxists/radicals to wash their hands of the Democratic party, and vice versa? I don’t think so, no. The basic dilemma for the left is that you need to simultaneously a) understand that the Democrats will always fail you, and will do so because of their structural position within the system, not the individual integrity of specific Democrats and b) recognize that partisan politics is entirely too powerful a tool to simply wash your hands of, and that if the odds of Democrats doing good are a 1,000,000:1, the odds of a third party or the Republicans doing good are even less. This is not a comfortable position to be in and I take little pleasure in laying it out for you like this. It also wasn’t good for the Democrats to completely shut their ears to the radicals, as the radicals were right about many things – conspicuously at the time, we were correct about the War on Terror and the invasion in Iraq, where a lot of Democratic leadership was wrong, as well as about gay marriage, the dangers of Wall Street running loose, and sundry other issues. I can see the downsides of the social distance between these groups.

However, from a position of basic comity, the strict divide between radicals and Democrats did have the salutary benefit that people weren’t at each other’s throats all the time. Because there was such mutual disdain between Democrats and radicals, and because they resided in such (physically and intellectually) separate spaces, they didn’t spend a lot of time taking potshots at each other. Today, though, the two groups seem to be in constant contact with each other, contact that’s almost entirely unhappy for both. For a lot of people talking about left politics has become a major drag because so much of it involves yelling about what the Democrats should or can do, debated between people with a yawning chasm between their basic political views. Part of this is simply technological: in 2004, say, I was checking my brand-new Gmail account, but Facebook was restricted to a bare handful of tony universities and Twitter, Instagram, and Tik Tok didn’t yet exist. I did talk politics online, but on listservs that distributed emails to a self-selected group of people who had signed up for them and who were almost entirely left activists. I’m sure center-left incrementalist types had similar. Now, communicative technologies ensure that we’re all stuck in the same endless car ride together. But political changes contributed to today’s unhappiness as well.

What happened is that Bernie Sanders ran two credible-but-still-clearly-losing campaigns to be nominated as the presidential candidate of the Democratic party. Helping to spur even more energy into American radicalism than that which had already been generated through the financial crisis and Occupy Wall Street, Bernie’s movement minted untold thousands of new socialists. Crucially, the Bernie generation had no intrinsic distance from the Democratic party – Bernie was running to lead the Democratic party. Many of Bernie’s supporters were liberals, or else sort of hanging in that vague left-of-liberal-but-not-explicitly-socialist space. Bernie’s social democratic views became their lodestar, and the adoption of Medicare For All as perhaps the central goal of lefty politics is telling – M4A keeping the essentially private ownership of the medical system intact, in contrast to nationalization. Either way, the realm of the possible in partisan politics seemed suddenly much wider, which was especially appealing to a generation of people who have been financially screwed relative to their parents. And few of them had backgrounds as radicals, with explicit disdain for Democrats, to temper their enthusiasm or keep their expectations in check.

Sadly, as I keep reminding people, Bernie lost twice. But his relative success made control of the Democratic party seem like a fight worth contesting. The vicious infighting of 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Sanders supporters seems to have presaged a perpetual combat for the heart of a party that, a generation earlier, most radicals assumed was beyond saving.

“Trump supporters ask us to look at his record. On opportunity, he did quite well….!”

November 14, 2022

Viewing DeSantis Versus Trump Through The 2022 Election Filter

By Ted Noel at American Thinker:

Readers of this page will recall that I firmly promoted the idea (here and here) that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis should be the Republican 2024 Presidential nominee, not Former President Donald Trump. After the Mar-a-Lago raid, I changed my view and said that the raid had made him the essential nominee. If nothing more, his election would be an “in your face” repudiation of the lawless Democrat machine.

I don’t like feeling like a fresh caught fish on deck, flopping this way and then that. I suppose the saving grace in all my posts is that I don’t prognosticate in them. I try to stick to analysis, and in that process, I try to stick to facts. And at this point, new facts (not “our facts”) make it imperative that we carefully reconsider our options. In this process, I’d like to include by reference the discussion in my recent post-mortem of the election.

There are a handful of observations that must underpin our discussion. First, 2,000 Mules shows incontrovertible forensic proof that Democrat operatives stole the 2020 Presidential election. That multiple courts threw out lawsuits on technical grounds does not change this fact. It further does not change the fact that no court has actually ruled on the merits of the evidence. But none of this is meaningful moving forward unless it is used to prevent such fraud in the future. This is why the NTSB investigates plane crashes. If we understand the cause of a disaster, we may be able to avoid a repeat.

The state of Florida, spurred on by the hanging chads of the 2000 election, has been moving toward clean elections with multiple changes. We have legally required voter list maintenance. We have early voting that begins between ten and fifteen days before the final election date. Photo ID and signature verification are standard. And no private money may be used for government functions related to voting. Zuckerbucks are verboten.

Even though the Brennan Center declared the 2021 updates to be a “Sweeping Voter Suppression Law,” there weren’t any complaints of suppression after the fact. Democrats didn’t show up because their candidates were mostly awful, and Republicans had helped make Florida better.

Image: Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. YouTube screen grab.

Governor DeSantis didn’t talk about Trump’s election being stolen. He took material steps to make sure that it couldn’t happen in Florida. He didn’t focus on abortion in his debate with Charlie Crist. Instead, he focused on a Jamaican woman who didn’t go through with an abortion and had a daughter that DeSantis had just appointed to the Florida Supreme Court.

In states like Arizona, very electable Republicans Kari Lake and Blake Masters focused on the stolen election. They looked backward, and Masters (as of this writing) is a definite loser. Lake’s race is still in limbo. And it’s unresolved because Arizona has not adopted procedures that create a clean election we can rely on. Florida had complete results within twenty-four hours because of our procedures. Arizona expects to take over a week. In Nevada, Joe Lombardo defeated incumbent Governor Sisolak by focusing on how the Governor had damaged Nevada with draconian COVID restrictions, not by looking backward at the last election.

In short, the winners have been people who have looked at real, present-day problems and presented solutions. But Donald Trump simply hasn’t done that. He sees Ron DeSantis as his most viable opponent and is pre-emptively trying to destroy him. But instead of his attacks being echoed by the right wing, he’s being severely criticized, and with good reason. DeSantis has done lots of good things for Florida, and he doesn’t let reporters get away with lying with their questions. This translated into a twenty-point blowout win. The same can be said for Brian Kemp, the freshly re-elected Governor of Georgia. He shepherded an election integrity bill through, and a clean election has comfortably kept election denier Stacey Abrams out of office.

Americans like competence. They love freedom. And they demand opportunity. Where candidates can show the voters, not just tell them, that these are their touchstone principles, they win. Easily. Trump’s guiding light is loyalty to Trump. That’s not a winning issue, largely because he has so much vitriolic personal opposition. And America can’t stand another four years of Brandon.

Trump supporters ask us to look at his record. On opportunity, he did quite well, with measures to improve American business. Unemployment in all parts of the economy was at record lows, with excellent growth and low inflation. But most of America can’t see that, or they would have run Democrats out of town with this election.

“Only A Handful Of Seats….”

NOVEMBER 14, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:


Tom Bevan is president of RealClearPolitics and a real clear observer of the American political scene. He has posted a thread on the results of the midterm elections on Twitter. There is a lot to chew over here. I submit it to interested readers at the bottom of this post.

Tom tactfully observes that Republicans “will gain only a handful of House seats…” He leaves open the question whether Republicans will pick up a majority and position themselves to slow down the destructive effects of Biden administration policies on the well-being of the United States. Politico’s Steven Shepard observes that there are 10 seats still in doubt and both parties have a shot. Shepard’s story is “Control of the House remains on a knife’s edge. Here’s how it could break.”

Over the weekend, we visited blue wave city with the 10 most recently called House races flopping for Democrats. Before serving up a breakdown of the up-for-grab races, Shepard notes that the battle for the House will be resolved on 10 seats that are “in doubt[.]” Shepard finds “six with Republicans leading, and four where Democrats are ahead — both parties still have a shot, though the GOP is still favored.”

UPDATE: Following my early morning post above, RedState’s Mr. Bonchie commented on the state of play in “Republicans Mercifully, Finally Get Some Good News Regarding the 2022 Election.” I found it a useful addition to the mix.





“The Disappointing Republican Midterms!”

November 13, 2022

With This Obstacle in Place, Republicans Can’t Get the White House

By Fletch Daniels at American Thinker:

Surveying the wreckage of the disappointing Republican midterms, voters were left scratching their heads, trying to figure out what went wrong.  With the fundamentals being as bad as they were this year, Republicans underperformed expectations, and it was fairly obvious that they would experience no red wave by early in the evening on Election Night.

While I’ve seen plenty of postmortems already, the single biggest issue that wrecked the wave was mail-in voting combined with ballot-harvesting, which all but eliminated Republican hopes in states where Democrats control the voting rules.  This is why Senate polls were so wrong in these states. 

The two states where the impact was most obvious were Pennsylvania and Michigan, but it snuffed out real Republican chances all over the map in states where the Democrats control voting laws.  Pennsylvania literally elected a dead man, and I’m not even talking about the pro-crime radical with such severe brain damage that he can’t form a coherent sentence. 

With two of our kids having gone to college in Michigan, we spend a fair amount of time visiting there.  As near as I can tell, the only Michigan residents who actually like Gretchen Whitmer are in her immediate family.  And yet she easily beat an impressive Republican candidate.  In a fair election, Tudor Dixon wins that race easily.  But that’s the point.  These aren’t fair elections.  They are rigged.  And even great candidates taking on miserable ones go down in flames.  The lone bright spot out of Michigan was John James winning Michigan-10.

James Carville said his party would have lost 57 seats but was saved by Donald Trump.  Nonsense.  They were saved by mass mail-in voting and ballot-harvesting.  That is the fundamental difference between today and 2010, when Republicans won 63 seats during Obama’s first midterm.

The other narrative that is being tossed around is that Republicans had poor candidates.  Again, this is to be expected, since many people are using the election to attack former President Trump.  But it’s a foolish take.  You will never have perfect candidates in every race.  But, across the board, Republican candidates were far superior to those the Democrats put up, with only a couple of exceptions.  

I’m even skeptical of the claim I’m seeing bandied about that David McCormick would have won the Senate seat in Pennsylvania.  Perhaps.  But, considering that there were enough ballots flooding the zone to elect the worst candidate in recent memory, I doubt it.  The Democrats built a ballot-collecting machine in Pennsylvania that spit out a radical ogre who can’t articulate a single intelligent thought.

The Democrat media like to label Republican politicians as election-deniers and ask for them to swear fealty oaths declaring that they believe that all elections are fair and legitimate.  But I’d be hard pressed to find a single Republican who still believes that elections are fair since the lack of logic and common sense needed to believe such a proposition would likely make them either ostriches or Democrats.  That’s a crisis in and of itself, the kind of crisis that can lead to a horrible unraveling that nobody should want.

Republicans used to joke about needing to win above the margin of fraud, which was generally accepted to be relatively small.  But now that Democrats can flood the zone with ballots that they can collect over the course of weeks, that is now far too steep a hill to climb in all but the reddest areas.  Every ballot they send out is easy to convert into a vote.

It has taken states off the competitive map.  Democrat officials mail out massive numbers of ballots to people who would never bother to vote, and their operatives collect those ballots and run up the score.  It effectively eliminates the concept of the low-propensity voter, since operatives see to it that all the ballots are requested and rounded up.

Within these ballot collection systems, there are no effective checks in place to stop voter fraud, and Democrats resist any attempt to apply any form of ID requirement.

That’s a feature of the system.  It is meant to open the door to massive fraud that is virtually undetectable.  Considering how fast Pennsylvania was called, does anyone really think they were validating the mail-in ballots?  Throw them all into together and count them, both the good and the bad.  That’s the name of the game, and in close states, it is nearly foolproof.

It is going to be very hard for Republicans to win back the White House with key states now being blocked.

President Donald Trump shocked the world in 2016 by picking off Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.  Using COVID as the excuse, Democrats have successfully rigged the system in those states so that it never happens again.  I don’t care who run as Republicans in 2024 — he will be hard pressed to overcome the ballot-harvesting in these states.

The red wave crashed on Florida because this is not allowed.  How many of the votes in Miami-Dade would have flipped had operatives pressured residents to hand over ballots?  Democrats are angry that they couldn’t effectively manipulate the Florida elections.  Ana Navarro made that clear enough when she accused DeSantis of gaming the system and creating an unlevel playing field, which, in liberalese, means that he shut down the cheating.

The Republican state party in the ballot-collecting blue states will need to adjust to this new environment and start ballot-collecting itself.  Entering Election Day staring out of a pit is not a winning strategy.  But that’s not enough.  They will never be able to out-Democrat the Democrats, who are unbound from ethical considerations. 

Republicans need to go scorched earth in trying to overturn this grotesque practice, which is more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes that want to maintain the appearance of democracy.  This brings back memories of the hapless Dan Rather listening as Saddam Hussein told him he got 100% of the vote, with no pushback from the godfather of fake news.

At the time, Hussein’s top deputy, Izzat Ibrahim, commented, “This is a unique manifestation of democracy that is superior to all other forms of democracies.”

That’s what power-mad Democrats have created in key states: a “unique manifestation” of democracy that produces results not much more believable than a Mideast dictator winning 100 percent of the votes, where winning is the only thing that matters.

Republicans need to get mass mail-in ballots and ballot-harvesting before the Supreme Court as part of a voter disenfranchisement case.  That should be their endgame because that is the heart of the issue.  If Fetterman can win in Pennsylvania and Whitmer can win in Michigan, actual voters don’t matter that much more in those states than they did in Iraq.

Now is the time to go all-in on a legal strategy.  If Republicans wait until the start of the 2024 cycle, it will be too late.

They should also hold hearings on voter integrity and flash a blazing light on the issue.  This is also why it is so important that Kari Lake wins in Arizona.  The Republicans desperately need smart and fearless communicators who can lead the charge on this issue and blast through the media’s demagogic spin.

While Republicans need to redouble efforts in opposing the Democrat’s America-last globalist agenda, they need to focus significant effort on voting integrity.  That means they need to go to war through every legal means possible to end mass mail-in voting, while seeking to completely outlaw ballot-harvesting.  If they don’t, history will keep repeating itself until America collapses under the weight of Democrat corruption.

 Fletch Daniels can be reached on Twitter at @fletchdaniels.