• 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

That LOONY FEM, Nancy Pelosi, ….America’s Greatest TRAITOR STAR…..(or is she ‘TRAITORESS’?

Pelosi’s ‘pick crops’ line shows how Democrats betrayed the working class

By Batya Ungar-Sargon

October 3, 2022 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that Florida needs illegal immigrants to "pick crops."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that Florida needs illegal immigrants to “pick crops.”AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi suggested last week that Florida needs illegal immigrants to pick crops — revealing much about the Biden administration’s incomprehensible inaction at the border.

“Right now, the best thing that we can do for our economy is to have comprehensive immigration reform,” she said. What does immigration reform have to do with the economy? Pelosi (D-Calif.) helpfully clarified: “We have a shortage of workers in our country,” which is why, Pelosi claims, farmers are asking, “Why are you shipping these immigrants up North? We need them to pick the crops down here.” We must secure the border, Pelosi said, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t recognize “our moral responsibility.”

Pelosi was excoriated for her comments. Many pointed out how shocking it was for the speaker of the House to be endorsing hiring illegal workers. Others pointed out the racism inherent in assuming Central American migrants will be fieldhands. Still others pointed out the strong “Who will pick the cotton?” vibes.

But most of all, her comments exposed something the Left has been struggling mightily to hide: that they talk about immigration in moral terms when in actual fact, they think about immigration in economic terms.

For Pelosi, the open border isn’t a problem to be addressed so much as a solution to another problem: the labor shortage. Thanks to a slew of mass resignations, the labor market is currently extremely tight; many employers are struggling to fill their rosters. This has translated into the first wage gains for workers since the 1970s, though inflation is eating away at a lot of those gains.

Pelosi said that illegal immigrants are needed to help with the country's labor shortage.
Pelosi said illegal immigrants are needed to help with the country’s labor shortage.

The national minimum wage remains a laughable $7.25 an hour, but few Americans are still making that little. Almost 80% of American workers now earn at least $15 an hour, thanks to the pandemic labor market. That’s still not a living wage in any major metro area, but the tight labor market has had a huge impact on low-wage and blue-collar laborers.

You know how you undo those gains? Import an entirely new working class from a failed socialist state made up of people who are willing to work for much less money than an American worker. Undercut working-class Americans by opening the border and signaling to the working class of other countries that there is work for them here.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sen. Bernie Sanders, who as recently as 2015 was telling Ezra Klein that open borders was a Koch Brothers proposal to undercut American workers. That is exactly what Pelosi is suggesting we do: Use immigration instead of raising wages for working-class Americans.

Migrants crossing the border into Yuma, Mexico on April 15, 2022.
Migrants crossing the border into Yuma, Arizona, on April 15, 2022.

Pelosi’s argument is that this will improve the economy, and she’s right: GDP goes up with mass immigration. There are huge profits to be made when your workers aren’t citizens and can’t demand a living wage or safe working conditions. The rich get richer while the working class is once again hung out to dry — and Pelosi has the audacity to call this our “moral responsibility.”

The real cruelty of Biden’s open border policy — it hurts low-income Americans

The party that oversaw NAFTA is now lecturing the very people whose jobs they outsourced, telling them that it’s their moral responsibility to endorse importing an entirely new class of people to take their jobs here at home. It’s galling. Where is our moral responsibility to our fellow Americans? Scratch beneath the surface of most progressive claims to “moral responsibility” and you’ll find a class divide that the elites are benefiting from — very literally — and demanding the working class pay for.

But at least they are now admitting that these aren’t asylum seekers but economic migrants whom the rich intend to exploit. The Democrats’ reversal on immigration reveals everything about whom they view as their base. It was once the working class, which is why they sought to limit immigration. Today it’s liberal, highly educated elites, which is why they seek to expand it under the guise of “moral responsibility.”

What I hope is clear by now is this: How you see immigration is much more about your economic status than it is about your moral virtue. Tarring people as racist or immoral for not wanting their jobs to be taken by people who crossed the border illegally is truly despicable, the furthest thing from moral you can imagine. It’s to demand that people endorse their own economic abandonment, while you welcome the needy of other countries.

Those Days of Soviet Spies Conquering America!

OCTOBER 4, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:


Edward Jay Epstein is my favorite investigative journalist and the author of several of my favorite books including, most recently, How America Lost Its Secrets: Edward Snowden, the Man and the Theft. Ed has forwarded his thoughts on Snowden’s becoming a Russian citizen. Ed writes:

Edward Snowden, the former civilian contractor at the super-secret National Security Agency, has now joined the group of secret-stealers including infamous British Cold War spies Harold Kim Philby, Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess, to whom the Kremlin has awarded full citizenship. Snowden, who defected to Russia in June 2013, received his citizenship from Vladimir Putin on September 26, 2022, possibly making him eligible for military service in Ukraine if Putin further expands his mobilization.

What Snowden did to earn this distinction is still a matter of dispute in the universe of the media, but the December 2016 report report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which was unanimously agreed upon by all the Democrats and Republicans on it, concluded that Snowden removed from the NSA digital copies of no fewer than 1.5 million files. This haul included 900,000 Department of Defense documents concerning, among other things, the then newly created joint Cyber Command.

Other stolen files contained documents from GCHQ — the British signal intelligence service — to which Snowden had access. Then NSA Deputy Director Rick Ledgett, who also headed the NSA’s damage assessment, stated just one of these NSA file, a 31,000-page database, reveals the gaps in our knowledge of Russia, thus providing our adversaries with a “roadmap of what we know, what we don’t know, and gives them—implicitly—a way to protect their information from the U.S. intelligence community’s view.”

What Snowden did with these files remains unknown. But U.S. intelligence had to act on the assumption that all the sources and methods in the classified material might be compromised. The Pentagon thus assigned hundreds of intelligence officers, in round-the-clock shifts, to go through each of the 1.5 million files to identify all the compromised sources and methods they contained and shut them down even though it meant seriously reducing the capabilities of the NSA, the Cyber Command, the British GCHQ, and other allied intelligence services to see inside Russia and China. According to former NSA director Michael McConnell, repairing the damage might take many “decades.”

Putin had become first aware of Snowden soon after Snowden took the trove of NSA’s secrets to Hong Kong in 2013, as he revealed in a televised press conference on September 2, 2013. After saying “I am going to tell you something I have never said before,” Putin explained, “Snowden first went to Hong Kong and got in touch with our diplomatic representatives.” At that time, Putin continued, “I was informed that there was such a man, agent of special services.”

Although this revelation contradicts Snowden’s denials that he had no contacts with the Russians before arriving in Moscow, Putin did not set forth what Snowden told these “diplomatic representatives.” But whatever Snowden said, it was evidently enough to persuade Putin to authorize Snowden’s trip to Moscow and offer him sanctuary from U.S. efforts to arrest him on the charge of violating its espionage laws.

Even though Snowden has consistently denied sharing any information with Moscow, the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee came to a different conclusion. According to its December 2016 report, he remained in contact with the Russian intelligence services for at least three years after he arrived in Moscow. Mike Rogers, then the committee’s chair, confirmed this finding to me.

This raises the question of what the American defector has been doing in Moscow for the past eight-and-one-half years. When I met in 2015 with Anatoly Kucherena, Snowden’s Moscow lawyer, Kucherena said that Snowden had been employed by a Moscow cyber security enterprise. I asked the name of the firm but Kucherena said he could not reveal it because of lawyer-client privilege. Nor has Snowden ever publicly revealed the occupation through which he earns his living and supports his wife and child in Russia.

He does, however, have skills and knowledge, which he freely discusses with journalists. For example, he told the editor of the Guardian in Moscow in 2014, “If I were providing information that I know, that’s in my head, to some foreign government, the US intelligence community would . . . see sources go dark that were previously productive.” That sort of knowledge, as well as the skill set by which he acquired it, could be of considerable value in Russia. Although Snowden’s activities in Moscow since 2013 have never been fully disclosed, Putin evidently appreciated them enough them enough to award Snowden citizenship during his disastrous war in Ukraine.

What is less of a mystery is Snowden’s choices. He chose to betray the American intelligence service for whom he worked by taking its secrets. He chose to accept the protection of the Putin regime to avoid prosecution in the U.S. He chose to accept Putin’s gift of Russian citizenship. In short, in his moral vacuity, he chose sides by throwing in not with the critics of liberal democracy but with its sworn enemies.




“I have found from many observations that our liberals are incapable of allowing anyone to have his own convictions and immediately answer their opponent with abuse or something worse.”

—Dostoyevsky, The Idiot

As an American I was educated to believe in God, civility, seek knowledge, and be good to others.

I was born in 1934 and entered public school five years later….a time when the American female, the unmarried one who was well educated and Godfearing, was usually the teacher of the school trade, often with forty kids to a classroom.

Churches and synagogues were always crowded on those days of service. In the Lutheran Church I and my parents attended, Sunday School for kids began at 8:00 AM Sunday’s……where I attended. Forty to sixty kids, ages five to twelve, learned God’s beauties of the days…..centering around the past and Nature’s events of the out doors…..Gods birds, animals, trees, flowers throughout our Minnesota, especially those near by….and where children studied the King James Version of the Bible……that book which in its language teaches and expresses the beauty of our spoken English for a couple centuries far beyond any other book.

God was honored and respected throughout the public schools of my days of learnings. From Church to PUBLIC Schools we were taught knowledge and goodness Godfearing styles from the Judeo Christian Bible.

Compare such a generation’s good fortune of experiences with the learnings from single female teachers of eighty years ago, to the decaying American classroom world of today.

We are born to be curious. I am now 88 years old and so agree with my teachers of yesterday. KNOWLEDGE IS SACRED, as I was taught. The more we know makes us closer to GOD!

Is This Abram’s Case Finally Over?

Judge Smacks Down Stacey Abrams’ Bogus Claims Of Voter Suppression In 2018 Election Loss

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD at the Federalist:

OCTOBER 03, 2022

Stacey Abrams speaking at an event

‘The challenged practices violate neither the constitution nor the [Voting Rights Act of 1965],’ wrote Judge Steve Jones.

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

Shawn Fleetwood.

Afederal judge ruled on Friday that Georgia’s election procedures during the 2018 midterms, which were challenged by an organization aligned with the state’s Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, do not violate the constitutional rights of Georgia voters.

Writing for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Steve Jones, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled that while “Georgia’s election system is not perfect,” the “challenged practices violate neither the constitution nor the [Voting Rights Act of 1965].”

“In sum, this Court finds Plaintiffs have not met their burden under Section 2 of the [Voting Rights Act] to demonstrate that the Exact Match or citizenship verification processes renders Georgia’s elections not ‘equally open’ when considering the totality of the circumstances as required” by federal law, Jones wrote. “As a result, there has been no showing that the election system is not ‘equally open’ by Georgia’s compliance with federal law regarding matching processes.”

The lawsuit against the state was originally filed in November 2018 by the group known as Fair Fight Action, which serves as an affiliate of the Abrams-founded PAC Fair Fight. Among the allegations made by Fair Fight include “serious and unconstitutional flaws in Georgia’s elections process” relating to, as Breitbart summarized, “absentee ballots, voter registration, and voter list management.”

According to Breitbart, “The group alleged certain voting practices in the state disenfranchised racial minorities, but many of the claims had already been thrown out over the last four years, including claims related to ‘long lines, voting machines, inadequate poll worker training, ballot rejections and large-scale voter registration cancellations.’”

“One of the claims left hanging in the balance was that the state’s ‘exact match’ voter registration policy disproportionately affected black voters,” the Breitbart report continued. “Jones shot that down, writing, ‘Here, plaintiffs have not provided direct evidence of a voter who was unable to vote, experienced longer wait times, was confused about voter registration status.’”

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who successfully ran against Abrams in the 2018 gubernatorial race and previously served as Georgia’s secretary of state, celebrated the Friday ruling as a humiliating defeat for Abrams’ bid to delegitimize the state’s election processes.

“From day one, Abrams has used this lawsuit to line her pockets, sow distrust in our democratic institutions, and build her own celebrity,” Kemp wrote on Twitter. “Judge Jones’ ruling exposes this legal effort for what it really is: a tool wielded by a politician hoping to wrongfully weaponize the legal system to further her own political goals.”


In her own statement, Abrams attempted to use the ruling as justification for why Georgia voters should elect her as governor instead of Kemp in November, saying that it “demonstrates that the 2022 election will be a referendum on how our state treats its most marginalized voices.”

“The conduct of this trial and preceding cases and legislative actions represent a hard-won victory for voters who endured long lines, burdensome date of birth requirements and exact match laws that disproportionately impact Black and Brown voters,” Abrams said.

Following her 2018 loss to Kemp by roughly 55,000 votes, Abrams has repeatedly denied the Georgia Republican’s legitimate victory and has gone on to blame her failures as a candidate on nonexistent voter suppression. After it became obvious that she would not force then-candidate Kemp into a runoff in 2018, for instance, Abrams told a crowd of supporters that “concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true, or proper” and that “as a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede.”

“Make no mistake, the former Secretary of State was deliberate and intentional in his actions,” she said. “I know that eight years of systemic disenfranchisement, disinvestment and incompetence had its desired effect on the electoral process in Georgia.”

The Georgia Democrat went on to echo similar sentiments in April 2019, saying that she does “not concede that the process was proper” and that she does not “condone that process.”

In addition to her imaginary role as Georgia’s rightful governor, Abrams has been at the forefront of attacking the state’s recently enacted election law. In March 2021, Abrams referred to state Republicans’ efforts to enhance the integrity of Georgia’s elections as “nothing less than Jim Crow 2.0” and accused lawmakers of using the bill to “suppress the vote and seize electoral power.”

Around the same time, President Joe Biden also repeated the same “Jim Crow” smear and encouraged the MLB to move its 2021 All-Star game from Atlanta to protest the signing of the bill into law. The weak-kneed league commissioner ultimately acquiesced, moving the event to Colorado and costing Georgian businesses approximately $100 million in revenue.

Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood


October 4, 2022

The GOP needs to abandon passivity and work hard to reach voters

By Matt Rowe at American Thinker:

I know some very smart people who also happen to be very busy and turned off by politics and the news media. They simply are not paying attention, and when I tell them things that are going on to destroy our republic they first react in disbelief, then say, “I heard something about that,” and then come around to feeling the way I do as a conservative. They aren’t happy. The problem is, they were not engaged before because they felt they had no say in things anyway. Moreover, they believe that people like me who write articles, participate in election staffing, and are otherwise politically engaged will work it all out. Getting them to take action is still like pulling teeth.

What amazes me is that the Democrats have worked very hard to solve this problem on their side by being active in efforts like Mark Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) election grants. These grants focused on Democrats almost exclusively, and any conservatives that may have benefitted from them were most certainly unintentional.

Sadly, the Republicans have done nothing of the sort at the grassroots level to change anyone’s mind. Sure, they raised a lot of money for candidates, but yard signs and mailers aren’t going to motivate a change in anyone’s vote. Don’t forget that the GOP does not seem to have done anything productive in the eyes of the moderate or slightly more left moderate voter either. Once again, it appears that the GOP is just hoping the Democrats will hang themselves for us…and it could happen…this time. Right?

The GOP still has some time to motivate itself and get out to the grassroots level and explain to consistent Democrat voters why they should consider voting for conservatives. The only national leader who has motivated anyone on this level is Donald Trump, but the demographic he interests are people who were already looking for someone who speaks and administrates the way he did. There are many more people out there who could be won over if only another national GOP leader would simply step up and promote the same actionable ideas!

Creating a competitor to Twitter or Facebook is nice but reaching the Twitter and Facebook users is what really needs to happen. We can’t do it via those platforms and others, so creating a separate platform like Parlor or Rumble, or even Truth, is not effective. The GOP must get active locally, and if it wants grassroots participation, it needs a leader people to whom people will listen. Until that time, I fear we are just going to get more of the same. That is, voting for someone we don’t want to avoid getting someone in office we really don’t want.

There are plenty of smart people out there on both the Right and Left. The GOP must get smarter about how to reach them.

“The military is replacing the type of people who believe in service and country with those who don’t”. 

October 3, 2022

Air Force Academy Woes Highlight Collapse of Military Values Under Diversity Mania

By Fletch Daniels at American Thinker:

Other than a well-fought win over rival Navy, the United States Air Force Academy had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week. 

First, came the story that the Academy gave diversity training to cadets encouraging them to stop using such patently offensive words as mom and dad.  This was followed up closely by a story that the Academy was promoting a fellowship that was open to just about everyone, but straight white men need not apply.  Finally, the school that used to be underpinned by its notable lack of tolerance for lying, cheating or stealing was put on two-years probation by the NCAA, complete with a rather long list of punishments, for apparently cheating at recruiting.

What ties these three stories together is the complete breakdown of values at the school, which are reflective of the breakdown in values across the military.

Both my wife and I graduated from USAFA in the 1990s.  At the time, the school’s values were integrity, service, and excellence.  Cadets were encouraged to put their classmates and country ahead of themselves.  Even the smallest lie or anything that could be construed as cheating, to include poorly documented homework, was a one-way ticket home.   

Those values have been turned upside down in the school’s commitment to the military’s new value system of diversity above all.  For the Air Force-Navy game, the Falcons wore their new uniforms honoring the Space Force. Semper Supra, which means always above, was displayed prominently where names are normally shown.  The motto is somewhat ironic since in today’s military, that’s where diversity and inclusion rank in the priority list, always above and eclipsing everything else.  All other values are subservient to it. 

2019 US Air Force Academy graduation (public domain)

While the element of the diversity training that suggested cadets should refrain from using words like mom and dad got most of the attention, the bigger problem is the overall philosophy that pits people into tribes and places the individual over the group.  We are now suggesting that we should be conscious of color and “value people for their uniqueness.” 

In other words, individuality based on color of skin takes precedence over forming a common bond across the unit.  This is a complete reversal of the military’s traditional values.  Military service is no longer about Service Members subordinating their own desires to be part of a cohesive group that is serving something greater than themselves.  Instead, it puts individuals in the spotlight and then values some higher than others based upon nothing more than their skin color or sexual desires.

We’ve gone from Martin Luther King’s dream of a colorblind society 180 degrees in the other direction to where we no longer judge anyone based upon the content of character, but instead focus almost entirely on the color of skin.    

This has gradually strangled the military’s values.  General Douglas MacArthur’s famous “duty, honor, country” approach cannot co-exist alongside such a demented worldview that is both tribal and individualistic.  

In February, all the cadets were forced to sit through a lesson from George Takei, a strident promoter of the left’s new religion, to kick off their National Character and Leadership Symposium. 

When I was at the Academy, the school welcomed Christian and religious ministry groups and partnered with them in helping to build a strong values foundation in the cadets.  Today, the cadets get the man who once called Clarence Thomas a clown in blackface. 

A service academy would never dare put up a speaker who showed such utter contempt for a Democrat president as Takei routinely shows towards all Republicans, to include the former president and vice president.

Americans are taking notice.  In 2022, USAFA saw a 28 percent decline in the number of applicants.  When all was said and done, there were only 1,775 qualified candidates for that year’s class, a staggeringly low number considering that the Academy needs to offer relatively close to that number of appointments to fill each class.   

This tracks with the broader recruiting challenge the entire military is now facing.  While military leaders regularly meet to discuss this problem, they rarely zero in on the obvious issue.  Parents in the areas where the military typically is most successful recruiting no longer encourage their children to join a hyper-politicized military that no longer shares their values.  

My wife and I did not encourage our three kids to join the Air Force, which is somewhat telling considering we are both retired Air Force officers who once bled blue.  Many of our friends and classmates feel the same.  The military has always had its greatest success recruiting from the parts of the country where patriotism runs highest and military service has also always been a family affair, with kids emulating their parents’ service.  But why would anyone want their sons and daughters to serve in a military that holds their values in contempt? When you’ve lost the parents and influencers, you’ve lost most of the kids.  It isn’t rocket science.

While the military maintains its traditional values on paper, they barely give them even lip service at this point, but the value of diversity is talked about ad nauseum.  Anyone who tries to return the military to the values that underpinned it for generations would likely be slandered as an extremist and pushed out the door. 

In response to the Academy getting called out on its diversity training, the USAFA Superintendent said that “our American diversity is a strategic advantage that opens the door to creative solutions, providing a competitive edge in air, space and cyberspace.”  Interesting choice of words in the very week that the Army’s first transgender officer chose the rather creative solution of trying to give confidential medical information to Russia, a story that is mostly absent from all but conservative media. 

Almost all military leaders parrot those same nonsensical talking points.  It’s practically a job requirement at this point.  But diversity is a neutral concept.  It is certainly not bad, but it is also not good, or even a value.  The blind worship of diversity as the highest good is a cancer.  Imagine if we demanded equal representation based on race and sexual orientation in sports?  What you would end up with would be something far less than the ideal and it certainly would not be viewed as a strategic advantage.

This is a national security crisis on many levels.  For one, the military is replacing the type of people who believe in service and country with those who don’t.  That won’t end well.  When the military’s very mission requires asking people to potentially give up their lives in service to their country, the values that underpin it matter.  It is hard to imagine anyone who will be willing to die for these new values that encourage tribalism and elevate the individual over the unit, with a side of grievance and resentment thrown in.

Our military leaders like to comfort each other, even as China surpasses the U.S. in some military capability areas, with the fact that our people are better.  They shouldn’t.  What made our people better were the values they held.  With those values being shredded, that advantage is also disappearing.

The other problem is that every minute spent on this charade is a minute not spent on the true national security threat, which is China.  Right now, it is hard to overestimate the number of minutes that every command and leader in the military is wasting in furtherance of this false religion.  Pacific Air Forces, the lead Air Force command charged with planning and leading any air operations in China’s region, lists diversity as its top priority because of course they do.  If we ever have to pit the politicized military we are building against China, the result may very well be catastrophic.

If the military is to succeed going forward, it needs to return to the values that made it great.  And that will not happen as long as Democrats hold power.  If and when Republicans are back in power, they need to do a lot more than outlaw critical race theory.  They need to dismantle the diversity and inclusion infrastructure in the military.  No more toxic diversity commissars or indoctrination sessions.  Until that happens, the problem cannot be fixed, and the military will continue to face a values crisis that impacts recruiting and readiness at every level.        

(A Note From Mark…)

Arizona’s Pro-Life Candidate SQUASHES Reporter’s Targeted Question


[…]To take it a step further, Lake pointed out the extreme views of her opponent, Hobbs. 

But I really challenge you, I’m happy to get back to you on this, when you find out where Katie Hobbs stands. Because let me tell you where she stands. She supports abortion right up until birth and after birth. She supports if a baby survives a botched abortion, that that baby die on a cold metal tray. 

Lake, unfortunately, is right. Her opponent, Hobbs, presently serves as Arizona’s Secretary of State. She called AZ’s present pro-life laws that criminalize abortion “draconian.” She also wholeheartedly supports abortion and on her site, does not indicate any restrictions on abortion. 

Furthermore, Lake showed the undeniable bias of the reporter and reporters like her. 

“None of you ever try to get her to talk about her stance. So get back to me after you do. And tell her that I wanna debate this topic on October 12th but she really needs to show up for that debate,” she said.

Unfortunately, this is the reality of modern day “reporting/journalism.” Leftist media focuses entirely on painting conservatives in a negative light while propping up leftist views. 

As a matter of fact, journalists often hide and cover for radical democrats who support abortion up until birth. The Media Research Center’s Newsbusters division conducted a study on morning and evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC regarding extreme abortion views of Democratic candidates. The study found that from January 1, 2022 to August 31, 2022, there was NO coverage of the radical nature of numerous anti-life candidates. 

(From Mark Waldeland)

Knowledge Is Wonderful!



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

This is chilling:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The head of the World Economic Forum is especially noxious:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Here come the Hispanic Republicans

Latinos are voting exactly like an earlier wave of immigrants

October 2, 2022 | 10:53 pm



Written by:

Patrick Ruffini from the Spectator:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Patrick Ruffini

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

Pushing the Envelopes in Ukraine

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

By Victor Davis Hanson at American Greatness:

October 2, 2022

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

Mutually Exclusive Agendas 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia Has Other Plans 

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

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

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

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

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

Ukrainian Dreams 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stefan Sauer/picture alliance via Getty Images

Western Reality Checks 

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

 Not likely and for a great number of reasons.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But are these ultimata completely empty intimidations?  

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

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

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

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

No End in Sight? 

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

It doesn’t and they won’t. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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