• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

The Disappearance of Our Great America!


Third Worldizing America

Our elites, like the Third World rich, have mastered ignoring—and navigating around—the misery of others in their midst.

By Victor Davis Hanson at American Greatness:

December 1, 2021

In a recent online exchange, the YouTuber Casey Neistat posted his fury after his car was broken into and the contents stolen. Los Angeles, he railed, was turning into a “3rd-world s—hole of a city.”

The multimillionaire actor Seth Rogen chastised Neistat for his anger. 

Rogen claimed that a car’s contents were minor things to lose. He added that while living in West Hollywood he had his own car broken into 15 times—but thought little of it. 

Online bloggers ridiculed Rogen. No wonder—the actor lives in multimillion-dollar homes in the Los Angeles area, guarded by sophisticated security systems and fencing.

Vineyard roadsides used as dumps—a normal scene along rural avenues near my home

Yet both Neistat and Rogen accurately defined Third Worldization: the utter breakdown of the law and the ability of the rich within such a feudal society to find ways to avoid the violent chaos.

After traveling the last 45 years in the Middle East, southern Europe, Mexico, and Asia Minor, I observed some common characteristics of a so-called Third-World society. And all of them might feel increasingly familiar to contemporary Americans.

Whether in Cairo or Naples, theft was commonplace. Yet property crimes were almost never seriously prosecuted. about:blankabout:blank

In a medieval-type society of two rather than three classes, the rich in walled estates rarely worry that much about thievery. Crime is written off as an intramural problem of the poor, especially when the middle class is in decline or nonexistent. 

Violent crime is now soaring in America. But two things are different about America’s new criminality.

One is the virtual impunity of it. Thieves now brazenly swarm a store, ransack, steal, and flee with the content without worry of arrest. 

Second, the Left often justifies crime as a sort of righteous payback against a supposedly exploitative system. 

So, the architect of the so-called 1619 Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, preened of the summer 2020 riotous destruction of property: “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.” about:blank

Third Worldization reflects the asymmetry of law enforcement. Ideology and money, not the law, adjudicate who gets arrested and tried, and who does not. 

There were 120 days of continuous looting, arson, and lethal violence in summer 2020. The riots were variously characterized by the burning of courthouses, police precincts, and an iconic church. 

And there was also a frightening riot on January 6, where a mob entered the Capitol and damaged federal property. 

Among those arrested in the latter Washington, D.C. violence many are often held in solitary confinement or under harsh jail conditions. That one-day riot is currently the subject of a congressional investigation.

Some of those arrested are still, 10 months later, awaiting trial. The convicted are facing long prison sentences. 

In contrast, some 14,000 were arrested in the longer and more violent rioting of 2020. Most were released without bail. The majority had their charges dropped. Very few are still being held awaiting capital charges.

A common denominator to recent controversies at the Justice Department, CIA, FBI, and Pentagon is that all these agencies under dubious pretexts have investigated American citizens with little or no justification—after demonizing their targets as “treasonous,” “domestic terrorists,” “white supremacists,” or “racists.”about:blankabout:blank

In the Third World, basic services—power, fuel, transportation, water—are characteristically unreliable: In other words, much like a frequent California brownout. 

I’ve been on five flights in my life where it was announced there was not enough fuel to continue to the scheduled destination—requiring either turning around or landing somewhere on the way. One such aborted flight took off from Cairo, another from southern Mexico. The other three were this spring and summer inside the United States.

One of the most memorable scenes that I remember of Ankara, Old Cairo, or Algiers of the early 1970s were legions of beggars and the impoverished sleeping on sidewalks. 

But such impoverishment pales in comparison to the encampments of present-day Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento, or San Francisco. Tens of thousands live on sidewalks and in open view use them to defecate, urinate, inject drugs, and dispose of refuse.  

In the old Third World, extreme wealth and poverty existed in close proximity. It was common to see peasants on horse-drawn wagons a few miles from coastal villas. 

But there is now far more contiguous wealth and poverty in Silicon Valley. In Redwood City and East Palo Alto, multiple families cram into tiny bungalows and garages—often a few blocks from tony Atherton. 

On the main streets outside of Stanford University and the Google campus, the helot classes sleep in decrepit trailers and buses parked on the streets.  

Neistat was right in identifying a pandemic of crime in Los Angeles as Third Worldization. 

But so was Rogen, though unknowingly so. The actor played the predictable role of the smug, indifferent Third World rich who master ignoring—and navigating around—the misery of others in their midst.

About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and WonThe Case for Trump and the newly released The Dying Citizen.

“The Pressure On The Jury Was Almost Overwhelming…”

December 2, 2021

The Beauty of the Jury System as it Came in the Rittenhouse Trial

By Jake Welch at American Thinker:

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial was one of, if not, the most highly publicized and politicized cases since the trial of O.J. Simpson, with the jury’s Nov. 19 verdict causing a storm of both approbation and disapprobation around the world. 

Such high profile cases are bound to elicit aggressive responses from all sides.

Yet what changed this time was the difference in response from certain sections of the public; namely, the that some viewed the American justice system as defunct and obsolete, based on the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges, and, therefore, needed to be reconstructed. 

I disagree entirely. The one notable fact about the Rittenhouse trial was the success of the system that acquitted Rittenhouse on all charges.

For anyone who followed the trial closely, they would have seen that the pressure on the jury was almost overwhelming. The pressure came from various institutions, corporations and political figures alike. One example of this was the trial judge having to urge the jury not to consider the opinions of President Biden. Everyone felt it was their duty to weigh in apparently. Ben & Jerry’s, which is an ice-cream company, for example, tweeted, “[t]he #RittenhouseTrial displays yet again that our “justice” system is racist.”  MSNBC had commentators calling him a ‘little murderous white supremacist’ even after the verdict and thousands of people had ‘liked’ and retweeted Biden’s video linking Rittenhouse with Charlottesville white supremacists.  

Yet there was more, and that was the threat of violence and looting. As reported by the Guardian, the city of Kenosha was on standby awaiting the verdict of the jury as it was hoping to avoid the violence experienced last year. An even greater scandal was the news network MSNBC was banned from the courtroom because one of their reporters skipped a red light to follow a bus escorting the jury home – something unquestionably prejudicial to the proceedings.

Despite all this, the jury nevertheless found Kyle Rittenhouse ‘not guilty.’ A small collection of the public minded people evaluated the evidence before them and stood defiantly against the state and much of the media to ensure someone innocent of the crimes he was accused of did not spend the rest of his life in prison. This is precisely the reason why juries are worth protecting.

I’m sure many who wish to see his trial decision reversed or heard again before a political body would agree with Mr. Bumble from Oliver Twist when he says ‘juries is ineddictaed, vulgar, grovelling wretches.’ That is no doubt sometimes the case. But they have done more to protect the freedoms of the individual more than any philosopher, jurist, politician or political commentator ever have.

The function of the jury system, something the barrister Sadakat Kadri calls a ‘civic sacrament,’ has been widely forgotten and wholly misunderstood as it involves archaic language and sometimes even appeals to sentiment. It dates back as far back as King Alfred the Great’s legal code, promulgated in the 9th century and has evolved regularly since then. 

One cannot pretend to suggest that juries always have been or always will be perfect because they are not: far from it. David Hume, for example, made the point that in the days of the supremacy of the Star Chamber, ‘juries were no manner of security to the liberty of the subject…[where] the court was resolved to have him condemned.’ 

There can, however, be no doubt that they have been and are a veritable good for us. They ensure, as was demonstrated by the Rittenhouse trial, the state cannot imprison an individual arbitrarily; on the contrary, the state has to present a factual, logical and well-reasoned argument to twelve random members of the public, persuading them that it is justifiable to remove the individual’s freedom. However, the state is fighting against the defence, which seeks to protect the fundamental liberties of the individual and has to prove that the individual is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – a roughly 95% certainty that the defendant is guilty. There can be no wonder then why Lord Devlin, one of the most pre-eminent British justices of the 20th century called the jury, ‘the lamp that shows that freedom lives.

It means that individuals have a fighting chance in a courtroom. It’s not like the European tradition, whereby two lawyers are chatting a bit with the judge, usually behind closed doors or in an empty courtroom, about how long the sentence should be, while the defendant is forced to wallow in his alleged criminality. The judge is omnipotent and dictates the direction of the trial. The counsel is duller and useless and simply there to ask witnesses questions but in no way similar to the art of cross-examination. Of course, there are some advantages to this such as ensuring justice is as smooth and efficient as a conveyor belt. 

But efficient justice fails to recognize the humanity and raw emotion one feels when starring at 30 years in prison. The English and American tradition, on the other hand, is, indeed, an inefficient, costly, exhaustive, and time-consuming slog, exhausting the defendant, his and victims’ family and all those involved. That, however, is the price of a fairer system: a system that prioritizes the defendant’s freedom above everything else. 

There is a more fundamental reason why juries exist, and that is for the reason that justice is near impossible to define. Rigorous debate about the meaning of justice goes as far back as ancient Greece and has troubled the minds of some of the most intelligent people who have lived since then. But, realistically, very few people have even come close to a satisfactory definition of justice. Yet even then, the definitions are far from unchallenge-able. Instead, it is much easier to see what justice is not than what it is. Determining an injustice is something most people are capable of, hence, why our societies rely on the public’s sagacity rather than jurisprudential knowledge.

Consider this example. What is a just punishment for jaywalking without any other circumstances being relevant? A man simply walks across the road when the light is red and is caught by the police. That’s it. The answer to the question of a just punishment is, indeed, difficult to know. What, on the other hand, is easier to argue is that a $1 million fine is unjust, and the state wanting to send a jaywalker to prison would be extremely unjust. 

But what if the state wishes to send him to prison for that? Fortunately, we are from a tradition that guarantees that the state cannot simply do this arbitrarily. In the Anglosphere, habeas corpus is a reality for most others, including first world countries, it is an ambition or nuisance.

What happened in the Rittenhouse trial was a triumph of the ordinary man over the arbitrary power of the state. There is a valuable lesson in that. The state thought by simply bringing a prosecution, with less than satisfactory evidence, against Rittenhouse coupled with strong political pressure would be sufficient for a conviction. Thankfully for all of us, it was not. That is why they are debating the jury system because with it existing the power of the state is forced back.

I’m sure many today would prefer a legal system without juries, and constant discussion about their efficiency and effectiveness make this a distinct likelihood for the future. However, I know for a fact that were I forced to sit in the dock, accused of a crime I have not committed, I know what system I would choose.

Actors In Acting Action?

Alec Baldwin: I didn’t pull the trigger

JAZZ SHAW Dec 02, 2021 9:21 AM at HotAir:

AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

ABC will air an interview this evening with Alec Baldwin, the first that he’s granted since the shooting on the set of his movie Rust. The actor spoke with George Stephanopoulos and answered some questions about the shooting and it sounds as if his story has changed a bit since the first reports about the accident emerged. The biggest item that’s been released so far is that Baldwin reportedly told Stephanopoulos that he “didn’t pull the trigger.” He also claims that he would “never” point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger. He further said that he has “no idea” how a live round wound up in the revolver. That last part at least sounds believable, but the rest of the story presents some obvious questions.

Alec Baldwin is insisting he “didn’t pull the trigger” on the gun that killed a cinematographer and wounded the director on the New Mexico set of his film “Rust.”

In his first interview since the deadly Oct. 21 shooting, a tearful Baldwin told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos he has “no idea” how the live bullet ended up in the firearm.

“The trigger wasn’t pulled. I didn’t pull the trigger,” Baldwin said in a preview clip of the interview released on Wednesday.

“I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them, never,” he said.

On a quick search, I didn’t find a useful clip of Baldwin firing a weapon at anyone in any of his movies (though I’m pretty confident such clips exist). But in terms of pointing guns, here’s one of the promotional images from his 1994 film, The Getaway. (Click for full-size image.) But let’s not dwell on the past.

I’m not sure how carefully Baldwin was parsing his words during that particular answer so it’s possible he merits a bit of the benefit of the doubt. Note that he said, “I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them.” Obviously the revolver was pointed at the crew when it went off, otherwise, we wouldn’t have had two people struck by the bullet. And it’s already been established that Baldwin had been practicing his “cross draw” technique inside of the church at the time of the incident.

If he’s trying to say that he didn’t pull the trigger, he’s at least heavily implying that the Colt revolver fired in some other fashion. But when you consider the construction and operation of that sort of revolver, how else would it have fired? You actually have to apply some considerable pressure to the trigger to draw back and release the hammer. The exception might be if the hammer was in the cocked position in the holster, in which case the first round could be fired far more easily. But if that’s the case, it’s something of a miracle that it hadn’t already discharged while he was practicing.https://c254b9eefdad35f7b6cbae6a8a9f3fc6.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Perhaps he’s implying that he didn’t intentionally pull the trigger? But even then, proper firearms handling rules would dictate that his finger should never have been inside the trigger guard. The idea that the trigger accidentally caught on his clothing or some other obstacle while drawing it seems like a non-starter because then it wouldn’t have been pointed at the crew yet.

I find myself already wondering if Baldwin isn’t trying to set himself up with a preemptive defense here. No charges have been filed in this case yet, but officials haven’t taken that possibility off the table. If the actor can convince everyone that the Colt revolver just magically fired on its own with no help from him, that might be very beneficial to his defense if he does wind up facing some sort of charge. But as I mentioned above, the idea of an uncocked Colt revolver accidentally discharging out of the blue seems rather far-fetched.

I don’t want to leave our readers with the impression that I’m suggesting this shooting was anything other than an accident, albeit one that was made possible by a massive series of missteps and violations of firearm safety protocols. There’s simply nothing at this point that would suggest Baldwin intended to shoot anyone that day, and if he actually did have violent intentions he’d have to be just about one of the stupidest people on the planet to do it under those circumstances. The real question that the investigators will need to get to the bottom of is how the live round wound up in the chamber in the first place. Baldwin claims he has no idea and that may well prove to be true.

Leftist Savagery Is Stirring A Revolution!?

Waukesha Killings Make the Media Colorblind Again

The contrast with the Kyle Rittenhouse case illustrates the double standard.

By Jason L. Riley

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death last year, employers offered black workers time off to deal with the news, and UCLA suspended a professor who refused to grade his supposedly traumatized black students more leniently than their nonblack peers.

Such gestures may have been well-meaning, but they were also nonsensical and reeked of condescension. Are black psyches really this fragile, and are blacks so starved for exemplars that miscreants must be treated like martyrs? Should Floyd’s death matter more to them than the huge number of black homicides that don’t involve police? And why would people who aren’t black be any less disturbed by a video showing a police officer kneeling on the neck of a defenseless suspect for nine minutes?OPINION: POTOMAC WATCHWaukesha, Looting and Progressive Prosecutors00:001xSUBSCRIBE

The protests that followed Floyd’s death rested on two assumptions. The first is that Floyd, a career criminal and drug addict, was somehow representative of black America, which is not only false but deeply insulting. The second is that police acted out of racial animus, which has never been proven. This is what happens when racial identity becomes the centerpiece of politics and public life in a multiracial society.

The political left often pretends to pine for a postracial America, but that’s the last thing it really wants. I recall a guy who ran for president a little while back after talking about how there’s no black America or white America or Asian America, just a United States of America. And then he became president and stopped talking like that. Instead, he started talking about racist policing and black voter suppression, and he embraced divisive racial provocateurs like Al Sharpton. All the colorblind talk went out the window.

People who are interested in a postracial America don’t name their organization Black Lives Matter or welcome racial propaganda like the “1619 Project” into elementary schools. They don’t advocate racial preferences in college admissions or racial quotas in hiring. And they don’t call for white people who were never slaveholders to pay reparations to black people who were never slaves.

The Biden administration has picked up where the Obama administration left off. The unwarranted racialization of the Kyle Rittenhouse saga, which concerned one white man shooting three other whites, was a clumsy attempt by President Biden and his allies to further a narrative about bias in the criminal justice system. To their credit, jurors stuck to the facts of the case and Mr. Rittenhouse was acquitted, but liberals and their friends in the media are playing a dangerous game when they selectively invoke race to advance a political agenda.

The same press outlets that portrayed Mr. Rittenhouse as a white supremacist have had remarkably little to say about the racial identity of Darrell Brooks, the black suspect in Wisconsin who is accused of plowing his car through an annual Christmas parade last month and killing six people, including an 8-year-old boy, all of whom were white. Given the suspect’s history of posting messages on social media that called for violence against white people and praised Hitler for killing Jews, you’d think that his race and the race of his victims would be relevant to reporters. Race is all anyone would be talking about if a white man had slammed his vehicle into a parade full of black people. Yet suddenly the left has gone colorblind.

Liberals want us to believe that racial disparities in police shootings and incarceration rates stem from a biased system and have little to do with racial disparities in criminality. They want to talk about so-called hate crimes that involve white assailants and black victims, but not those involving black assailants and white or Asian victims. They want headlines to read “White Cop Shoots Black Suspect,” even when there’s no evidence that the encounter was racially motivated. This is playing with fire.

“Once we go down this road and get into the habit of racializing such events, we may not be able to contain that racialization,” said Brown University economist Glenn Loury in a recent speech for the Manhattan Institute. “Soon enough, we may find ourselves in a world of instances where black thugs killing white citizens come to be seen though a racial lens as well. This is a world no thoughtful person should welcome since there are a great many such instances.”

The political left’s hyperconsciousness about race might help Democrats turn out their base, but at a steep cost. National cohesion in a country as large and ethnically diverse as this one has always depended on our ability to focus not on our superficial differences but instead on what unites us as Americans. The sooner we start choosing political leaders who understand this—and punishing the ones who don’t—the better off we’ll be.

Today’s “Stars”? WHY ARE SO MANY SUCH CREEPS! Where do they learn their skills? WHY?

Did Jussie Smollett have a “dry run” of the “hate crime” attack caught on video?

JAZZ SHAW Dec 02, 2021 8:01 AM ET Share Tweet

Photo by Willy Sanjuan/Invision/AP

The Jussie Smollett trial has certainly been packed with action thus far, much of it seeming problematic for the defense. The latest bit of bad news for the former Empire actor was some additional security video that was shown to the jury toward the end of the day on Tuesday. The video was from January 27, 2019, two days before the supposed “hate crime” attack. In it, Smollett is seen walking with the Osundairo brothers near the scene of the supposed attack. Prosecutors described this as a “dry run” for the incident, a claim that is apparently backed up by the brothers. After the alleged practice run, the brothers were captured on video going to purchase some of the materials they would use during the “attack.” (Daily Mail)

On Tuesday, jurors were shown footage of Smollett walking near the scene of the alleged attack with brothers Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo on January 27, 2019.

The brothers are then seen going to the Crafty Beaver for rope, a beauty supply store for masks and hats and a bank to deposit the $3,500 check Smollett paid them to commit the act.

The brothers paid their bill at the beauty supply with a $100 bill Smollett gave them, the Chicago Tribune reported.

The problem with this latest bit of evidence is that without any audio of what was being discussed, Smollett’s attorneys have a fairly handy excuse available. The scene in question is within walking distance of where Smollett lived at the time. It really wouldn’t be that unusual for him to be out and about in the neighborhood. Also, the Osundairo brothers were already doing some work for him in various capacities during that period. So if he was seen picking them up or dropping them off it could be claimed that they were just running errands for him.

Of course, the timing certainly makes that excuse seem rather suspicious. Also, the Osundairo brothers are sitting right there in the courtroom ready to testify that the prosecutors’ interpretation is correct. The jury will eventually have to decide who is lying in this case. But the defense may point out that the Osundairo brothers do have an incentive to agree with the prosecution because they were granted immunity from being prosecuted for participating in the hoax in exchange for their testimony.

One detail that we previously discussed here does seem to have been at least partly cleared up. Yesterday I raised some questions about the mysterious hot sauce bottle that’s been featured in this week’s testimony. I noted that hot sauce bottles tend to be small and have stoppers that limit the amount of liquid that’s dispensed. But a close-up photo of the bottle emerged and it appears to either not come with that sort of a stopper or the stopper was removed, so it seems it could have been used in the fashion described.

The arguments being made by the defense in this case really aren’t as implausible as I’d imagined up until now, though they still seem pretty far-fetched. Smollett’s entire defense rests on his assertion that the Osundairo brothers only pretended to befriend him because he was paying them but they were secretly homophobes and decided to attack him for that reason. The defense backs this claim up with text messages taken from their phones describing gay people in a derogatory fashion. Further, another Empire actor who is also gay claimed that the brothers had accosted him in a similar fashion over his sexual orientation but the police never looked into that claim.

Is all of this going to be enough to create a sufficient amount of doubt in the mind of the jury to get Smollet off on these charges? It still sounds far too implausible to me, but who knows? Stranger things have happened in American courtrooms before.




According to Ralph Cipriano at “Big Trial,” the suspect in the murder of Temple student Sam Collington is a criminal who escaped charges for armed carjacking, among things, thanks to the leniency of left-wing, Soros-backed Philadelphia prosecutor Larry Krasner:

The suspect in the murder of a 21 year-old Temple University student was arrested on Aug. 14th and charged with eight crimes in connection with an armed carjacking, including aggravated assault, robbery, conspiracy and possession of an unlicensed gun.

A judge set bail that day at $200,000 monetary, meaning the suspect, Latif Williams, 17, had to plunk down a 10% deposit of $20,000 to get out of jail.

The cops did their job. But then it was the duty of the D.A.’s office under Larry Krasner to prosecute the case. What happened next helps explain why Philadelphia today has already set an all-time record of 510 murders, with a whole month left to go in 2021.

(Emphasis added)

Here’s what happened next:

On Aug. 20, less than a week after his arrest, Municipal Court Joffie Pittman lowered the bail for Williams to $200,000 unsecured, meaning the defendant had to post no money at all to stay out of jail, but the judge also ordered Williams to be held under house arrest.

The D.A. filed no appeal. On Sept. 16th, Judge Charles Hayden granted the D.A.’s request for a continuance after a “victim/witness failed to appear” in court, according to the Municipal Court docket.

On Sept. 30th, only the second listing for the preliminary hearing in the case, Judge Martin Coleman granted the D.A.’s motion to withdraw all eight charges against Williams, and he was a free man.

(Emphasis added)

Here’s what happened next, predictably. Less than two months later, Williams tried to pull off another carjacking. This time the victim, 20-year-old student Sam Collington, fought back. Williams responded by shooting him twice in the chest. Collington died soon thereafter.

Williams is only 17, but has quite a criminal history:

Williams’s first arrest dates back to November 2017, the month he turned 13, for robbing a college student on the Temple campus of a cell phone, in addition to assaulting her.

Although he was arrested for that robbery, there is no record of the resolution of that case, which may be due to the youth of Williams.

On July 20, 2019, Williams was locked up for selling drugs. On Aug. 21, 2020, the D.A.’s office under Larry Krasner withdrew the charges against him.

On May 31, 2020, during the George Floyd riots, Williams was arrested for burglary, rioting and looting. According to the police, Williams kicked a police car window out and spit on the cops.

On Sept. 18, 2020, the D.A.’s office under Larry Krasner withdrew all those charges against Williams.

On Nov. 6, 2020, Williams was arrested for selling drugs. On Sept. 10, 2021, the D.A.’s office under Larry Krasner withdrew those charges.

Cipriano goes on to present a partial list of the many victims who have been murdered by armed and dangerous criminals turned loose by the D.A.’s office under Larry Krasner. Cipriano provides a more complete list here.


There’s a twist to the Williams case. His murder victim was, according to a friend, a “devout Marxist” who “would not want his death to be used to push any sort of right-wing pro-police agenda such as stop and frisk.”

How about prosecuting repeat criminal offenders? Is that a “right-wing pro-police” agenda item?

I don’t know the victim, but I suspect that, Marxist or not, he might want thugs like Williams to be prosecuted before they commit murder. It’s bad enough to be mugged by reality without being murdered by it.

The victim’s mother doesn’t seem to favor leniency in this case. She says she will “do everything to make sure that there is Justice For Sam.”

Unfortunately, it’s too late for that now. Justice for Sam, and for the citizens of Philadelphia, would have entailed prosecuting Williams for his prior offenses and doing everything reasonably possible to keep him off the streets.

But that’s not what Larry Krasner is about. He’s about “reimagining” the role of prosecutors. The role he imagines is dangerously close to that of defense lawyers.

Twenty Years Of American Scandal Misery….When Will It End?

The Washington Examiner

Member Log

Katy Tur’s credibility the latest casualty of the Andrew Cuomo scandal

by Becket Adams, Senior Commentary Writer:   | December 01, 2021

MSNBC’s Katy Tur probably shouldn’t be anywhere near an anchor’s desk.

In 2017, after disgraced former NBC News anchor Matt Lauer was fired over credible allegations of sexual misconduct, Tur reflected on-air about the nature of workplace harassment and what more can be done to support and protect the victims of abuse.Next VideoPeloton and Lululemon in heated patent battle01:59×00:37/01:34

“We can talk about the sea change or reckoning until we are all blue in the face, but the real question right now is ‘what’s next?’” she said. “What concrete measures can be put in place by organizations large and small in the workplace?”

Four years later, as then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo stood credibly accused of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, Tur used her position at MSNBC to parrot his office’s spin “like verbatim,” according to the people paid to rescue him.

On March 3, as the sexual harassment allegations against Cuomo mounted, he addressed the matter publicly. He argued he did not, in fact, sexually harass anyone but that his accusers merely mistook his overly friendly manner for sexual overtures.

An independent investigation by New York’s state attorney general concluded this year Cuomo sexually harassed at least 11 women, including state employees. He resigned later in disgrace.

But on March 3, as Tur covered Cuomo’s first public response to the scandal, his inner circle was delighted by her reporting. Pro-Cuomo Democratic strategist Lis Smith even bragged in a private text exchange the anchor had parroted her spin “verbatim.”

“I’m texting [with] Katy tur,” Smith wrote . “Katy is saying my spin live. Like verbatim.”

Here is what Tur said:I’ve just been talking with somebody who is close to the family and I asked them, given the moment we have been living in for the past two years, given how everyone has had a reckoning with this #MeToo moment, why would someone like Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is a savvy politician, not have buttoned things up, not have gotten the message to be careful about what he says around his staffers around others.

And the person said, it’s not that he didn’t think the rules didn’t apply to him, it’s just that in the Cuomo DNA, they are extraordinarily friendly, I guess, by nature.

Here is a clip of the March 3 segment (the relevant moment is at the 3:40 mark):https://www.youtube.com/embed/TxW_l-8nqCw

Neither Tur nor MSNBC responded to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment.

There are a couple of problems with Tur’s coverage. For starters, she bills Smith simply as “somebody who is close to the family” as opposed to a hired gun that was brought on specifically to spin the sexual harassment scandal. This is hiding the ball. Tur’s inside information didn’t just come from “somebody who is close to the family” but from someone whom Cuomo paid to defend him at all costs.

A fair argument can be made Tur didn’t so much parrot the Cuomo spin “like verbatim” as she simply repeated his team’s official position. Indeed, her sigh at the end of the segment suggests even she realizes the “I’m not a pervert, I’m Italian” defense is insanely stupid. Then again, if this is the case, why repeat it at all? Tur didn’t have to repeat any of what Smith apparently told her. She certainly didn’t have to repeat it uncritically.

Also, the fact Smith was privately pleased with Tur’s coverage suggests Tur did indeed serve Cuomo’s interests as opposed to the interests of MSNBC’s viewers.

It’s important to remember Tur is not a pundit or a commentator. She is part of MSNBC’s “hard news” division. That she repeated the Cuomo spin, presenting it as the family’s side of the matter and withholding the fact her information came from a paid strategic operative, suggests either a major ethical failing or complicity.

Let me put it this way: In the 1995 film Casino, after gamblers score roughly $45,000 on a slot machine scam, hotel operations manager Sam Rothstein (Robert De Niro) fires the employee who should’ve put a stop to the scheme the moment it became obvious. Rothstein says, “Listen, if you didn’t know you’re being scammed, you’re too f***ing dumb to keep this job. If you did know, you were in on it. Either way, you’re out.”

The same can be said here for Tur.

If she didn’t realize Cuomo’s spin doctors fed her obvious self-serving slop, she’s too stupid to keep her job. If she did know, it means she was complicit in the effort to help Cuomo escape the consequences of his actions.

Either way, she should be out.

The Safety of PENG SHUAI?!

WTA head says suspension of play in China could extend beyond 2022 if still concern over Peng Shuai’s safety

ESPN Associated Press…..article sent by Mark Waldeland:

The suspension of all WTA tournaments in China because of concerns about the safety of Peng Shuai, a Grand Slam doubles champion who accused a former government official there of sexual assault, could result in cancellations of those events beyond 2022, the head of the women’s professional tennis tour told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

“We’re hopeful we get to the right place, but we are prepared, if it continues as it is — which hasn’t been productive to date — that we will not be operating in the region,” WTA President and CEO Steve Simon said in a video call from California. “This is an organizational effort that is really addressing something that’s about what’s right and wrong.”

He said the move to put a halt to the tour’s play in China, including Hong Kong, came with the backing of the WTA Board of Directors, players, tournaments and sponsors. It is the strongest public stand against China taken by a sports body — and one that could cost the WTA millions of dollars.

Peng dropped out of public view after raising the allegations about former vice premier Zhang Gaoli in a Nov. 2 social media posting that was quickly taken down by Chinese authorities.

In the month since, Simon has made repeated calls for China to carry out an inquiry into the 35-year-old Peng’s accusations and to allow the WTA to communicate directly with the former No. 1-ranked doubles player and owner of titles at Wimbledon and the French Open.

“Our approach to this and our request to the authorities are consistent and they’ll stay there. We definitely would like to have our own discussion with Peng and be comfortable that she’s truly safe and free and has not been censored, intimidated or anything like that,” Simon told The AP. “We still haven’t been able to have that conversation to have the comfort that what we’re seeing isn’t being orchestrated, to date. The second element of that is that we want a full and transparent — without any level of censorship — investigation on the allegations that were made.”

China typically hosts about 10 women’s tennis tournaments each year, including the prestigious season-ending WTA Finals, which are scheduled to be held there for a decade. The nation is a source of billions of dollars in income for various sports entities based elsewhere, including the WTA (headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida), the NBA (run out of New York) and the International Olympic Committee (Lausanne, Switzerland).

Simon said the suspension, announced Wednesday via a statement from him issued by the tour, means that tournaments could still end up being staged in China if its government follows through with his requests. If not, the events could be moved to other countries, as happened this year, when the tour’s Asian swing was called off because of COVID-19 concerns; the WTA Finals, for example, were shifted to Guadalajara, Mexico, last month.

“We haven’t canceled, as of yet, but we’re prepared to get to that point,” Simon said on the video call. “And that’ll be a point of discussion at some point: Where do you get to cancellation? Is it 2022 only? Is it for the future? I mean, those are all questions that will come down the road.”

Beijing is set to host the Winter Games beginning on Feb. 4, and IOC President Thomas Bach said on Nov. 21 that he spoke with Peng — a three-time Olympian — on a 30-minute video call. The IOC did not release video or a transcript of the exchange and said only that Bach reported that she said she was well.

The IOC said in a statement that Peng appeared to be “doing fine” and said she had requested privacy. The IOC did not explain how the call was arranged, although it has worked closely with the Chinese Olympic Committee and government officials to organize the upcoming Games.

The European Union said Tuesday it wants China to offer “verifiable proof” that Peng is safe.

A number of Chinese businesspeople, activists and ordinary people have disappeared in recent years after criticizing ruling Communist Party figures or in crackdowns on corruption or pro-democracy and labor rights campaigns.

A statement attributed to Peng two weeks and tweeted out by the international arm of Chinese state broadcaster CCTV included a retraction of her accusations.

“In good conscience, I don’t see how I can ask our athletes to compete there when Peng Shuai is not allowed to communicate freely and has seemingly been pressured to contradict her allegation of sexual assault,” Simon said in the release announcing the suspensions. “Given the current state of affairs, I am also greatly concerned about the risks that all of our players and staff could face if we were to hold events in China in 2022.”

The U.S. Tennis Association commended Simon and the WTA, tweeting a statement that read: “This type of leadership is courageous and what is needed to ensure the rights of all individuals are protected and all voices are heard.”

International Tennis Federation spokeswoman Heather Bowler said the ITF Board would meet Thursday to discuss the matter.

“I applaud Steve Simon and the WTA leadership for taking a strong stand on defending human rights in China and around the world,” International Tennis Hall of Fame member and women’s tennis pioneer Billie Jean King said. “The WTA has chosen to be on the right side of history in defending the rights of our players. This is yet another reason why women’s tennis is the leader in women’s sports.”

Concerns about the censoring of Peng’s post and her subsequent disappearance from public view turned #WhereIsPengShuai into a trending topic on social media and drew support from tennis stars such as Serena WilliamsNaomi OsakaRoger FedererRafael NadalNovak Djokovic and Martina Navratilova.

But news of the first #MeToo case to reach the political realm in China has not been reported by the domestic media and online discussion of it has been highly censored.

“I can only imagine the range of emotions and feelings that Peng is likely going through right now. I hope she knows that none of this is her fault, and that we remain very proud of her extreme courage that she’s shown through this,” Simon told the AP.

But the one thing that we can’t do is walk away from this, because if we’re walking away from the key elements — which is obviously not only her well-being, but the investigation — then we’re telling the world that not addressing sexual assault with respect to the seriousness it requires is OK, because it’s too difficult. And it’s simply something that we can’t let happen.

“The CDC issued an order to all airlines late Tuesday to turn over the names and contact information of all passengers who have traveled to specific southern African countries in the past fourteen days.”

CDC orders airlines to turn over passenger information on those returning from southern Africa

KAREN TOWNSEND Dec 01, 2021 at HotAir:

(AP Photo/David Goldman, File)

The CDC issued an order to all airlines late Tuesday to turn over the names and contact information of all passengers who have traveled to specific southern African countries in the past fourteen days. The emergence of the omicron variant is causing actions from the U.S. and other countries to limit and control incoming flights from a select few countries.

The countries listed in the CDC order are Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Botswana. The passenger information collected will be sent to local and state public health agencies. Local and state public health agencies are to follow up with recommendations for potential post-arrival viral testing and quarantine and isolation. This new order goes further than an earlier directive on November 8 which required all airlines to collect contact tracing information from all international air passengers. The new order requires the airlines to turn over the names.

The new directive, which took effect late Tuesday and was seen by Reuters, mandates airlines to turn over the information within 24 hours of passengers arriving in the United States who have been in one of the eight African countries.

The collected information includes full name, full address while in the United States, primary contact phone number, secondary or emergency contact phone number, and email address.

On Monday the Biden administration banned nearly all foreign nationals from entering the United States if they have been in one of the eight southern African countries. The administration is sorting out its winter covid strategy and is considering stricter requirements for all travelers, including Americans returning to the country. Besides additional testing requirements, there is also consideration being made to require a seven-day quarantine, even with a negative test result. As Ed asked in a post earlier today, what about the illegal aliens crossing the southern border? They are reported to have a 20% Covid-19 infection rate. Biden’s insistence on returning to the old ways of catch and release policies for those coming into the country illegally is a public health risk, to put it mildly.

Omicron variant cases have been found in 20 countries so far. The directive from the CDC references specific information that will be required on the passengers.

a) Full name (last, first, and, if available, middle or suffix (e.g., Jr.)
b) Address while in the United States (number and street, city, state or territory, and ZIP
c) Primary phone number to include country and area code, at which the passenger can
be contacted while in the United States
d) Secondary phone number to include country and area code, which may be an
emergency contact number, a work number, or a home number
e) Email address that the passenger will routinely check while in the United States
f) Date of birth
g) Airline name
h) Flight number
i) City of departure
j) Departure date and time
k) City of arrivalit
l) Arrival date and time
m) Seat number

We are being told to not panic, that so far the omicron variance is a quick-spreading virus but it isn’t as hard on patients as earlier variants. The airlines have a 24-hour deadline to turn in the information to our federal health official overlords.

It’s not just the United States that is clamping down on travel passengers coming into the country. Japan, for example, has suspended all new reservations on incoming flights. It isn’t just foreign travelers who are being shut out of Japan, either, it is also Japanese citizens.

Those who have already made reservations are not affected, although flights may be canceled if there are insufficient passengers, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism said. Transit passengers are also unaffected, it said. Japan is a major transit hub for flights to and from Asia.

The move comes as Japan confirmed a second case of the omicron variant in a person who arrived from Peru, one day after it reported its first case in a Namibian diplomat.

Japan banned all foreign visitors starting Tuesday as an emergency precaution against the new variant. The ban tentatively extends through the end of the year. The government is also requiring Japanese citizens arriving in the country to quarantine for up to 14 days.

Japan is now offering coronavirus vaccine booster shots to health care workers.

Though we are being told that no omicron variant cases have been detected in the United States. Yet. As a rule, once we are warned about a virus, it is usually already here. It is being detected in South America and in Europe.

The pandemic has shown repeatedly that the virus “travels quickly because of our globalized, interconnected world,” said Dr. Albert Ko, an infectious disease specialist at the Yale School of Public Health. Until the vaccination drive reaches every country, “we’re going to be in this situation again and again.”

Brazil, which has recorded a staggering total of more than 600,000 COVID-19 deaths, reported finding the variant in two travelers returning from South Africa — the first known omicron cases in Latin America. The travelers were tested on Nov. 25, authorities said.

France recorded its first case, in the far-flung island territory of Reunion in the Indian Ocean. Authorities said the patient was a man who had returned to Reunion from South Africa and Mozambique on Nov. 20.

The new directive aimed at the airlines is in effect until further notice.

Slaughtering The Fems’ Unwanted…When Does It Become Legal Yet Murder A Human Soul?



That, at least, is how the Washington Post interprets today’s oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The team of five (yes, five) Post reporters that covered the argument writes:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday signaled that it is on the verge of a major shift in its abortion jurisprudence after hearing nearly two hours of arguments from attorneys for Mississippi, an abortion provider from the state and the Biden administration.

NRO blogged the argument, and its team reads it the same way. (I missed the argument due to a doctor’s appointment and haven’t read a transcript.)

The Post sees the Court, at a minimum, abandoning its current rule that states may not prohibit abortion before the point of fetal viability, which is generally estimated to be between 22 and 24 weeks. It thinks that all six non-liberal Justices are on board with ditching that rule. The Post adds: “Whether that would mean overruling Roe v. Wade’s finding that women have a fundamental right to end their pregnancies was unclear.”

The key votes are those of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh. According to the Post’s account, Roberts said “Mississippi’s limit of 15 weeks was not a ‘dramatic departure’ from viability and gave women enough time to make the choice to end their pregnancies.” I agree.

As for Kavanaugh, he “gave abortion rights supporters little to cheer in his comments and questions.”

He presented a list of cases in which the court had overturned long-held precedents and said that perhaps the best solution for the court was to be “scrupulously neutral” on an issue about which he said the Constitution is silent.

That sounds like a good idea. And if Kavanaugh adopts this “solution,” it likely means Roe v. Wade will be overturned regardless of what the Chief Justice decides.

The Post’s Amber Phillips provides her “four takeaways” from the argument here.

At NRO’s coverage, Ed Whelan makes three points about the argument:

1. Chief [Justice Roberts] seems to be searching for ruling that would reject viability line, which Casey called “central holding” of Roe. But what would he substitute in its place?

2. Court showed no interest in dismissing case. Chief affirmatively rejected that possibility.

3. Nothing problematic from Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett. Gorsuch in particular seemed to dismiss possibility of middle-ground ruling.

Michael Brendan Dougherty agrees:

It looks like at least five justices are skeptical of the holding in Roe and Casey. It looks like Chief Justice Roberts wanted a half-loaf solution of upholding Mississippi’s law without overturning Casey and Roe, but everyone made it difficult for him.

Dan McLaughlin adds:

[I]t is hard to see how pro-lifers could be more optimistic about how this argument went. Rikelman and Prelogar [the two lawyers arguing that the Mississippi law is unconstitutional] gave the Court no basis on which to rule against them without overruling Roe and Casey.

That strikes me as terrible strategy, but also the consequence of how the pro-choice movement has reasoned itself into a corner in which compromise is, so to speak, inconceivable. That intransigence could make it easier for the Justices to conclude that there really is no alternative way to avoid the all-or-nothing choice.

Kavanaugh, seen as the swing vote, hammered away at the point that getting the Court out of abortion is the neutral, small-d democratic middle ground. That is very encouraging.

But one should never underestimate Chief Justice Roberts’ ability to find alternatives to an “all-or-nothing” choice; nor should one discount his ability to bring at least one Justice with him.