• 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 Importance of BEING GLENN?



One podcast I try not to miss is The Glenn Show, hosted by Brown University economist Glenn Loury, and I make a point of never missing his regular every other week guest, the Columbia linguist John McWhorter. I am slow in getting to McWhorter’s most recent book, Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. Here’s his case that “wokery” is literally the new religion of the left:

I do not mean that these [woke] people’s ideology is “like” a religion. I seek no rhetorical snap in the comparison. I mean that it actually is a religion. An anthropologist would see no difference in type between Pentecostalism and this new form of antiracism. Language is always imprecise, and thus we have traditionally restricted the word religion to certain ideologies founded in creation myths, guided by ancient texts, and requiring that one subscribe to certain beliefs beyond the reach of empirical experience. This, however, is an accident, just as it is that we call tomatoes vegetables rather than fruits. If we rolled the tape again, the word religion could easily apply as well to more recently emerged ways of thinking within which there is no explicit requirement to subscribe to unempirical beliefs, even if the school of thought does reveal itself to entail such beliefs upon analysis. One of them is this extremist version of antiracism today.

With the rise of Third Wave Antiracism we are witnessing the birth of a new religion, just as the Romans witnessed the birth of Christianity. They way to get past seeing the [woke] Elect as merely “crazy” is to understand that they are a religion. To see them this way is not to wallow in derision, but to genuinely grasp what they are.

(….no thank you, folks….It’s just one of those strange occurences! However, IT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO KNOW YOUR WOKE ENEMY! It’s not glenn h ray!

“Apple is facing the specter of at least one antitrust bill that could curb its monopolistic practices.”

The GOP Must Resist Big Tech’s Lobbying Efforts To Save Face With Conservatives

BY: RACHEL BOVARD at the Federalist:

DECEMBER 05, 2022

apple store with big apple logo lit up

Despite what Tim Cook might claim, Apple has no intention of acting as a good-faith partner with the conservative movement.  

Author Rachel Bovard profile


You’re totally prepared to fight your longstanding enemies in pitched battle, but are you ready to be wooed by them? 

The Republican Party’s recently elected members — as well as whoever assumes the gavels in the House — better be mentally primed to be confronted by Big Tech, and not by its daggers, but rather by its sweetest of entreaties. The Silicon Valley behemoths have been at this game for a long time and have resources to burn. Not only do they outspend the defense industrial complex in lobbyists, but they have also think tanks and academics on their payroll to launder their business positions into academic and policy pablum.

In the wake of the first installment of “The Twitter Files” — which confirm just how much the tech executives despise the political right — the Big Tech Reunion Tour has kicked off. 

The House hasn’t even elected its speaker, but Apple CEO Tim Cook has already descended upon Capitol Hill to meet with top Republican lawmakers. Apple is facing the specter of at least one antitrust bill that could curb its monopolistic practices, so its future market cap is likely tied to how effectively the corporation’s captain can cozy up to the new sheriffs in town.

The GOP must go into these “discussions” with Cook not merely with eyes wide open, but set to face gushing talk of “shared values” and perhaps too what resembles apologies for past behavior. Despite what Cook might mouth, Apple has no intention of acting as a good-faith partner with the conservative movement.  

Look no further than how quickly Apple moved to kneecap the social media company, Parler, from its App Store, despite no evidence that Parler’s users “organized” the Jan. 6 riots any more than users on Facebook and YouTube. In fact, charging documents from the Department of Justice cite posts on Facebook and YouTube at a higher rate than posts on Parler, but Facebook and Google (which owns YouTube) were never threatened by Apple with de-platforming. 

Apple is now facing calls from activists and the corporate media to do the same thing to Twitter now that it’s owned by Elon Musk. Despite what Apple might try to sell to lawmakers, it is not a neutral market access point for social media apps. Together with Google, Apple monopolizes the distribution of apps and wields its power ideologically. 

This makes sense when you consider that Apple is staffed primarily by leftists. According to an analysis by Open Secrets, almost 90 percent of political donations from Apple employees went to Democrats last cycle. This has been the balance for a while. Two years ago, even the left-leaning CNBC named Apple one of America’s “most liberal tech companies” based on employees’ political donations. 

Partisan leanings alone don’t trigger a policy response. But lopsided political donations should smack Republicans with the clear message that Apple employees? Yeah, they’re just not that into you.

Apple’s kowtowing to China is also gravely disturbing. Even as the CCP further tightens its authoritarian grip, evidenced by its latest round of lockdowns and the jailing of pro-democracy journalists like Jimmy Lai, Apple brashly displays its eagerness to continue making a buck. This past week, amidst arguably the most widespread unrest since 1989, Apple restricted AirDrop for iPhones sold in mainland China. The file-sharing feature had been widely used by protesters.

Moreover, Apple reportedly lobbied against a bill in 2020 that would have effectively prohibited American companies from using slaves to make products. Then last year, investigative reporters and human-rights groups accused seven Apple suppliers of being linked to suspected forced labor of Uyghur Muslims and other persecuted groups.

What’s clear is that Apple’s current “values” are neither of the conservative movement nor our nation as a whole. Anti-competitive bullying, let alone blatant disregard for intrinsic human rights, is foreign to the American creed. 

Now, conservatives, so accustomed to being reviled and spurned by the leading institutions of popular culture, have shown themselves easily swooned by the most minor pleasantries, and embarrassingly eager to meet with the celebrity CEOs who, in every other context, hate us. It’s a scene straight out of the movie “Mean Girls,” where the high school nerd gets punched in the face by the popular girl and joyfully exclaims, “It was awesome!” 

The GOP should know that its constituents are watching closely the outcome with Big Tech, and we’ll punish it in the public square and at the ballot box for lacking a backbone. To our new members and future leadership, we say, don’t hoodwink our movement, don’t stiff America, and please — stop protecting the companies who so openly despise us. 

Rachel Bovard is The Federalist’s senior tech columnist and the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute.

“Twitter is a powerful instrument for good and evil.” Today’s Dems Are SO ADEPT PLAYING WITH THE EVIL!

 DECEMBER 6, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:


Herewith a few short notes on the Twitter Files disclosing the suppression of the New York Post’s reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop three weeks in advance of the 2020 presidential election.

• Twitter is a powerful instrument for good and evil. Elon Musk’s efforts to create a new Twitter with a favorable disposition to free speech has made him an enemy of the regime. They are crying that this cannot be allowed to stand. The regime is searching for an angle to do to Musk’s new Twitter what old Twitter did to the New York Post reporting. The fight is ongoing and barely visible.

• The Post’s reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop was powerful and important. The Post deserved a Pulitzer Prize for its work on the case. The roster of 2021 Pulitzer Prizes/Journalism reads like a satirical masterpiece in light of the Post’s work on the Biden laptop.

• While I think Twitter’s uses are manifest, they do not include long-form journalism. Matt Taibbi’s thread on old Twitter’s suppression of the Post’s reporting makes for an awkward exposition. Yet Taibbi’s exposition establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Twitter had no bona fide reason for the suppression of the Post’s reporting.

• Taibbi’s exposition is missing a few pieces. Miranda Devine fills in one of them in the New York Post column “FBI warned Twitter during ‘weekly’ meetings of Hunter Biden ‘hack-and-leak operation’ before censoring The Post.” The Post editors follow up today in “FBI’s fake ‘warnings’ about our Hunter story were clearly a coverup to aid Joe Biden.”

• The suppression of the Post’s reporting was a deep state operation. It first manifested publicly in the open letter of the deep state 51 reported by Natasha Bertrand for Politico and posted online by Politico. Bertrand’s story was headlined “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.” Politico posted the letter here. According to the deep state signatories, the Post’s reporting “ha[d] all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

• What are the “earmarks”? Do they have a lot in common with investigative journalism? Do they involve authentication of the underlying documents?

• The signatories of the letter italicized this: “Perhaps most important, each of us believes deeply that American ci8zens should determine the outcome of elec8ons, not foreign governments. All of us agree with the founding fathers’ concern about the damage that foreign interference in our politics can do to our democracy.” And this: “If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.”

• Ah, the inexhaustible uses of “our democracy” and Russia, Russia Russia!

• The signatories also italicized a concluding sentencing commenting on reports that the “…federal authorities are investigating whether the material supplied to the New York Post by Rudy Giuliani…is part of a smoke bomb of disinformation pushed by Russia.” The signatories modestly disclaimed personal knowledge: “We do not know whether these press reports are accurate, but they do suggest concern within Executive Branch departments and agencies that mirrors ours. It is high time that Russia stops interfering in our democracy.”

• What do the deep state 51 have to say now? Jon Levine reports in the New York Post: “Former top intel chiefs silent after Musk Twitter disclosures.” The few who have spoken stand by their sham.

• Hey, what about Natasha Bertrand? What does she have to say?

• Twitter of course had its own deep state man serving as deputy counsel of the company. Jonathan Turley takes up this element of the case in “Twitter files reveal familiar name in Hunter Biden laptop scandal: James Baker.” Quotable quote: “For many, James Baker is fast becoming the Kevin Bacon of the Russian collusion scandals.” At his own site Professor Turley called it “Six degrees from James Baker.”

• Just as the MSM fell into line suppressing the Post’s reporting in advance of the election, it has now fallen into line condemning Matt Taibbi. Mediaite compiles “The Twenty-Seven Most Embarrassing Reactions to Taibbi Thread About Twitter Censoring Hunter Biden Tweets.”

• Matt Taibbi drew attention to the Mediate compilation in the tweet below.


• Here we have a compilation packed into a tweet

America’s Conservatives Solving Problems

December 6, 2022

DeSantis for Trump

By Earick Ward at American Thinker:

Ron DeSantis has been an outstanding governor and has withstood his share of slings and arrows from the rabid left.  He’s effectively maneuvered COVID, has taken on the radical LGBT and Black Lives Matter (CRT) communities, and most importantly has ushered in election reforms that have leveled the playing field for Republicans in the State of Florida.

These battles will continue and will need to be fought at the national level.  Ron DeSantis has without question established his bona fides.  When the time comes, he can and will be a solid replacement to take on the globalists who are seeking America’s destruction.  Our current leader, Donald Trump, has been kneecapped (Tanya Harding style) by a myriad of Deep State players who have lied, cheated, and colluded to deny him (and us) of our legitimate seats of power.

If justice (true justice) is not meted out against those who cheated us of victory in 2020 (and 2022), then, as Donald Trump suggests in his latest tweet, what rules are we, as society, ruled by?

Are we (minions) to live by the constraints of the Constitution while our Washington betters live by their own set of rules?

Shall we just wipe clean past abuses committed against Donald Trump (and us) and move on to a new candidate for president?  I think not.

Should we think Ron DeSantis will be treated fairly if we abandon Donald Trump because so many in Washington (including the GOPe) are aligned against him?  Do we think Google and Facebook, TikTok and Instagram, CNN and MSNBC, CBS and PBS, or Fox News will embrace our more polished candidate?

Ron DeSantis could see a weakened Donald Trump as an opportunity to slide into “his” spot and to seize his opportunity now.  This would be a grave mistake. You see, it wasn’t just Donald Trump who got kneecapped; it was 80+ million of his supporters.

Donald Trump was wronged.  We were wronged.  Ron DeSantis could cement his future by helping Donald reclaim what was his (ours).

Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis (with Elon Musk) working together would be a powerful force.  Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis would both suffer by attempting to split 80+ million American patriots.

The left will continue in its dishonesty.  The fight ahead will be intense, but the fight behind us is yet to be fought.  We must continue to expose the vile nature of the left — its lies; its schemes; its collusion; and yes, its illegal, unconstitutional practices.

As Captain Darrow tells Nicolas Cage in National Treasure, “someone’s got to go to prison, Ben.

Let’s join forces and fight our last battle, and then move on to victory in 2024 and beyond.  Someone arrange a détente between Ron and Don, and let’s get off our heels and take the fight to our leftist adversaries.

We’ve got a country to save.

“Democrat electoral cheating is not a Trump fantasy”.

December 6, 2022

Democrat Voter Fraud: A Brief History

By J.R. Dunn at American Thinker:

This is a “brief history” because the complete history of Democrat electoral malfeasance reaching back to Tammany Hall and Tweed would require four volumes or more. (I’m running into the same problem with a new book I’m outlining analyzing the Democrats as a criminal organization, much like the Mafia or the Camorra.)

So a brief history it is, limited to the past thirty years or so. Believe you me, there’s no lack of cases even in that short span.

The Dinkins Magic Voting Machines

Just days before voting in the 1993 David Dinkins/Rudolf Giuliani election, the New York Times reported that a number of voting machines had been found in a closed Manhattan school. All the machines were loaded with votes for Democrat incumbent David Dinkins.

Voting proceeded without the help of those machines, and of course Rudy was elected. But that was the end of it. As far as I’ve been able to learn, there was no investigation, no inquiries, or, for that matter, any further reportage on it. A Democrat attempt to steal the NYC mayoral election was flushed down the memory hole.

An Inconvenient Decision

We all know the absurdist story of the 2000 presidential election. But it’s often overlooked that Al Gore was attempting an outright steal of a presidential election, a bold move not to be repeated until 2020 – and he attempted it with the open assistance of the judiciary.

The leftist version is well known, since it’s all we ever hear – George W. Bush was only ahead by 900 votes in Florida when Gore, in the pure interest of fairness, requested a simple recount, at which point the right-wing extremist Supreme Court leapt in and handed the victory to Bush by fiat. (This, by the way, has served as an excuse for all electoral cheating since that point – “the GOP started it in 2000… We have to cheat, to protect democracy.” As to what excuses the myriad cases of cheating that occurred beforehand… well, don’t ask me. I dunno.)

What actually happened is that Gore’s crowd created a strategy in which every possible vote-counting method would be utilized, with recounts repeated as many times as necessary until one was finally discovered that would overturn the results. These included attempts to carry out recounts only in Democrat strongholds such as Dade County while shutting down any such efforts on the Panhandle, home to many military retirees.

The Bush campaign took Gore to court to prevent such schemes, until finally, given the opportunity at last, the Florida State Supreme Court – almost exclusively Democrat-appointed — found in favor of Gore’s demand that ‘undervotes” – ballots showing no presidential vote at all – be counted, while at the same time “awarding” him nearly 500 votes, a novel concept unheard of in American jurisprudence up to that date.

It was here, facing the prospect of a presidential election thrown by a corrupt Democrat court in full public view and in defiance of established precedent, that the U.S. Supreme Court finally stepped in, overturning the Florida court’s decision and ending the recount circus. Bush won with 537 votes. (A later media recount showed that Bush’s lead would have held in any reasonable recount process.)

Votes from the 8th Dimension

The 2004 Washington state gubernatorial contest between Republican Dino Rossi and Democrat Christine Gregoire ended with Rossi up by 261 votes. A machine recount left him still ahead by 42 votes. The state Democrats paid over $700,000 for a hand recount, and whaddaya know… Votes started appearing from any and all conceivable sources. A bag containing votes here…  an electoral official’s car there… it’s surprising they didn’t start falling out of the sky like the frogs in Magnolia.

By the end of the year Gregoire was ahead by 130 votes and was inaugurated on January 12. Rossi, God love him, continued fighting, taking Gregoire to court over the blatantly illegitimate votes. A Pierce County judge tossed the votes out, only to be overruled by the Washington State Supreme Court. A final decision didn’t come for six months, when Judge John Bridges, a Democrat appointee, tossed aside the concept of “chain of custody” to find in favor of Gregoire. Rossi should have continued on to the U.S. Supreme Court – after all, a critical legal concept was being overthrown – but he does get an E for Effort, since he did more than any other Republican in recent memory.

The Washington case enshrined the concept that all Democratic votes, whether they emerged from a portal into hyperspace or were discovered in a 2000 B.C. Sumerian temple, had to be counted no matter what the circumstances. GOP votes… not so much.

Goshdarnit, People Liked Him

A similar chain of events occurred in the election of Al Franken in Minnesota in 2008. Incumbent Norm Coleman originally prevailed with over 700 votes, which were mysteriously whittled down to 200 in short order. Franken called for a recount, and begorrah, the votes suddenly started appearing. Some, anyway — an envelope of votes from one county simply disappeared, but were counted regardless, the totals evidently being read out from tea leaves. By the time it all ended, Franken was ahead by 312 votes. Coleman, a Republican gentleman of the old school, made perfunctory efforts at protest, but was undercut by the GOP itself, led by former governor Arne Carlson, a RINO to rule them all, who had refused to endorse Coleman during the campaign.

Shortly after the election, it was discovered that at least 1,099 illegal votes had been cast by felons, and this had been known during the vote count, but had been ignored. Franken exchanged his diapers for a suit and spent the better part of two terms voting the way he was told and embarrassing his party before being forced out during the “MeToo” craze.

Trump Agonistes

At this point anyone who needs convincing about cheating during the 2020 election needs their own personal TED Talk covering it. While media keeps telling us it has been “debunked,” they never quite get around to details such as when, where, by whom, and on what grounds.

What’s often overlooked is that 2020 was layered operation, with efforts taking place from the most exalted corridors of power down to the lowest one-legged precinct worker. Consider the Hunter scandal(s). Following the NY Post’s blockbuster report, 52 members of the “Intelligence Community” published a letter in Politico asserting that it was a Russian dezinformatsiya exercise. Intelligence operatives also approached social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook with the same yarn, with Dorsey and Zuckerberg eagerly censoring the story. The entire saga, featuring hookers, crack, stifled investigations, payoffs from China and Ukraine, and 10% for the “Big Guy,” was buried until well after the election. This, playmates, goes by the term “election interference.”

Following the vote, polls revealed that up to 17% of voters would not have voted for Biden if they’d known about Hunter’s escapades. That’s the election right there. So how has this been debunked? It hasn’t — there’s no way it could be; it’s right out there in the open, stinking like a dead skunk. It has simply been ignored.

As for cheating at the voting level, everything that needs to be said was said in 2000 Mules, which summarized True the Vote’s investigation into the “irregularities” surrounding the election. The mechanism was simple: left-wing operatives dumping armfuls of votes into isolated drop-boxes at three in the morning. Literally thousands of hours of footage of this activity exists, and is featured in the film. (My favorite bit of evidence here involves the single bust of voter fraud that occurred – in Louisiana, of all places — A critical piece of evidence involved fingerprints on the fake ballots. Within hours, vote dumpers across the nation appeared suddenly accoutered with vinyl gloves.)

It seems to me that it would be easy enough to “debunk” this if you really wanted to – simply track down those lefty operatives (we know who they are) and find out what they were actually doing in the middle of the night dropping boxloads of ballots while wearing gloves. If they’ve got a reasonable answer, fine. But they don’t… that’s why such “debunking” has never and will never occur.

True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips were arrested on trumped-up contempt charges just a week before the 2022 election. What a coincidence!


Which brings us to the latest reports, in which the Democratic Party astonished the world by abandoning 170 years of duplicity to allow the first completely clean national election in nearly two centuries.

Actually, no… having gotten away with 2020 — so far — the Dems saw no reason to hold back. While something on the order of 400 laws reforming electoral procedures have hit the books since 2020, it wasn’t enough. None of these were in blue states, and few if any in purple ones.

So Fetterman was not elected in Pennsylvania, and Kelly and Hobbs were not elected in Arizona, and Cortez Masto was not elected in Nevada. These are the results of cheating, blatant cheating in Arizona and Pennsylvania (250,000 bogus votes were intercepted in PA before the election, and sequestered by order of both the state and federal Supreme Courts, decisions which acting Secretary of State Leigh M. Chapman ordered election officials to ignore. Does anyone want to bet those were the only ones?)

Arizona is a unique situation, with the contest overseen by… Katie Hobbs, acting as secretary of state. This is unbelievable, the equivalent of putting Hunter Biden in charge of the DEA. Kari Lake is admirable in many ways, but how she allowed this one to get by her I cannot surmise. This should have been a major issue from day one and fought relentlessly all the way through. It’s a simple fact of nature: give a Democrat an opportunity to cheat, and cheating will happen, as the sparks fly upward. There is no excuse for overlooking this by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Once again, we need to call on Goldfinger’s dictum: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action. We are way past “three times” at this point.

Three points follow. First, Democrat electoral cheating is not a Trump fantasy. The Dems have been cheating since they first emerged from the roiling chaos of Andrew Jackson’s id. Tammany, the Locofocos, the Jim Crow South, Frank Hague, Tom Pendergast, Harry Hopkins, the Cook County machine, Joe Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson… It’s one long saga of corruption from beginning to end.  The suggestion that the Dems are totally corrupt in their approach to elections is not a novelty, nor is it a slander. It is a simple statement of fact. Claims to the contrary are nonsense, as are the media assist-me-to-my-fainting-couch fits every time the topic comes up.

The Dems have taken a system of fraud developed over a century’s time and steadily weaponized it over the past three decades. It is a science at this point. Its most glaring weakness is that, like any con, it requires near-open cooperation from its victims to work.

Which the GOPe has been happy to supply. Republicans have made next to no effort at any point to put a stop to it. Not even Rudy, the GOP’s attack dog, made an effort to shine a spotlight on Dinkins and his little games. And if the man who took down the New York mob wouldn’t touch it, what can we expect from the flock of capons currently running the Republican Party?   

Years ago, when I was in real estate in New Jersey, there was an immigrant from a Slavic country living in downtown Passaic. He had been mugged over sixty times. Local thugs would wait until he left to shop for groceries, then follow him to the store and simply relieve him of the bag when he emerged. The city cops offered him a radio (this was well before the cellphone era) so that he could summon them when it happened again. “No, no,” he wailed. “It would only be taken from me.”

The emotions aroused by this story include pity, sympathy, and heavy admixture of glee and contempt. This may seem mean, but it’s also healthy.

The Republican response to Dem electoral cheating arises from the same source, a gutlessness indistinguishable from sheer cowardice.

Things may at last be changing. Trump blew the whistle on the whole scam – one of the major reasons they hate him. Now Kari Lake is redeeming herself by promising to hammer Kathy Hobbs and the Arizona Dems for as long as it takes.  This is a good start — but it’s only a start.

There are dozens – perhaps as many as a hundred – populist conservatives joining Congress at the beginning of next year. Investigating voter fraud (particularly involving Hobbs, and her snipers on the rooftop) represents their opportunity to make their mark.

This is the second election in a row marked by impossible results. Not “extraordinary,” not “unusual,” but impossible. Joe Biden did not get 81 million votes. Fetterman could not have been elected by a sane electorate. Catherine Cortez Masto was not saved by magic votes arising from spontaneous generation. All these outcomes are outside the realm of the possible. All were produced by a sophisticated, highly developed system of cheating. Eventually, we’ll have to put a stop to it, one way or another.

That Foul World Of TikTok In Action!

Ban TikTok, now

China is using the social media app against America’s children


[…]TikTok is not your average social media app in the amount—and type—of data it collects. It aggressively harvests data. A recent report by the Australian-U.S. cybersecurity firm Internet 2.0 shows that the app has access to precise device geolocations, user contact lists, and calendars, and can even scan hard drives. Security researcher Felix Krause recently uncovered that any external link opened from the app will trigger TikTok to record all subsequent keyboard entries and taps on the screen.

Like other tech giants, TikTok knows the names, ages, phone numbers, and emails of its users. But unlike other social media giants, this aggressive data harvesting establishes a user profile that includes precise locations, biometric data (face and voice), keystroke patterns, metadata, and, as Commissioner Brendan Carr points outs, text, images, and videos that are stored on a device’s clipboard.

[…] It isn’t just that the CCP is stealing data that they will use against us. The app’s algorithm is stronger than any other and is now linked to mental illness, increased anxiety, depression, and, perplexingly to experts, neurological damage, including 10 times the increase of Tourette syndrome in teenage girls. TikTok usage also correlates with perpetuating the eating disorders and gender dysphoria that are ravishing their way through America’s teenage girls. It also unleashes a flood of videos that question the viewer’s gender and extol and affirm gender-fluidity and “switching” genders, encouraging millions of teens towards confusion, anguish, and even irreversible bodily harm.

Because of TikTok’s reinforcing algorithm, impressionable young minds are affected by such content, video after video. As a Wall Street Journal report concluded, the app acts on young people’s brains like a “candy store.” Another clue that the CCP is aware of the pernicious effect of TikTok in the West—those algorithms don’t work the same way inside China. Instead, the Chinese version has a “Youth Mode” for anyone below the age of 14. Inside China, rather than videos that seem to encourage mental breaks and social dysfunction, the algorithms promote educational content and life hacks. The app inside China also limits children’s use to 40 minutes per day and bans all overnight scrolling.

(The above article was sent by Mark Waldeland.)

“Americans may look back on this moment as the beginning of the end of Big Tech’s covert censorship regime.”


Twitter Files Setting Stage for Reckoning on 2020 Election Interference

Posted Monday, December 5, 2022   |   By AMAC Newsline   email sharing button

AMAC Exclusive – By Shane Harris


New Twitter owner Elon Musk set the internet ablaze Friday afternoon by suddenly announcing that, after reviewing the company’s internal documents, the public would soon learn “what really happened with the Hunter Biden story suppression by Twitter.” A few hours later, journalist Matt Taibbi (to whom Musk had presumably given the documents) released a roughly 40-tweet thread in what Musk hinted was just the first installation of “The Twitter Files.”

In the end, the series of screenshots and revelations that Taibbi published wasn’t the “smoking gun” that many conservatives had hoped would take down Big Tech, the Democratic Party, and the mainstream media in one fell swoop. But the Twitter thread nonetheless confirmed long-held suspicions about collusion between Big Tech and elected Democrats, and it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Twitter “moderators” indeed suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story two years ago without any reason to believe that the story was false or “Russian disinformation.” Perhaps more importantly, Musk’s courageous effort to expose censorship and election meddling has now thrust the issue back to the forefront of the national conversation, paving the way for conservatives in both the media and Congress to continue their struggle against the enemies of free speech.

Taibbi’s Twitter thread began by recounting how Twitter’s “moderation” tools, originally designed to keep content like direct threats of violence and child pornography off the site, eventually evolved into a way for Democrats to outsource censorship to Twitter’s left-wing staff. “More to review from the Biden team,” read one screenshot from October 2020, followed by a series of links that led to posts showing images from the now-infamous Hunter Biden laptop. “Handled,” came the reply a few hours later, presumably indicating that the Biden team’s request to remove the posts had been granted.

As Taibbi recounts, the suppression of the New York Post bombshell story that first broke news of the laptop was only the culmination of a years-long censorship campaign by Twitter staff. When the story was released just a few weeks before the election, internal emails show that it sent Twitter staff into a frenzy, grasping for any justification to block distribution of the article or even mention of the story. This effort resulted in the suspension of the New York Post’s entire account, as well as the account of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and many other high-profile conservatives.

Initially, the excuse for blocking discussion of the story on Twitter was that the laptop contained “hacked materials.” The only problem, as internal company emails show, is that there was absolutely no evidence that any of the laptop’s contents were hacked. “They just freelanced it,” one employee told Taibbi. “Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold. But no one had the guts to reverse it.”

Communications between top figures at Twitter and Democratic lawmakers in Congress soon after Twitter censored the story confirm what conservatives have long suspected – Democrats and Twitter employees knew that there was no legitimate justification to suppress the story, but Twitter plowed ahead anyway. One unexpected hero of the saga is progressive Congressman Ro Khanna of California, who wrote to Twitter General Counsel Vijaya Gadde that Twitter’s suppression of the story “seems a violation of the 1st Amendment principles… in the heat of a Presidential campaign, restricting dissemination of newspaper articles (even if NY Post is far right) seems like it will invite more backlash than it will do good.” Other Democrats warned that a “bloodbath” awaited Twitter and other Big Tech executives in hearings on Capitol Hill.

Ultimately however, Khanna kept his reservations between himself and Gadde, while other Democrats and the mainstream media continued to lend credence to the narrative that the laptop was “hacked materials” or “Russian disinformation.” The story was effectively scrubbed from the airwaves until after the election, when Twitter and multiple media outlets who attempted to discredit the story begrudgingly issued mea culpas.

An important detail missing – at least from this first chapter of “The Twitter Files” – is a direct link between Twitter employees and government actors in agencies like the FBI or the White House. We know from this tranche of screenshots that members of Biden’s campaign team requested that Twitter remove specific posts and high-profile accounts talking about the story. New York Post columnist Miranda Devine has also claimed that she has seen a sworn affidavit from the Twitter executive ultimately responsible for censoring the story that shows he had met with the FBI and other intelligence officials who had warned him “specifically of what they called a hack and leak operation, a dump of Russian disinformation” involving Hunter Biden, although that document has not been released publicly. What isn’t 100 percent clear yet is if federal bureaucrats specifically requested back in 2020 that Twitter censor the story, or if Biden White House officials – many of whom worked with Twitter to suppress the laptop story while they were on the Biden campaign – have continued to work with Twitter in their official capacity as public servants to censor information.

Those details may be well on the way, and Musk has already promised “Episode 2” of The Twitter Files in the coming days. But nonetheless, Taibbi’s reporting delivered an important bath of sunlight in confirming collusion between the Biden campaign and Twitter employees. For perhaps the first time, the public got a glimpse into the censorship machine inside a Big Tech company and was able to see the direct links between Big Tech executives and Democrat politicians.

It is also important to keep in mind that the “laptop from hell” is just one small part of a much larger story that is not confined to just Twitter. Exposing how censorship works at Twitter may be the key to revealing similar operations at Facebook, Google, and other Big Tech companies. With a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives set to take power in January, there is now clear momentum and public support for inquiries into potential First Amendment violations at Big Tech companies, as well as congressional legislation to protect online speech from political censorship. Amid other revelations about censorship campaigns taking place within the career federal bureaucracy, several congressional Republicans are already agitating for investigations.

In the years ahead, Americans may look back on this moment as the beginning of the end of Big Tech’s covert censorship regime. “The idea here is to come clean on everything that has happened in the past in order to build public trust for the future,” Musk said during a Twitter Spaces discussion on Friday shortly after Taibbi finished his reporting. So far, so good.

Shane Harris is a writer and political consultant from Southwest Ohio. You can follow him on Twitter @Shane_Harris_.

“How are the woke companies and institutions doing?”

December 5, 2022

The Left Preaches, but Doesn’t Practice, Diversity

By Brian C. Joondeph at American Thinker:

Diversity, equity, and inclusion are rallying cries of Democrats and the left, spawning an entire industry dedicated to achieving these goals, regardless of necessity, practicality, fairness, or cost.

Diversity simply implies differences, an innate feature of humans as no two people look, act, or think the same. Here is a definition from one such organization whose goal is that we all march to the diversity, equity, and inclusion drumbeat. 

Diversity is the presence of differences that may include race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, language, (dis)ability, age, religious commitment, or political perspective. 

Notice that most characteristics cannot be discriminated against by law, not hiring or firing someone over their race or religion, for example. At the bottom of the list is a surprising focus on diversity, namely political perspective.

YouTube screen grab

This means that companies and institutions that proudly practice diversity and virtue signal over their wokeness, should themselves be leading the charge of making sure that their organizations seek diversity in not only gender and sexual orientation, but also political perspective.

How are the woke companies and institutions doing? Are they walking the diversity walk or simply talking the talk?

The College Fix answered this question, “Zero Republican professors found across 33 departments at seven universities.” What are these universities? “The Ohio State University, University of Nebraska-Omaha, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Georgia, Cornell University, University of Oklahoma and the University of Alaska-Anchorage.”

These are all large elite institutions, a mix of public and private, and even a school from the uber-woke Ivy League.

Taking their analysis further, “The College Fix identified just 61 Republican professors across 65 departments at seven universities. In contrast, 667 professors were identified as Democrat based on their political party registration or voting history in party primaries.”

How is that for diversity of political perspective? It’s not the university locations either, “Six of the seven states analyzed are primarily Republican, with the exception of New York. Yet, all universities showed a strong Democratic tilt among their faculty.”

These school are far left islands, as are most major universities, even if surrounded by conservatives outside their ivy-covered walls. “When broken into Democrat and Republican, 92 percent of professors identify as Democrat and only 8 percent identify as Republican. That amounts to Democrat professors outnumbering Republican professors by a ratio of 11 to 1.”

et these schools allocate enormous resources toward diversity. Cornell, for example, has a website devoted to diversity and inclusion, including restroom and facilities guidelines and supplier diversity. But there is no section emphasizing political diversity, hence Cornell and other similar universities only selectively creating diversity, becoming politically homogenous.

Ohio State has a similarly flashy website emphasizing “inclusive excellence and racial justice” but no acknowledgement of political perspective diversity.

American universities have always leaned left, but it has become more pronounced in recent decades, as research from the Higher Education Research Institute found, “In 1989-1990, when HERI first fielded this survey, 42% of faculty identified as being on the left, 40% were moderate, and another 18% were on the right. This is not a normal curve – it is a clear lean to the left.”

Flashing forward, “Almost three decades later in 2016-2017, HERI found that 60% of the faculty identified as either far left or liberal compared to just 12% being conservative or far right.  In 1989, the liberal: conservative ratio of faculty was 2.3. So in less than 30 years the ratio of liberal identifying faculty to conservative faculty had more than doubled to 5.”

Another study from a Brooklyn College professor found, “Democrats dominate most fields. In religion, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is 70 to 1. In music, it is 33 to 1. In biology, it is 21 to 1. In philosophy, history and psychology, it is 17 to 1. In political science, it is 8 to 1.”

This analysis of liberal-arts colleges ranked highly by US News and World Report, “Found no field in which Republicans are more numerous than Democrats.”

It’s not only academic institutions not walking the diversity walk, but also tech companies. These are the companies quick to pressure customers or even entire states that for example feel it is inappropriate for young girls to use a men’s bathroom, all in the name of tolerance and diversity. But when it comes to political diversity, these companies fall short and feel no need to practice this type of diversity themselves.

Here is a short list of woke tech companies and the percent of their employees’ political donations going toward Democrats. Netflix 98%, Nvidia 93%, Adobe 93%, IBM 90% Salesforce 89%, Alphabet (Google) 88%, Microsoft 85%, Apple 84%. From a 10:1 to an 81 ratio, there is no diversity of political perspective in big tech.

One gem in the recent Twitter Files reveal was that Twitter employees contributed to Democrats over 96% in 2018, increasing to virtually 100% in 2022. How is that for political diversity? Twitter was likely, at least pre-Musk, staffed by representatives of most of the 72 genders, making them gender diverse. But for politics, only one perspective is tolerated.

Those who screech “diversity” the loudest, are the least diverse when it comes to that one pesky aspect of diversity, namely “political perspective”. While they gush over how progressive it is that America has an Assistant Secretary of Health and an Assistant Secretary for Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition who are both grown men who dress as women, within their own companies, only one political viewpoint is encouraged or tolerated.

One can argue against the entire concept of “diversity”, where people are categorized and promoted based on superficial characteristics rather than following the words of Martin Luther King, Jr, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Imagine how much richer educational and corporate institutions would be with diversity extending to differing political viewpoints. And at the least giving credibility to other aspects of diversity, allowing the woke virtue signalers to practice what they preach.

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and writer. Follow me on Twitter @retinaldoctor, Truth Social @BrianJoondeph, LinkedIn @Brian Joondeph.

“the lie at the heart of the debate”

The Future Of The First Amendment Hinges On The 303 Creative Case Before The Supreme Court

BY: DAVID HARSANYI at the Federalist:

DECEMBER 05, 2022

Lorie Smith

The attack on Lorie Smith is both authoritarian and unconstitutional.

Author David Harsanyi profile


Saying anything you like — or refraining from saying whatever you want — is one of the most fundamental rights in a free nation. Without it, the First Amendment is worthless.

This week, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the case of Lorie Smith, a Colorado designer who refuses to create websites with messages that conflict with her faith — among them, gay wedding announcements and celebrations. The case not only gives the court the opportunity to strengthen the right to free expression, but to fix its useless Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision, which empowered the government to level debilitating fines against Christian businesses just as long as bureaucrats didn’t openly convey any animus towards their victims.

In The New York Times today, David Cole, the national legal director of the ACLU — which has come a long way since defending the Nazis of Skokie on neutral principle grounds — says “The First Amendment Is Not a License to Discriminate” (before the headline was edited post-publication). Why? Because otherwise, “interior decorators, landscape architects, tattoo parlors, sign painters and beauty salons, among countless other businesses whose services contain some expressive element, would all be free to hang out signs refusing to serve Muslims, women, the disabled, African Americans or any other group.” During Monday’s arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor similarly claimed that the case would be “the first time in the Supreme Court’s history” that it would allow a business to “refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.”

This is the lie at the heart of the debate.

First off, if leftists insist on framing the speech debate as a binary choice between compulsion and discrimination … then yes, free expression, explicitly laid out in the Constitution, should trump the right of a stranger to walk into a store and demand the owner say something he does not believe. Using Sotomayor’s identitarian calculus, a shopkeeper would never be able to refuse the demands of any customer who happened to be gay.

But neither Lorie Smith nor Jack Phillips turned away any customer because of an immutable characteristic or sexual preference or religious belief. Rather, they refused to create a message that conflicted with sincere convictions. If a straight cousin of a groom asked for a same-sex wedding site, Smith would have turned that person away, as well. If a gay customer wanted a website for his business, Smith would have created it. If a straight couple asked for a bawdy website or a website that declared Xenu the one true Lord of the universe, they too would have been rejected, because that idea also runs afoul of her evangelical Christian beliefs. It’s a shame that Cole and Sotomayor pretend not to comprehend the distinction.

Progressives like to act like Christian (or Islamic or Jewish) opposition to same-sex marriage is some newfangled ruse cooked up by activists to allow them to put “no gays allowed” signs in the shop windows. I assure you that the notion that true marriage is exclusively between one genetic man and one genetic woman is a generational notion. Before his “evolution” on the question, Democrat icon Barack Obama had tethered his opposition to gay marriage to theology.

Whether you agree with this stance or not is entirely irrelevant when it comes to the matter of speech. There is no Hurt Feelings clause in the Constitution. Rather than dealing with the question, Cole, who has a difficult time seeing anything in nonracial terms, lists a slew of scary slippery slope hypotheticals — among them: “Should an architecture firm that believes Black families don’t deserve fancy homes be permitted to turn away Black clients because its work is ‘expressive’?”

Here is a better question: Would Cole, who says the “A.C.L.U. has been this nation’s leading defender of free speech for more than a century,” call for the state to intervene in the case of an evangelical customer who wants to compel a gay designer to create a website for an organization that works to overturn same-sex marriage laws or preaches that acts of homosexuality are a mortal sin? Christians, after all, are also a protected group under anti-discrimination laws. The answer is: highly unlikely.

The point is, and has always been, punishing wrongthink. As Cole argues, “no artist has to open a business to the public in the first place.” Christians, he advises, should not open businesses, they should follow the example of noted photographer Annie Leibovitz, and choose their subjects. So, if your career entails any measure of creative expression, but you still cling to ancient faiths — start espousing the prevailing societal mores, or forget the open marketplace.

If we want a diverse and open society — and I’m highly skeptical that’s the goal of Cole or Sotomayor — one side of the cultural divide can’t be empowered to crush the economic lives of anyone who dissents. There are thousands of businesses that will bake the cake or create the website. Public-accommodation laws were meant to stop discrimination against minorities, not compel minorities to promote the political and theological positions of the majority.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a nationally syndicated columnist, a Happy Warrior columnist at National Review, and author of five books—the most recent, Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent. He has appeared on Fox News, C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News and radio talk shows across the country.