• 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

“David Winston is the president of The Winston Group and a longtime adviser to congressional Republicans. He previously served as the director of planning for Speaker Newt Gingrich.”


Pelosi started a war Jeffries has to finish 

She broke precedent for the Jan. 6 select committee, and now Democrats are stuck with it

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line, and now Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries can’t go back, Winston writes. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line, and now Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries can’t go back, Winston writes. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

By David Winston at Roll Call:

Posted January 25, 2023 at 6:00am

In the days before George Washington was to set a historic precedent by taking the oath of office and becoming the first president of the United States, he was often heard to say, “I walk on untrodden ground.” 

The reluctant Washington no doubt understood that, as one Mount Vernon historian wrote, “the precedents he set must make the presidency powerful enough to function effectively in the national government, but at the same time these practices could not show any tendency toward monarchy or dictatorship.”

He also understood that how he constructed and conducted this first presidency would set standards and practices for every president to follow. Over time, as the country changed, so has the presidency. But the deference to precedent, whether in the courts or the Congress or the Oval Office, has generally served the country well.

Certainly, there have been times when creating a new precedent has been warranted. The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education is a good example. In other moments of the nation’s history, the choice to break precedent has been crassly political. Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to end the filibuster for all judicial and executive branch nominees, save the Supreme Court, was partisan politics at its worst. Ironically, it led not to a liberal court, but a conservative one.

Democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi, should have learned from Reid’s mistakes. When breaking precedent, be careful what you wish for. 

But Pelosi apparently learned nothing from Reid’s flagrant partisanship when, in her determination to control the Jan. 6 select committee’s scope and narrative, she egregiously broke precedent by refusing to seat the minority members selected by GOP leaders. 

“With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee,” she said. Pelosi didn’t choose to share the substance of those “statements” or “actions,” nor provide any proof to back up her allegations.

Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy responded by pulling all the Republican nominations. Pelosi then threw salt into what was rapidly becoming an open wound by seating two Republican members rejected by GOP leaders.

Pelosi opened a Pandora’s box in order to ensure a specific narrative and avoid a bipartisan discussion of the events surrounding Jan. 6. What she did was start a war.

And here we are today. Republicans call Democrats, who voted two Republicans off their committees in 2021 because of their past “behavior,” hypocritical, given the behavior of Adam B. Schiff and Eric Swalwell over the past six years, from the Russia hoax to Swalwell’s alleged earlier association with a Chinese spy. 

Democrats argue that Schiff and Swalwell have over “two decades of distinguished leadership providing oversight of our nation’s Intelligence Community,” calling them “eminently qualified.” 

But both sides are now arguing the wrong point. 

The fact is when Pelosi, much like the monarch Washington feared becoming, made her unilateral decision to reject the appointments of Jim Jordan and Jim Banks to the Jan. 6 committee, she broke, perhaps irretrievably, the long-standing tradition that the minority party chooses its own members for standing and select committees. 

In January 2022, McCarthy characterized her move this way: “The Democrats have created a new thing where they’re picking and choosing who could be on committee. Never in the history [of Congress] have you had the majority tell the minority who could be on committee.” Until Pelosi. 

No one is arguing that Speaker Pelosi didn’t have the power to do what she did. But was it the right thing to do? Her legacy now includes becoming the first speaker to strong-arm a select committee into existence and dictate its composition without the participation of the legitimate minority party leadership. 

And it was a major unforced error, because what she did effectively codified what McCarthy is doing now, keeping his promise of last year to boot Schiff and Swalwell from the Intelligence Committee if Republicans regained the majority. Even Pelosi herself admitted as much in a statement at the time the select committee was constituted when she said, “The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision.”

So, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries can thank his former leader for leaving him with the aftermath of another heavy-handed decision by Pelosi. He would have been wise to try to repair the damage done by her rejection of a bipartisan look into the actions or inaction leading up to Jan. 6 and opt for a fresh start with a new Congress and a new speaker. That’s what the majority of the country wants. 

But, in one of his first moves as minority leader, Jeffries chose instead to throw down the gauntlet. In a letter this week to McCarthy, Jeffries ignored Pelosi’s recent history and wrote, “It is my understanding that you intend to break with the longstanding House tradition of deference to the minority party Intelligence Committee recommendations and deny seats to Ranking Member Schiff and Representative Swalwell. … I urge you to honor past practice of the House of Representatives and our mutual interest in working together for the good of the American people by accepting my recommendation.”

But that is exactly what McCarthy is doing, following precedent — Pelosi’s precedent that the speaker of the House has the power to unconditionally reject the minority party’s nominees for certain committees, Intel being one of them. What Pelosi did was affirm that prerogative and for any reason the speaker cites. 

McCarthy is in the process of doing just that in the case of Schiff and Swalwell. 

“As recently as 2004, 91% of Americans were extremely or very proud to be American and the United States ranked first in the world in national pride”. 

January 26, 2023

America’s Future is Bleak When Only 27% of the Younger Generations are Proud to be American

By Steve McCann at American Thinker:

I first encountered unabashed pride in being American when I came to the United States in 1951.  I sailed across the Atlantic alone.  Perhaps someone along the way told me tht I was going to the United States; however, as a seven or eight-year-old I knew nothing about the nation that had granted me refuge.  Upon disembarking in New York what stood out was not the awe-inspiring and intimidating skyscrapers seemingly reaching to the heavens, or for the first time in my life seeing a city not lying in ruins from the ravages of war, but that there was a palpable atmosphere of confidence, optimism, self-reliance and above all pride among the people in this new and mystifying country.

I soon learned that this mindset permeated the entirety of this vast nation and had since its founding, thus, enabling it to evolve into the most successful nation-state in the annals of mankind.  While no nation can ever create an ideal society, due to certain immutable characteristics of the human race, no country has come closer to doing so.  It is the only nation in history committed to right societal wrongs, to live by the underlying tenets of Judeo-Christianity and govern itself by means of a written Constitution that reflects those values.

As recently as 2004, 91% of Americans were extremely or very proud to be American and the United States ranked first in the world in national pride.  However, in less than twenty years there has been a stunning reversal that portends a dire future for the United States as a precipitous erosion in national pride has undermined societal confidence, self-reliance, optimism, and cohesion. 

A recent poll revealed that a record low of just 68% of the citizenry are extremely or very proud to be American.  However, underlying that overall dismal outcome is the reality that among the two youngest generations only 38% of Millennials and 16% of Gen Z are proud to be American despite being the beneficiaries of living in a unfathomably prosperous nation that has not known any profound national adversity since the Great Depression. 

What we are seeing play out is the reality of demographic change in America as the younger mal-educated generations account for over half of the populace and are increasingly becoming culturally and politically influential.  Within these generations an overwhelming majority have been indoctrinated by socialist/Marxist ideologues to believe that a capitalist United States as founded is irredeemable and must be transformed.

Over the past sixty years, as the oblivious governing generations slept and reveled in America’s prosperity, the American Marxists relentlessly infiltrated the legacy media, the entertainment complex, and the education establishment.  Their ultimate objective was to indoctrinate the younger generations into mindless foot soldiers that would foment future societal turmoil — the primary tactic for achieving permanent political power. 

These institutions espoused, in a disciplined and endlessly repetitious manner, a message that is the epitome of simplicity.  First, the United States is and always has been an unfair, racist, rapacious and imperialist nation.  Second, only the American left and their hybrid socialism/Marxism can guarantee fairness, equity, and prosperity for all.

What far too many throughout American society, but in particular among the Millennials and Gen Z, fail to understand is while this messaging about the fictitious wonders of socialism/Marxism has been utilized repeatedly for over 150-years, the motivation and character traits of those that are currently espousing it in the United State are as old as mankind itself. 

Among the unalterable characteristics of the human race since its beginning is the insatiable need by some within a tribe, clan or society to control or subjugate their fellow man.  The history of mankind is an endless chronicle of internal wars and conquest of other societies.  

With the evolution of modern technology and weaponry, gone are the days when megalomaniacs could by sheer force of determination and arms impose their will on the citizenry within their society.  Another means and new tactics had to be found to achieve that end while still relying on military force to conquer other societies. 

The mid-19th Century saw the Industrial Revolution and the rise in living standards and literacy among the populace in Europe.  It was at this time that the tenets of socialism/Marxism migrated from the obscure writings of a few into the political mainstream. 

The segment of mankind that considers themselves superior to and destined to rule the masses, adopted the underlying tenets of socialism/Marxism not because they believed in them but as a mechanism for achieving a stranglehold on political and societal power.

Virtually all of the proponents of socialism/Marxism, including Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao Tse-tung, and Castro among many others, knew the specious promise that the state through a new ruling class would guarantee the citizenry security, fairness, and unending prosperity would appeal to a significant segment of a fractured society.  The key was to either to create or exploit existing societal chaos.

The public relations aspect of that delusive promise was combined with the tactics of pitting one segment of society against another, scapegoating a defined group as the cause of a nation’s ills, denigrating the past, undermining the family structure, promoting secularism, and eliminating any vestige of freedom of speech.  All with the goal of initiating societal chaos so that the populace would turn to the socialist/Marxists for rescue and thereby acquiescence to their having permanent political power.

That is the scenario currently at play in the United States and those that are choreographing the ongoing transformation of the country are essentially no different in their motives and tactics than the autocrats of the last 150 years or for that matter since the dawn of mankind.

The Founders of America were extraordinarily aware of this cavernous flaw within the human race.  The Constitution’s primary purpose is to make it extremely difficult for despotism to take root without the consent of what the Founders hoped would be an educated, principled and patriotic populace.  However, based on the polling, unfathomable ignorance of America’s founding and history, and increasing belief in moral relativism by the Millennials and Gen Z, that consent apparently is in the offing.

Some questions for the vacuous among the younger generations that are not proud to be American and believe that transforming the nation is vital: 

  • What will happen when the people you blindly support take over and change the election laws so they never lose a future election? 
  • How will they pay for guaranteed prosperity and equity?  Will they have to nationalize all industries and businesses?  How will they force the citizenry to work at these nationalized businesses if prosperity and equity are guaranteed?  What happens when state-controlled businesses fail?
  • How will your utopian government operate the agricultural sector in order to feed nearly 400 million people as the population explodes due to your open border policies?
  • How will this newly transformed nation placate a massive restless populace that is not receiving a promised guaranteed income?  Print untold trillions in new dollars?  Jail all the protestors?
  • How will this country, when the dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency due to incessant money printing and hyperinflation, maintain a vibrant economy and service its massive debt?
  • How will a transformed but broke America defend itself against implacable international foes who will have achieved global hegemony?
  • Will Americans be content to allow faceless bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. to make virtually all their life-changing decision including what they can think and say?

An unbiased history of the Twentieth Century provides the answers to most of these questions.But there is one thing for certain: once this nation goes down this road it will never return.

Traveling that road will also eventuate in the fatuous advocates of transforming the United States experiencing, along with the bulk of the citizenry, the soul-shattering struggle to survive from one day to the next as untold millions have done over the past century in other nations that have followed the same path.

Remember When Gopher Dems Savaged Derek Chauvin AND THE FLOYD COPS?



Minneapolis attorney Marshall Tanick has taken a look at the issues raised in the Minnesota Court of Appeals hearing on the murder conviction of Derek Chauvin. Marshall discusses the hearing in the Star Tribune op-ed column “Did Chauvin get a fair trial?” I wrote about the hearing here last week. Marshall more or less provides a second opinion that aligns with mine, if somewhat faintly:

[T]he core of the argument presented to a three-judge panel in St. Paul by his appellate lawyer, William Mohrman, who did not represent Chauvin at trial, was that the volatile circumstances surrounding the blindingly high-profile proceedings nearly two years ago deprived the accused of his constitutional right to a fair trial.

The concern that Chauvin might not be able to be fairly tried by a jury of his peers, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the parallel provision of the Minnesota Constitution, was first raised in this space — by me — right after the officer was charged a few days following Floyd’s death on the street outside a south Minneapolis grocery on the evening of Memorial Day 2020. The incident was witnessed by nearly everyone on multiple occasions thanks to video recorded on a youthful bystander’s cellphone.

The question posed then, at the height of the frenzy over the slaying, was: Can Derek Chauvin get a fair trial? The issue now pending before the appellate jurists is: Did he?

The answer may well be no, based upon reasonably compelling arguments made by Chauvin’s skillful appellate counsel. If so, a new trial could be mandated and, if that occurs, it might be conducted elsewhere in the state.

Courts rarely (hardly ever in Minnesota) overturn criminal jury verdicts because of prejudicial publicity, dating back to the infamous Sam Sheppard murder trial in the 1950s. More than a decade afterward, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the verdict that the Cleveland osteopath killed his wife, pointing to the media-induced frenetic “carnival atmosphere” of the proceedings.

But such reversals are outliers, and the death knell for those types of challenges may have been sounded last year when the high court upheld the death penalty imposed by a jury in Boston on the surviving brother of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, roundly rejecting a prejudicial publicity claim.

Marshall doesn’t put it quite this way, but the argument goes well beyond a claim of prejudicial publicity. It goes to the hang ’em high atmosphere that literally surrounded the court:

In Chauvin’s case, while there were substantial prejudicial statements made before the trial about the defendant’s guilt from numerous high-ranking public officials — like the Minneapolis mayor, chief of police and many others — Chauvin’s appeal steered clear of castigating the extensive pretrial media reporting and trial coverage and focused instead on the unusual conditions under which the proceeding occurred.

The trial judge, Peter Cahill, did an admirable and a tireless job of handling the case, including guiding the lawyers through the jury selection process, known as voir dire, to ferret out biased jurors. But the surrounding circumstances were at the crux of the argument presented by Chauvin’s lawyer.

Mohrman pointed to the stark, fortress-type defenses that surrounded the courthouse in downtown Minneapolis, where the trial took place, including concrete barriers, barbed wire and well-armed National Guard troops. That “physical presence” and the atmosphere it produced, he argued, was a daily reminder to the jury of the potential for renewed civil unrest, like the destructive disturbances that had immediately following the incident.

Those circumstances, he asserted, unduly influenced the jury to the detriment of Chauvin, instilling fear in jurors, whom he characterized as “having a stake in the outcome” as they could be caught up in any ensuing unrest resulting from an acquittal. They “lived here,” he emphasized, suggesting the same intimidating features would not exist for a jury empaneled somewhere else in the state.

I would add that not a single one of the three judges on the Court of Appeals panel evidenced any serious interest in the fair trial issue that permeates the case. I rate the chances that the court will find in Chauvin’s favor on this issue (and order a new trial) to approach zero. Why is that? Marshall doesn’t raise this question. I think readers should at least be aware of the court’s apparent lack of interest in it under the mind-boggling circumstances of the trial. The “carnival atmosphere” of the Sheppard case had nothing on this trial.

In addition to Marshall’s serious discussion of the merits of this issue, I am grateful for Marshall’s recognition of Bill Mohrman as “Chauvin’s skillful appellate counsel.” The recognition is deserved in this case. Bill has done an excellent job.

As I wrote in my own comments on the appeal hearing linked above, I put out a call on Power Line for some Minnesota lawyer to step forward and represent Chavuin on appeal when he was relegated to representing himself. Bill Mohrman answered the call in the highest tradition of the Minnesota bar. Speaking briefly with Marshall this morning, I infer that he is unaware of the circumstances behind Bill’s representation of Chauvin. Insofar as they reflect fear of the crowd and revulsion for the defendant, they are nevertheless in their own way illustrative of the fair trial issue.

“How long would it take for the United States to become a fascist nation if we were to adopt some of the ideas that were recently offered….”

January 25, 2023

Do You Trust the Integrity of Our Elections? If Not, Here Are the Steps We Must Take

By Joe Fried at American Thinker:

There may have been cheating in the 2022 midterm election, in the view of 57 percent of people recently surveyed by Rasmussen.

In that same survey of 1,000 likely voters, 30 percent indicated that cheating was likely. That’s where I fit in: the 30 percent group.

To restore faith in our elections, we need to take some simple but controversial steps:

A national standard

Many people, especially Republicans, oppose the idea of a national standard because they see this it a “states rights” issue. On the other hand, most Democrats are eager to have a national standard— but their idea of a standard is more like a plan for election organized crime.

How long would it take for the United States to become a fascist nation if we were to adopt some of the ideas that How long would it take for the United States to become a fascist nation if we were to adopt some of the ideas thatJohn Lewis Voting Rights Act,” and/or the “Freedom to Vote Act”? Democrats have proposed…

  • complete legalization of ballot harvesting so that a ballot could be submitted, on your behalf, by paid operatives.
  • automatic voter registration for all adults (with no verification of citizenship).
  • universal ability to vote by mail, for any reason.
  • no voter ID requirement in states that choose not to have one. States that already have an ID requirement would be forced to weaken it by accepting a broad array of documents, including copies of utility bills or sworn statements (in lieu of ID).
  • voting by convicted felons, unless they happen to be in prison on the day of the election.
  • a ban on post-election independent audits, such as the Arizona Senate audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 election. Only “official” audits would be allowed.

The proposals (above) are truly scary, and this may be the reason for GOP opposition to any national standard. However, a country-wide standard is essential. We can no longer allow some states to cheat by allowing non-citizens to votes, or by allowing political operatives to cast votes on behalf of unsuspecting residents. That is why we need a national baseline of a few essential voting requirements, such as these:

  • A ban on ballot harvesting, with a few limited exceptions for spouses or for people with disabilities
  • A hard ID requirement— preferably with photos
  • Mandatory citizenship verification when a person registers for the first time
  • A uniform national Election Day cutoff for voting

State standards

At the state level there are several other actions that could improve the integrity of our elections:

  • There should be a ban on the use of private funding for the administration of elections (no more “Zuckerbucks”).
  • Registration lists must be updated continuously, and people should be removed when they stop voting in elections. When multiple people register at the same address, extra verification is required. (There have been instances of hundreds of people voting from a single parking lot, commercial building, etc.)
  • Mail voting should be allowed, but only for people with legitimate reasons, such as travel or disability.
  • Drop boxes should be legal, but only if they are in secure areas, monitored with video, and fairly distributed to all areas of the state.
  • Partisan observers are an important part of election integrity and security. When ballots and ballot envelopes are processed, Republican and Democrat representatives should be given close access so they can monitor the processes. Their comments and objections should be recorded so that follow-up action can be taken.
  • There should be severe penalties imposed when observers are harassed, as was the case in Detroit and other locations. (See Debunked? pages 152-54.)
  • Immediately after each federal election, independent auditors should commence limited procedures (not just counting) to ensure the integrity of close elections. Testing should be performed on a sample basis, to keep costs low. Specific items tested should be selected on a “surprise” basis.
  • All voters should be able to determine, via the internet, that their votes were tabulated. Documents that are not confidential should be posted online.
  • States should have law enforcement dedicated to investigating election complaints. Florida provides a model.

What if the state administration does not believe in election integrity?

Many states have administrations that do not want tighter election standards. In fact, some want to liberalize voting rules. An example is Nevada, which virtually gutted election controls a couple of months before the 2020 election:

  • In Nevada there is automatic mailing of ballots (not just ballot applications) to everyone, on the basis of voter registration lists that are obviously out of date. Hundreds, if not thousands, of ballots were found “…in post office trays, outside apartment complexes, and on community bulletin boards in and around Las Vegas.” 
  • Ballot harvesting has been legalized in Nevada, without restrictions. Drug addicts, homeless people, and political operatives can anonymously harvest ballots in unlimited quantities.
  • Drop boxes are legal, and have no monitoring or special security arrangements.

And, of course, Nevada also has no ID requirement, aside from weakly-enforced signature standards. How weak? A reporter for the Las Vegas Review Journal conducted an informal test using his own handwriting to transmit ballots for 9 of his friends. Eight of the nine bogus signatures were accepted. (The weak drop box requirements are found in Nev. Rev. Stat § 293.8861.)

Achieving election integrity in states like Nevada (or California, Oregon, Washington State, Colorado, etc.) will be exceedingly difficult, but some actions may be possible:

  • Recruit a huge number of very tough-minded attorneys and other observers to monitor unguarded drop boxes, ballot processing, and recounts. Record video when possible. Be prepared to clash with left-wing agitators.
  • Immediately after each election, request important records, such a chain of custody documents and qualified voter files. It may be necessary to use Right-to-Know laws.
  • If the election is in doubt, and ballot harvesting is the suspected reason, immediately commence door-to-door voter canvassing. Remember, harvesting may be legal in some states, but stealing ballots or tricking voters is not. A professional organization with impeccable credentials should organize the effort. A representative sample of voters should be asked whether or not they voted and the means by which they voted. If the results differ significantly from voter records, ballot theft or trickery are the likely reasons. A canvass report by a professional organization, such as a large CPA firm, could be strong evidence for a lawsuit.
  • Offer rewards for information regarding election fraud, including harvesting operations.

Last but not least, make sure that you vote, in every election, and only support candidates who have the courage to speak out for and support election integrity.

Joe Fried is an Ohio-based CPA who has performed and reviewed hundreds of certified financial audits.

He is the author of the new book, Debunked? An auditor reviews the 2020 election— and the lessons learned (Republic Book Publishers, 2022). It provides a comprehensive overview of irregularities that affected the 2020 election.




China is the world’s number one emitter of carbon dioxide. If you take the Left’s global warming hysteria seriously, nothing can be done without China (and also India) drastically curbing their emissions. If everyone in North America dropped dead, it would do no measurable good for the world’s climate, if you believe the Leftists’ numbers.

So if liberals were really serious about climate change, they would be looking hard at China. If carbon dioxide is an existential threat, shouldn’t we be invading China, or at least bombing the hundreds of coal-fired power plants they have under construction?

One would think so. But instead, liberals treat China with kid gloves, perhaps because China’s Communist regime is the sort of government they admire. John Kerry’s apologia at last week’s World Economic Forum meeting is a good example:

During an interview with CNN International aired on Wednesday’s “First Move,” Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry stated that while China should do more to move away from coal, “China is doing a lot more than people think in trying to deploy renewables, manufacture the renewables.”

Kerry stated, “Well, we should be hopeful, certainly. No, the world cannot get to where we have to get to to avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis without China being there and being helpful.

A valuable admission if you believe the climate hype, although we need to define “helpful.” But see what follows:

Now, we’re engaged, again, in conversations with China.

Conversations! I’m guessing Xi’s regime could keep conversations going for a long, long time.

I’m encouraged. I think China is doing a lot more than people think in trying to deploy renewables, manufacture the renewables.

Note those two verbs: Kerry began with “deploy,” then shifted to “manufacture.” Yes: China holds near-monopoly market shares in the manufacture of both solar panels (it is hard to compete on price with slave labor) and wind turbines. But they manufacture these products to sell them to suckers in the U.S. and Europe. To meet their own energy needs, the Chinese are building hundreds of coal-fired power plants.

We’d like to see more in terms of moving away from coal and so forth.

So, when it comes to Americans, Kerry and his allies are full of zeal: blackouts are a small price to pay for ridiculously expensive and unreliable “green” energy. But when it comes to the Chinese, “we’d like to see more in terms of moving away from coal.”

What follows is classic left-wing word salad. It means nothing, because Kerry and his American and European allies have no intention of doing anything whatsoever to address the world’s largest sources of CO2 emissions.

But we have to work together. We have to work together with an ability to recognize our common responsibility and to come to the table and help the rest of the world. And if China and the United States can move on some of these things right now in these next months, that will make a gigantic difference. It’s one of the top things that one should try to achieve, because it will accelerate action by everybody else and it will facilitate that transformation. It will also help a lot of people in various parts of the world who are suspicious of what China is doing or not doing to see that China is there, is part of the solution, not the problem and at least addressing the problem in a very serious way. And that would help everybody.

These people want you to suffer, and they frankly don’t care whether the Chinese suffer or not. It really is as simple as that.