• 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

Joe Biden HAS BEEN A CLASSIC LIAR ALL OF HIS SENATE LIFE….(Who else could tiny Delaware tolerate?)

If Biden’s Federal Elections Takeover Is ‘Free And Fair,’ Why Are The Plans Completely Redacted?

BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL at the Federalist:

FEBRUARY 09, 2023

"vote here" sign

Despite finally fulfilling a FOIA request, Biden’s Department of the Interior sent Citizens United a heavily-redacted document.

Author Victoria Marshall profile


After several executive agencies in the Biden administration were sued for refusing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests from conservative advocacy group Citizens United over the White House’s attempt to federalize elections, the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Indian Affairs finally turned over its first batch of requested documents. There’s one problem: More than half of the 54-page document is completely redacted.

“The Biden administration is the least transparent in history, and these absurd redactions are just the latest example. What are they trying to hide from the American people?” Citizens United President David Bossie told The Federalist.

As The Federalist previously reported, in March 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing hundreds of federal agencies to engage in a federal takeover of election administration. It also permitted federal agencies to work with “nonpartisan” third-party entities to get voters registered, yet left-wing dark money group Demos publicly admitted it’s worked with federal agencies, “in close partnership with the ACLU and other allies,” to advance the aims of Biden’s directive.

Such an order set off alarm bells among Republicans and good government groups, reminiscent of the widespread takeover of government election offices by Democratic activists and donors in the blue counties of key swing states during the 2020 presidential election. Through their infiltration of state and local offices, Democrats were able to conduct partisan get-out-the-vote operations and swing the election in then-candidate Biden’s favor. This order is a taxpayer-funded version of that effort, turning federal agencies — including those that dole out federal benefits — into voter registration hubs and partisan get-out-the-vote centers.

Citizens United wanted to find out more about it, which is why last June, it filed FOIA requests with the DOI and State Department seeking email and text messages that mentioned both the executive order and the Hatch Act, a law that prohibits executive branch employees from engaging in election activities. When the agencies failed to comply, Citizens United sued. On Jan. 31, DOI sent its first round of documents per Citizens United’s request.

But the 54-page PDF sent to Citizens United is mostly redacted, save for logistical emails between White House staff and agency department heads. The plan and implementation scheme for the “Promoting Access to Voting” executive order itself are completely redacted.

In a cover letter sent with the documents, the Biden administration defended the redactions under U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), which allows agencies to withhold information under the “Presidential Communications Privilege” (exists to ensure “the President’s ability to obtain candid and informed opinions from his advisors and to make decisions confidentially”) and the “Deliberative Process Privilege” (“protects the decision-making process of government agencies and encourages the frank exchange of ideas on legal or policy matters”).

But according to Jason Foster, president and founder of Empower Oversight, a transparency and government accountability group that frequently files FOIA requests, these redactions are a prime example of the federal government’s blatant over-redacting and censorship.

“Federal bureaucrats do everything in their power to conceal information from the public,” Foster told The Federalist. “Whether it’s over-classification or improper redactions and stonewalling Freedom of Information Act requests, they instinctively err on the side of hiding information to avoid embarrassment, conceal misconduct, or cover up corruption. It’s up to Congress to reform the FOIA process, and in the meantime, it’s up to independent organizations to sue aggressively to force the federal government to comply with transparency laws.”

While good government groups can sue over improper redactions, this process can usually take about a year to uncover just one document from a series of files, those familiar with the matter said. Now that Republicans control the House of Representatives, however, they have the power to compel the federal government to produce non-redacted versions of requested documents, a Citizens United official told The Federalist.

During the 117th Congress, nine House Republicans wrote a letter to the White House raising concerns about the executive order, specifically regarding the fact that the order supplants the authority of the states to set election law and administer elections under the Constitution. When asked about the Biden administration’s secrecy over its elections directive, Freshman Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., who chairs the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, echoed her colleague’s sentiments.

“Everyone should have concerns about this executive order and the involvement of any federal agency in our election process,” Hageman told The Federalist. “First and foremost, elections are the constitutional responsibility of the states, not our federal bureaucracy. This is yet another example of the federal government overstepping its authority and infringing upon states’ rights. Even if this order was well intended — and I have serious doubts that it was — it is unconstitutional.”

Hageman emphasized that the White House cannot get away with such extensive redactions of election-related processes.

“Large-scale redactions are not in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act,” Hageman added. “This is one of the few tools we have to hold our government accountable. Are we to accept that the information is classified to such an extent that the document is unable to be coherently interpreted? Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the federal government cannot be allowed to continue to obscure and obstruct.”

Of particular interest in the 54-page document is a draft letter on page 32 from Indian Affairs Assistant Secretary Bryan Newland to White House Domestic Policy Advisor Susan Rice, formerly President Obama’s national security advisor and “right-hand woman” who is known for her involvement in spying on the Trump campaign in 2015 and lying about it. In that role, she also spread lies about the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, helped Obama staffers target Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and turned a blind eye to the Biden family’s foreign business affairs.

One line in the draft letter reads: “The plan promotes voter registration and voter participation (REDACTED) and the Department’s agency action to achieve these objectives.” The redacted portion might point to a Hatch Act violation, a Citizens United official told The Federalist.

“These documents relating to the Biden White House’s efforts to turn the federal workforce into a partisan voter registration committee must be released to the public in their entirety,” Bossie said. “Congress must investigate this executive order to see if the Biden Administration is violating the Hatch Act on a massive scale.” 

When asked why the Interior Department isn’t being transparent with the public about Biden’s federal takeover of elections, the Bureau of Indian Affairs referred The Federalist to the U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) exemptions in the cover letter sent to Citizens United.



Twitter Execs Testify That Their Election-Meddling Decisions Were Even Flimsier Than Previously Claimed

BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND at the Federalist:

FEBRUARY 09, 2023

Twitter executives sit behind table at House hearing

Twitter executives being beholden to so-called experts’ tweets is hardly better than doing the FBI’s bidding.

Author Margot Cleveland profile


When the New York Post dropped its bombshell reporting on documents recovered from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop in October of 2020, Twitter did not reach out to the FBI to ask whether the reporting was Russian disinformation — despite extensive coordination with the FBI to prepare to combat foreign election interference. Instead, according to testimony at Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing, Twitter relied on the tweets of supposed experts, making the tech giant’s decision to censor the Post’s story even more outrageous.

The House Oversight Committee, now in the hands of Republicans, questioned four former Twitter executives on their decision to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., pushed Twitter’s former global head of trust and safety, Yoel Roth, to explain the timing of Twitter’s decision to censor the New York Post story. 

Biggs noted that in an 8:51 a.m. email on Oct. 14, 2020, Roth had taken the position that the laptop “isn’t clearly violative of our Hacked Materials Policy.” But then, by 10:12, Roth emailed his colleagues with Twitter’s decision to censor the story, stating that “the key factor informing our approach is consensus from experts monitoring election security and disinformation that this looks a lot like a hack-and-leak operation.”

What cybersecurity experts had Roth consulted between 9 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. on Oct. 14, 2020, the morning the Post story broke, Biggs asked the former Twitter executive. 

Roth responded that the experts were ones the Twitter heads were following on the platform. “We were following discussions about this as they unfolded on Twitter,” Roth explained. “Cybersecurity experts were tweeting about this incident and sharing their perspectives, and that informed some of Twitter’s judgment here.”

Rep. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., was incredulous: “After 2016, you set up all these teams to deal with Russian interference, foreign interference, having regular meetings with the FBI, you have connections with all of these different government agencies, and you didn’t reach out to them once?”

“That’s right,” Roth said, noting he didn’t think it would be appropriate. 

Instead, Twitter relied on the tweets of supposed national security experts. 

Who those experts were, Roth didn’t say, but here we have another strange coincidence: In his testimony on Wednesday, Roth told the committee that a few weeks before the Post story dropped, he had participated in an exercise hosted by the Aspen Institute, with other media outlets and social media companies, that posed a hack and leak October surprise involving Hunter Biden. Roth testified that Garrett Graff facilitated that event.

And at 8:23 a.m. on Oct. 14, 2020, after the Post story broke, Graff tweeted his playbook for how the media should react to “this Biden-Burisma crap.”

Graff followed about some 10 minutes later, tweeting, “Also, what a TOTAL coincidence that this fake Hunter Biden scandal drops the literal day after it becomes clear that both of Bill Barr’s other intended October surprises—the Durham investigation and the unmasking investigation—have fallen apart??!” 

Not long after Graff began pushing the “fake” Hunter Biden scandal narrative, Vivian Schiller joined in, calling the Hunter Biden story “nonsense” and claiming Graff’s exercise was “to test readiness of some MSM.” 

And who is Schiller? According to Graff, Schiller “designed and ran” the Hunter Biden tabletop exercise that Roth participated in. She was also the former head of news at Twitter, in addition to previously being the CEO of NPR, among other gigs.

In addition to Graff and Schiller, CNN’s consultant and so-called national-security expert weighed in at 8:23 a.m., questioning the “amplifying” of the New York Post’s story, stressing that “amplification is the key to disinformation.”

Natasha Bertrand also tweeted an early morning “warning” that a Russian agent had been “teasing misleading or edited Biden material for nearly a year.”  

Bertrand, also known as Fusion Natasha for falling for Fusion GPS’s Steele dossier and Alfa Bank hoax, was joined in pushing the disinformation narrative by The Washington Post’s alleged fact-checker Glenn Kessler. 

By 8:30 a.m., Kessler had shared The Washington Post’s policy “regarding hacked or leaked materials,” and told Twitter users to “be careful what is in your social media feeds.”

Mother Jones’ D.C. bureau chief David Corn followed with a 9:07 tweet declaring that the “whole story” was predicated on “false Fox/Giuliani talking points” and pronouncing the Post as advancing “disinformation.”  

Twitter’s decision to censor the Hunter Biden story was bad enough before, but to think the executives may have relied on so-called experts like these raises the outrage another octave. 

Former Twitter Deputy General Counsel James Baker likewise indicated in an email that he had “seen some reliable cybersecurity folks question the authenticity of the emails in another way (i.e., that there is no metadata pertaining to them that has been released and the formatting looks like they could be complete fabrications.)” Baker, however, did not say whether he had spoken with the “cybersecurity folks,” and given that when pushed by the committee he hid behind attorney-client privilege, getting any more answers from Baker seems unlikely. 

Beyond learning that Twitter executives opted to rely on the tweets of so-called experts over asking the FBI if the laptop was fake, Wednesday’s hearing consisted mainly of grandstanding — some on both sides of the aisle — and Democrats attempting to make the hearing about Trump when they weren’t complaining that the entire session was a waste of time. One additional salient fact came out, however, in addition to a review of the basics of Twitter’s censorship efforts.

Specifically, Roth clarified for the House committee that the FBI had not previously warned that an expected “hack-and-leak” operation was rumored to likely involve Hunter Biden. Rather, according to Roth’s testimony, the rumor that the hack-and-leak operation would target the Biden son came from another tech company.

Roth claimed in his Wednesday testimony that his Dec. 21, 2020, statement to the Federal Election Commission was being misinterpreted. In that statement, Roth had attested that “since 2018 he had regular meetings with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and industry peers regarding election security.” His signed declaration then noted that the “expectations of hack-and-leak operations were discussed throughout 2020. I also learned in these meetings that there were rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.” 

According to Roth, he should have worded his statement differently because it was not the FBI that had raised Hunter Biden as a potential subject of the hack and leak, but a peer company. One would think, however, that Roth would have clarified this point to his lawyer some two-plus years ago when Twitter’s Covington & Burling attorney represented to the FEC in a cover letter that accompanied Roth’s statement that “reports from the law enforcement agencies even suggested there were rumors that such a hack-and-leak operation would be related to Hunter Biden.”

Clearly, the former Twitter executives seek to separate themselves from the FBI, but “The Twitter Files” make that next to impossible to accomplish. And, really, being beholden to the so-called experts tweeting out warnings of supposed Russian disinformation would hardly be an improvement.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today.

Getting To Know Our DEMS Better!



Miranda Devine characterizes the Dems’ performance in the House Oversight’s first committee hearing of the new Congress yesterday as “The Democratic litany of Hunter Biden’s laptop lies.” Having helped break the laptop story in the pages of the New York Post in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, Devine is the go-to source for comments on developments in the case. Here she is on yesterday’s hearing featuring the testimony of former Twitter executives:

So many lies were told at the House Oversight’s first committee hearing Wednesday into the corruption scandal involving Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop and the subsequent cover up by the FBI with social-media firms to rig the 2020 election in favor of Joe Biden.

Or, as Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tried to rebrand it: “Hunter Biden’s half-fake laptop.”

It’s a sign of desperation that more than two years after The Post published the first bombshell story from the laptop, Dems can’t get their stories straight on what the laptop really is.

Is it Hunter’s property, his “personal data” that was stolen from him, as his lawyers claimed last week in letters demanding the Department of Justice investigate John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of the Delaware computer repair shop where Hunter abandoned his laptop while a crack addict in April 2019?

Or is it the “so-called laptop,” as Hunter’s lawyers claimed in a backflip clarification the next day?

It’s hard to keep up.

It’s hard to keep up, indeed. Only yesterday the laptop was Russian disinformation, according to the Deep State 51, Politico, the mainstream media, and, oh yeah, President Biden himself.

The Democrats have abandoned that line, I guess. They have moved on to new lines — of roughly equal merit, as Devine suggests in the rest of the column here. Devine’s assessment is that the truth has gotten out, which seems to me somewhat wishful thinking. In any event, however, she certainly knows the truth and lays out the facts in her valuable column.




Miranda Devine characterizes the Dems’ performance in the House Oversight’s first committee hearing of the new Congress yesterday as “The Democratic litany of Hunter Biden’s laptop lies.” Having helped break the laptop story in the pages of the New York Post in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, Devine is the go-to source for comments on developments in the case. Here she is on yesterday’s hearing featuring the testimony of former Twitter executives:

So many lies were told at the House Oversight’s first committee hearing Wednesday into the corruption scandal involving Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop and the subsequent cover up by the FBI with social-media firms to rig the 2020 election in favor of Joe Biden.

Or, as Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tried to rebrand it: “Hunter Biden’s half-fake laptop.”

It’s a sign of desperation that more than two years after The Post published the first bombshell story from the laptop, Dems can’t get their stories straight on what the laptop really is.

Is it Hunter’s property, his “personal data” that was stolen from him, as his lawyers claimed last week in letters demanding the Department of Justice investigate John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of the Delaware computer repair shop where Hunter abandoned his laptop while a crack addict in April 2019?

Or is it the “so-called laptop,” as Hunter’s lawyers claimed in a backflip clarification the next day?

It’s hard to keep up.

It’s hard to keep up, indeed. Only yesterday the laptop was Russian disinformation, according to the Deep State 51, Politico, the mainstream media, and, oh yeah, President Biden himself.

The Democrats have abandoned that line, I guess. They have moved on to new lines — of roughly equal merit, as Devine suggests in the rest of the column here. Devine’s assessment is that the truth has gotten out, which seems to me somewhat wishful thinking. In any event, however, she certainly knows the truth and lays out the facts in her valuable column.


February 9, 2023

America’s Disarray Is A Stark Contrast To China’s Unity

By Kathleen Brush at American Thinker:

Listening carefully during the State of the Union, you could hear roaring laughter in Beijing when President Biden again said that J6 was the greatest threat to America since the Civil War. Biden is China’s perfect stooge. China has a long-term mission to retaliate against the West, with a bullseye on America, for a Century of Humiliation (1839-1949). To succeed, China must have political and racial unity and opportunities to strike, like an American president driving political, racial, and military disunity and invested in the mythical J6 monster.

It was easy to humiliate the Chinese in the 19th century because they believed that the use of military force was a sign of weakness. For more than a millennium, the Chinese brought nations into their fold using psychology. However, psychology was no match for foreigners firing modern weapons.

Successive humiliations inspired Chinese intellectuals to postulate what was occurring. The stickiest theory reads like the seminal thinking on Critical Race Theory (CRT). The world was divided into five races. The inferior Brown, Black, and Red races, collectively called the colored races, and the superior fair-skinned White and Yellow races. The Yellow race would remain in a long-term struggle with the White rulers, but eventually, the Yellow would win because the Whites were arrogant and lazy, while Yellows were humble and diligent. A belief in Han Chinese superiority is sacrosanct and as old as China.

In 1912, the Father of the Republic of China, Sun Yat-sen, oversaw early preparations for the long-term mission. He believed China’s success lay in its biological, religious, and cultural purity relative to the impure white race. However, China first needed to expand racial purity to conquered populations.

Image: Military parade in Beijing. YouTube screen grab.

China did this by forcing Sincization, which transformed non-Han ethnicities to a 90% Han racial majority, and by teaching schoolchildren the five-fold racial taxonomy, along with the Yellow race’s final victory over the White race. In 1927, the Chinese Civil War began. It was a stark reminder of the elusiveness and importance of political unity for the long-term mission.

In 1949, Mao Zedong, the first leader of the People’s Republic of China, delivered political unity. Consistent with the goal of global communism, Mao had to revise the Chinese CRT. The Yellow race was joining and leading the colored races against the white race with its western democratic capitalists.

Mao’s belief was that China’s one-party communist state was superior to democracy and capitalism, and it would deliver the economic heft necessary to develop China to settle the score. However, communism underperformed. The Chinese now had a Cold War loss to add to the humiliation. The West’s assumption of victory, though, was premature.

In 1991, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) began its “Patriotic Re-education Campaign“ to unite students and the nation on a heavily propagandized version of the who, what, and why of China’s humiliation and the long-term mission. In brief, it’s the history of the victimization of China by White oppressors.

Fast forward to 2012 and Xi Jinping’s ascension. The finance and technology (some stolen) from China’s alleged white oppressors have facilitated the fastest creation of a military and economic superpower in history. China’s political unity is made of stone, and it will soon be 100% racially unified. The 10% non-Han population, the Uighurs from Xinjiang and the Tibetans that live in the border regions, are undergoing forced Sinicization, including Patriotic Re-Education. Xi is taking no chances with weaknesses, either at the border or with a unified Chinese race.

While the CCP’s Xi executes an impressive strategy to achieve the long-term mission, he can take time to enjoy the American superpower, arrogantly or lazily, watching a Chinese spy balloon sauntering across the United States while collecting military intelligence before the grand finale in which America uses an F22-Raptor to pop a spy balloon. For China, this was a brilliant psychological and military win and a grand humiliation to savor. America should expect more humiliation.

Xi will continue to present himself humbly as he diligently keeps his nation racially/culturally, militarily, and politically united. He will also continue aligning the nations of “colored people” with Chinese CRT and the illusory truth of arrogant white oppressors while overseeing the Belt and Road initiative, where all roads lead to China.

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration must remain silent on China’s secret weapon for achieving China’s mission: unifying children and the nation with the indoctrination that they are victims of white [American] oppression. This is so because Biden’s party is helping China by indoctrinating Americans in schools, universities, and at home with the same CCP propaganda.

There is so much irony in the President of the United States opening opportunities for the CCP to strike at America by disunifying the nation militarily, politically, and racially. Biden is leveraging the CRT offshoot of woke ideology, with both CRT and wokeness having roots in China’s racial and Marxist theories.

But what if none of this is ironic to Xi? What if the white spy balloon was a successful diversionary tactic while the CCP clandestinely works to facilitate divisions in America through the indoctrination of CRT and wokism? This would be an espionage masterstroke to advance the CCP’s long-term mission to humiliate America and achieve global supremacy. This could be a bigger threat to America than the mythical J6 domestic-extremist monster, right?

“Katie’s teacher would also be compelled to affirm a transition for which there is no medical consensus”.

February 7, 2023

Minnesota’s Twisted ‘Gender Dysphoria’ Policy

By Jay Tucker at American Thinker:

Teachers are now to provide professional gender-affirming care for students without a required medical license, without parental approval or consent, without securing informed consent, and without conforming to professional standards of care.

Minnesota proposes to require teachers to “ensure” that student gender-identities are “affirmed.”  How would that work?  Let’s say 13-year-old Katie approaches a teacher and informs the teacher that she was born in the wrong body, that she is actually a boy, that she is to be called Ben, and that she needs to have her breasts removed in order to become her authentic self.  According to Item 4E of “The Proposed Standards of Effective Practice” for teachers in Minnesota, the teacher is required to ensure that Katie’s identity is affirmed.  The teacher, however, has no knowledge of Katie’s mental health history, whether she is under the care of licensed gender-care professionals, how Katie may have developed her beliefs as to her identity, the persons or causes instrumental in forming her gender identity, what Katie’s parents know, if anything, and how they feel about her gender identity, and what diagnoses and treatment recommendations Katie may have received from gender-care professionals, including recommendations that a wait and see protocol be adopted or that affirmation be delayed pending further evaluation and investigation.  The teacher is thus faced with a mandate from the state to affirm Katie’s gender identity in a one-size-fits-all protocol which clearly violates both the individualized treatment requirements of the 2012 Standards of Care Version 7 (page 7) published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the individualized treatment recommendations of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

Katie’s teacher would also be compelled to affirm a transition for which there is no medical consensus.  The 2012 APA Task Force Report (p.4) concludes that there is no consensus at all regarding treatment of children with gender identity disorder, now called Gender Dysphoria (GD), and identifies three approaches to working with children with GD. The first of these focuses on working with the child and caregivers to lessen GD and to decrease cross-gender behaviors and identification. A second approach makes no direct effort to lessen Gender Dysphoria or gender atypical behaviors. A third approach may entail affirmation of the child’s cross-gender identification by mental health professionals and family members. The APA also confirms that there is insufficient evidence to support guidelines for treatment of GD in adolescents. 

Katie’s teacher would also be compelled to wrongfully proceed with affirmation without completion of an assessment, evaluation, and investigation as required by the APA.  The report concludes that for “adolescents” the following evaluations should be undertaken:

“1) psychological and psychiatric assessment and diagnosis of adolescents presenting with a wish for sex reassignment, including assessment and diagnosis of co-occurring conditions and facilitation of appropriate management; 2) psychotherapy (including counseling and supportive therapy as indicated) with these adolescents, including enumeration of the issues that psychotherapy should address. These would include issues that arise with adolescents who are transitioning gender, including the real life experience; 3) assessment of indications and readiness for suspension of puberty and/or cross-sex hormones as well as provision of documentation to specialists in other disciplines involved in caring for the adolescent; 4) psychoeducation of family members and institutions regarding GV and GID; and 5) assessment of the safety of the family/school/community environment in terms of gender-atypicality-related bullying and stigmatization, and to address suitable protective measures.”

Similar evaluations are recommended for “children.” 

In short, teachers lack the experience, education, and training necessary for evaluation of GD patients in order to determine treatment recommendations for minors presenting with GD.

Katie’s teacher is also being compelled to wrongfully commence or continue participation in gender identity affirmation without securing the legally required consent of the minor’s parents or guardians.  The Supreme Court  has held that it is the parents’ constitutional right to make the decisions as to the care, custody, and control of their children. Further, even the WPATH Standards of Care (Version 8) confirm:

“We recommend when gender-affirming medical or surgical treatments are indicated for adolescents, health care professionals working with transgender and gender diverse adolescents… involve parent(s)/guardian(s) in the assessment and treatment process…  When there is an indication an adolescent might benefit from a gender-affirming medical or surgical treatment, involving the parent(s) or primary caregiver(s) in the assessment process is recommended in almost all situations…”

Teachers are also being compelled to participate in affirmation of a minor’s transition without securing legally and ethically required informed consent. For all minors presenting with gender identity issues, “informed consent” remains a prerequisite to treatment, whether that treatment is in the form of counseling, social transition (cross-dressing, use of opposite-sex names and pronouns, use of opposite-sex restrooms, or participation in opposite-sex sports,) or physical or other medical interventions.  Disclosure to and comprehension by the minor and his/her family is required both as to the wide divergence of professional opinion relating to treatment options and the reasons for such divergence and as to the overwhelming number of material adverse medical, social, and economic risks and consequences of transition. 

Katie’s teacher is also wrongfully being compelled to affirm a minor’s gender identity when doing so would cause the teacher to violate Minnesota state ethics regulations requiring teachers to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to health and safety.  Surely students need protection from what significant portions of the population and large numbers in the medical community deem to be child abuse.

If the state does not rescind or withdraw its “Proposed Standards for Effective Practice,” will anyone be surprised if litigation is immediately commenced by minors and their families against teachers, school boards, and the state?


Woke Revolutionaries Versus Americanists

Thomas D. Klingenstein and John Fonte at the American Mind:

Some words of advice for Jim Banks’s new anti-woke caucus.

Indiana congressman Jim Banks recently announced the formation of an anti-woke caucus. Good. Banks is acknowledging, for the first time at a congressional level, the danger of woke tyranny. National Socialism (Nazism) and Communism were the challenges for prior generations of Americans. “Wokeism” is the challenge of our generation. We have reason to believe that Banks intends to put anti-wokeism at the center of Republican politics, which today has no center.

America is in the middle of a Cold Civil War between woke revolutionaries—who believe America is and has always been systemically racist (evil), so that it must be deconstructed, de-legitimized (i.e., destroyed)—and those who believe that America is good, that its principles are the greatest antidote to racism ever created, and that preserving America and its principles is the highest and most urgent political calling. Let’s call these patriots “Americanists.”

The Need for a Rhetorical Strategy

What should the anti-woke caucus do? Banks rightly says that the first order of business is for the caucus to learn in detail about the woke regime and how it has taken control of major American institutions at every level. And next? The temptation will be to draw up a policy agenda. But before devising a policy strategy, we think it is necessary to provide the moral justification for one.

In any political conflict, the side that seizes the moral high ground is the ultimate victor. The art of seizing the moral high ground—i.e., of persuasion—belongs to the discipline of rhetorical strategy. If there is one thing we hope caucus members will take away from this essay, it is the importance of moral argument and rhetoric.

Often a politician responds to existing “public sentiment,” as Lincoln called it. But when politics becomes especially confusing, when the public is not thinking as clearly as it might, the statesman must give shape to public sentiment. He must sculpt unformed opinions and refine inchoate ones.

Glenn Ellmers, in a recent essay, made this point well. He was writing about Governor Ron DeSantis, but he just as well could have been writing about all Republicans, virtually all of whom fail to appreciate the importance of providing a moral justification for their actions through effective rhetoric. Ellmers writes:

DeSantis’s other problem—to exaggerate for the sake of argument—is that he’s all action and no talk. (This is not necessarily worse than Trump’s opposite vice.) That might sound like another strange criticism, but this is something that has always been true in politics: rhetoric matters. After all, to the degree that elections still have some efficacy, voters have to be persuaded, and that means words are as important as deeds. You can’t merely do the right thing, you have to explain it. DeSantis gives speeches, of course, and they are good as far as they go. But they need to be great. He needs to appreciate that even the most momentous results sometimes don’t speak for themselves. Consider Lincoln at Gettysburg.

Indeed, Lincoln, in large part, won the Civil War by the power of his rhetoric. The kind of speeches Ellmers calls for are inspirational and eternal. We need a rhetoric that rises to the level of our crisis. It needs to be Lincolnian, Churchillian—a powerful strategic weapon in the immediate war, and an inspiration for times to come.

The public is increasingly aware of the horrors of woke tyranny; it sees, and is repelled by, many pieces of the woke regime. But it is very hard to see the entire puzzle. A successful rhetoric will put the pieces together and build the public sentiment necessary to fuel a victorious counter-revolution. It will give a reasoned account of the woke regime—its principles, tactics, adherents, and aims. And it will give a reasoned account of the American regime, why it is worthy of the last full measure of devotion, and what must be done to save it.

We Are in a War

First and foremost, the public must understand that America is at war. It must be made clear that the woke revolutionaries wish not to reform America along the lines of, say, the New Deal or Great Society but ultimately want to destroy the American way of life. The woke revolutionaries do not hide their objective; indeed they flaunt it. They keep telling us their actions are designed to “fundamentally transform” the American way of life.

Citizens desperately need to hear their elected leaders saying in public that the American way of life, the American regime, cannot possibly coexist with the woke regime, because the two regimes have utterly irreconcilable understandings of what constitutes a just society. This is what makes it a war.

For the American regime, a just society is one in which free men and women pursue happiness according to their abilities and according to nature. Such a society is one where merit is central—where the society recognizes the natural differences in the interests and abilities among various groups. In such a society, groups—men and women and subcultures—will be represented differently in various areas of American life. 

For the woke regime, on the other hand, a just society is one where the regime imposes identity group quotas based on victimhood rankings. Such a regime makes war on nature and merit, and thus on America. The goal of the woke regime is what the woke revolutionaries perversely call “equity,” by which they mean statistical equality of result for all preferred ethnic and gender groups in all aspects of life. Thus, if black Americans represent 13% of the population, then, as a historically marginalized group, they should constitute 13% of all surgeons, lawyers, airline pilots, elected officials, military officers, and, for that matter, incarcerated prisoners. The same logic of ethnic-gender group representation applies to other, continuously expanding, “marginalized” groups such as women, Latinos, LGBTQ + persons and the like.

The American regime (or the merit regime) and the woke group-quota regime are mutually exclusive. You can’t offer admission to college, medical school, law school, flight training, combat arms (or anything else) according to racial and gender group quotas, while at the same time making decisions according to merit. With one voice, caucus members should consistently frame the debate this way: “the merit regime vs. the group quota regime” (or simply, merit vs. group quotas).

A free society will never furnish equality of results. An attempt to produce them requires coercion. Since nature can never be vanquished, coercion must continually be ramped up. We can already observe this coercion (e.g., censorship, canceling, employment discrimination, and partisan double standards in law) where the woke regime is most entrenched—in the universities, Big Tech, the media, and government at all levels. 

Explaining to Americans what exactly the woke regime is can be a challenge; the regime is slippery and amorphous. Normally, a totalitarian regime means the government controls all aspects of public and private life. The 20th century witnessed the hard totalitarian regimes of Nazism and Communism. Today, the woke regime can best be understood as a soft totalitarianism that seeks to marginalize, intimidate, and silence its opponents through censorship, coercion, media propaganda, intelligence agency operations, rigged elections, and the declarations of unelected bureaucrats and judges.

The 21st century woke regime consists of a loose confederation of institutions: education, media, entertainment, businesses, Democratic politicians, the criminal justice system, and more. There is no overarching organization. But understanding and explaining, as well as possible, how that regime operates will be necessary to winning the war.

The Big Lie

Having identified the composition of the regime and its goal (equality of result for racial, ethnic, and gender groups), the caucus must explain how the woke revolutionaries are going about reaching that goal. Their first critical step is making Americans deeply ashamed of themselves and their past, thereby making them inclined to trade in the merit regime for the group quota regime. This requires a big lie. Every totalitarian regime, hard or soft, has one. The woke regime’s big lie is that America is systemically racist and about to be overrun by racists, a.k.a. Republican voters.

Caucus members and other Americanists should call this the “Big Lie.” When addressing the woke revolutionaries, they should dismiss it without apology or qualification. But the Americanists should forget about trying to convince the woke revolutionaries. It cannot be done, and that is because the entire woke project is built on supposed racism. Take that away and the project collapses. Woke revolutionaries will therefore insist on the existence of this racism in the teeth of all evidence and argument, transposing it to unseen and unconscious regions when it is proven not to exist elsewhere.

Yet although it is fruitless, and ultimately self-defeating, to try to convince the woke revolutionaries, it is necessary to stiffen the spines of those on the Right. One reason the race card has such a powerful effect is that many on the Right think the woke revolutionaries have a point. This uncertain Right, like the entire Left, suffers from white guilt. We must get over it.

Caucus members must explain to the Right, and to the open-minded middle, that the phony white guilt of the elite is destroying the rest of us, whatever our color. Further, the false charge of “systemic racism” is not presented by woke revolutionaries in good faith but used as a weapon to de-legitimize America’s principles, history, culture, and way of life.

The caucus needs to make the case strongly that America is not systemically racist—except to the extent that wokeism has succeeded in establishing its racist program as a system—and second, that traditional “red neck” racism is low on the list of what should concern black Americans. That said, humans being what they are, it seems highly unlikely we shall ever eliminate racism altogether. So there will always be racial incidents, real or imagined, that the woke revolutionaries can exploit. The Americanists must not rise to the bait. In a war you concede nothing.

Americanists need to explain that the central problem facing the nation is not racism but the trumped-up charges of racism that hound us from morning to night. The goal of the Americanists should be, as David Azerrad has pointed out, “not to solve the race problem but to prevent it from crushing the country.” 

But nothing can replace a powerful, credible, passionate leader. Perhaps Banks himself is that man. At present, there is no one—political or otherwise—who is leading the anti-woke movement, though Governor Ron DeSantis has indicated a predilection. Among non-politicians, Tucker Carlson is unrivalled in speaking truth to woke power. Someone must create a movement.

A Defense of the Nation State

Caucus members also need to make a spirited defense of the nation-state (a sovereign political community in which citizens share traditions, customs, language, and values such as patriotism). The woke revolutionaries must destroy the nation-state if they are to destroy the American way of life and replace it with the woke way of life. Reliance on transnational institutions, climate change, open borders, and energy dependence are among the ways the woke revolutionaries seek to destroy the American nation-state.

The woke revolutionaries tell us that the Right’s commitment to the nation-state, like any policy of the Right, is racist and tyrannical. They identify anything that strengthens the nation-state—for example, patriotism, closed boarders, or assimilation—as akin to “nationalism” or even “fascism.”

Caucus members must explain that without the nation, and the homogeneity it requires, people will be unable to govern themselves. Without the nation-state there will be no democracy, no “We the People.” There will be only “us” and “them.” And people do not sacrifice for “them.”

Outside of a nation there can also be no agreement on the rules for living together (laws and customs). One side will break the rules because it does not believe in them, and then the other side will break them in self-defense. Neither side will accept election losses. When trust has broken down, so does the rule of law. We see plenty of this already. The anti-woke caucus must explain, again and again, that there can be no democracy and no freedom without the shared culture of the American nation-state.

Donald Trump, unlike any other Republican, embraced the term “nationalist” at a rally: “You know, they have a word, it sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a ‘nationalist’…. And I say, ‘Really? We’re not supposed to use that word,’” Trump continued. “You know what I am? I’m a nationalist. OK? I’m a nationalist.” Trump did not care about being called a “racist” any more than he cared about being called a “nationalist.” In this respect, caucus members should take their lead from Trump.

Attacking the nation-state means attacking the very idea of citizenship. The woke revolutionaries tell us that “illegal” immigration is justified because all people are, in effect, already American citizens. “Don’t worry about too many immigrants,” say the woke revolutionaries; after all, “diversity is our greatest strength.” This is nonsense. No nation, not even America, can withstand unlimited diversity. Every nation requires a certain degree of homogeneity if it is to be free. And second, although our universal creed makes anyone a potential citizen, it is only those who are committed to assimilating into our culture and our understanding of right and wrong (including our laws) who can be citizens.

To the extent we do allow immigrants, “[We] must,” as Theodore Roosevelt said, “Americanize them in every way.” The progressive Louis Brandeis was more specific: “the adoption of our language, manners and customs is only a small part of the process. To become Americanized the change wrought must be fundamental.” The immigrant “must possess the national consciousness of an American.” In contrast to earlier progressives, in 2021 the Biden Administration officially denounced the principle of assimilating immigrants.

“Americanization” has a bad name. But like the word “nationalism,” anti-woke caucus members should resurrect it and embrace it with pride.

Seeing Soft Totalitarianism

Woke revolutionaries believe America should be rebuilt from the ground up, whatever the cost. The anti-woke caucus members must repeatedly point out that it is just this—attempts to build from the ground up—that has brought us the most horrific, blood-letting regimes of the 20th century. It is a virtual truism that the road to utopia terminates in Hell. 

Caucus members need to bone up on totalitarian regimes and be able to describe the characteristics of such a regime, drawing parallels to the current, woke regime which, while softer, shares many characteristics with the harder variety. They must help citizens see things through the lens of soft totalitarianism. For example, they must help citizens see that open borders are intended, at least in part, to destroy the American way of life.

One aspect of all totalitarian regimes is, as we all know by now, censorship and media propaganda. Citizens must not be able to hear what the regime does not want them to hear, and that, of course, is anything that challenges their lies. Censorship and propaganda take many forms: humiliation, intimidation, de-platforming, firing, blacklisting, gaslighting, and so on. A personal example: A teleprompter operator for a speech one of us was giving did not show up to work on the second day because he thought that working for a conservative outfit would make it difficult for him to get work elsewhere. Thousands and thousands of these freedom-crushing instances of censorship occur every day, undetectable by the general public. 

Name and Nomenclature

There is one last but very important bit of advice. Come up with a name for the enemy and an associated nomenclature. We don’t see how you can beat an enemy you cannot name. 

We offer the following for the caucus’s consideration, most of which we have already introduced. The enemy is the “woke regime.” The word “regime” is important, because it suggests an all-out, comprehensive assault on the American way of life. The ideology of the woke regime is “wokeism,” which is a totalizing ideology like National Socialism or Communism. Card-carrying members of the woke regime are “woke revolutionaries” while go-along Democrats, which is most of them, are “collaborationists.” Those on the Right who do not actively resist the woke regime are “accommodationists.” Those who do actively resist are “Americanists.”

Why “Americanists” vs. “woke revolutionaries” and not, say, “conservatives” vs. “progressives”? These latter names suggest we are in a normal policy dispute within the traditional context of American politics, in which both sides accept the legitimacy of the American regime. We are not in such a context. We are not living in the bygone world of Reagan vs. Mondale. We are in a war.

Defenders of the American regime include many people who are not political conservatives: people who simply love America, are patriotic, and reject the woke agenda. Since wokeism is an attempt to destroy the American way of life, the most logical term for those who wish to save it is “Americanists.”

Unified Theory

An objection might be raised: there is more than wokeism that ails the country today. Consider radical feminism, socialism, climate change, transgenderism: these, say the skeptics, are independent of wokeism. One can certainly think about things this way, but we would consider this a strategic error. To the extent we can, we need a unified theory that captures as much of the war effort against our regime as possible. The attack on America should be understood within a single, coherent conceptual framework. We believe wokeism serves this purpose.

Thus, for example:

The rewriting of American history as the story of oppression; a Ford Foundation grant to promote DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion);

Washington Post article complaining that too many statues in our Capitol commemorate “enslavers,” including Washington, Jefferson, and Madison;

the deliberate weakening of the American oil and gas industry, and, hence, the end of our energy independence in the name of climate change;

promoting the intrusion of men into women’s sports, and teaching our children that there are many “genders” rather than two sexes;

the deliberate refusal to protect America’s southern border while at the same time enabling millions of illegal aliens to enter and remain in our country;

the refusal of woke prosecutors to enforce long-standing laws against criminals;

universal child care to facilitate the utopian final goal of absolute gender group outcome equality in every institution in society;

rigging elections so as to keep the woke elite in power;

socialism which seeks income equality;

the attacks on values like excellence and merit as a supposed stalking horse of white supremacy:

All these phenomena and more are of a piece. They work in one way or another to promote equality of results for groups. They either are aimed at securing the power necessary to promote the woke agenda, destroying the American way of life, or directly implementing group quotas.

We pray for the success of the anti-woke caucus. Its task is daunting, but all noble things are. And what could be more noble than, as a friend of ours is fond of saying, “to save the nation that has brought more freedom and more prosperity to more people than any other country in the history of mankind.” As in times before, the future of freedom everywhere depends on our example.