• 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

Dem’s Lefty Fascist FBI IN ACTION!

October 3, 2022

The Seth Rich Case: The FBI’s Other Laptop Scandal

By Jack Cashill at American Thinker:

This is the tale of two laptops, one tale definitely damaging to the Democrats, one potentially so. What they have in common is that the FBI did its damnedest to bury both.

For all the hubbub about the Hunter Biden laptop, there has been little talk about the laptop owned by DNC data analyst Seth Rich. In the way of brief summary, the 27-year-old Rich was beaten and then shot by unknown assailants on a Washington, D.C. street in the early morning hours of July 10, 2016. His attackers appear to have taken nothing—not his wallet, not his phone, not his watch.

Seth Rich (photo credit: Linkedin via The Epoch Times)

Rich’s laptop was in his apartment not far from the scene of his murder. For six years, its fate has remained a mystery. In less than two weeks, however, thanks to a recent federal court decision, the FBI will be compelled to share its secrets, presuming there are any secrets and presuming too those secrets have not been scrubbed.

The FBI’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop is well enough known. The FBI took the laptop into possession in October 2019. If the New York Post had not revealed its existence and some of its highly incriminating contents in October 2020, the public might not be aware of it even today.

FBI whistleblowers and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley have pushed the Biden laptop back into the news. In a July 25  letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray, Grassley noted that the FBI allegedly “developed information in 2020 about Hunter Biden’s criminal financial and related activity,” but FBI Headquarters “improperly discredit[ed] negative Hunter Biden information as disinformation and caused investigative activity to cease.” The agent who blocked the Biden investigation from proceeding, Tim Thibault, resigned under a cloud a month ago.

The FBI’s M.O. on the Seth Rich laptop appears scarily similar. Its contents, like those of the Biden laptop, could have major geopolitical implications. Two weeks after Rich’s death, international man of mystery Julian Assange raised the interest level in his murder by strongly suggesting on Dutch TV that Rich was his source for the DNC emails then stirring up the hornets’ nest known as the Democratic Party. Assange subsequently offered a $20,000 reward to find Rich’s killer.

Three days before the November 2016 election, Assange reportedly told liberal media analyst Ellen Ratner that Rich was, in fact, his source for the DNC emails. Soon after Trump’s inauguration legendary investigative journalist Sy Hersh cited an FBI report confirming Assange’s claim.  Later that year, DNC head Donna Brazile dedicated her book, Hacks, to Rich and questioned whether the Russians had “played some part in his unsolved murder.”

A half-century or so ago, journalists would have been all over a story so rich in political intrigue. Not in 2016. Despite the stakes—or perhaps because of them—no major publication or network except for Fox News has even attempted to solve the still unsolved murder. The media quickly settled on a “botched robbery” scenario and scolded those who dug deeper. Fox News tried, and its execs rather wish they hadn’t. Fox got sued into submission by Rich’s parents. In fact, just about every independent investigator that took up this case has been sued or cancelled or dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Among those sued for his efforts was Ed Butowsky, a Texan financial advisor and occasional TV commentator.  In January 2017, he recorded a phone conversation with the profane and refreshingly candid Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner.  It was Hersh who alerted Butowsky and others to the FBI involvement in this seeming street crime. According to Hersh, the D.C. Police called in the FBI when its cyber unit failed to open Rich’s computer. The FBI’s “hot s—” cyber team succeeded and filed a report. 

As Hersh related, the report detailed how Rich “submitted a series of juicy emails from the DNC” to the WikiLeaks drop box and asked Assange for money in exchange for more emails. Hersh, however, had not seen the report itself. He cited a source on the inside who had been “unbelievably accurate” in providing Hersh information in the past.

Attorney Ty Clevenger, who represented Butowsky, has been working with “Texas man” Brian Huddleston to find out what the FBI knows. Clevenger began by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suits on behalf of Huddleston regarding Rich’s “involvement in DNC e-mail leaks” as early as August 2017. 

Judge Amos Mazant’s 53-page “memorandum opinion and order” documents each phase of FBI stonewalling from denial to the reluctant acknowledgement of 20,000 relevant files. “Had it not been for Huddleston’s persistence,” writes Mazant. “It is likely that the failure to locate over 20,000 pages of potentially responsive records would have gone unnoticed.”

The FBI denies Hersh’s version of events. Michael Seidel, an FBI official, contends in a declaration to the court that the FBI “offered to assist the MPD with its investigation; however, the MPD declined the offer.” As a consequence, the FBI “did not open an investigation into the death of Seth Rich nor did it provide investigative or technical assistance to the MPD.”

The FBI concedes that it has the contents of Rich’s laptop in its possession but also claims that it “had no involvement in the extraction of the data.” An unnamed “confidential source,” Seidel contends, provided that data to the Bureau. Not having extracted the data itself, the FBI cannot validate whether the information in its possession was actually on Rich’s laptop “at the time of his death.”

In a curious parallel, three months before Rich’s murder the DNC rejected the FBI’s help with the alleged hack of its computers, and then, too, the FBI rolled over. DNC staff alerted a DNC attorney at Perkins Coie, and he, in turn, recommended a private cyber security firm called CrowdStrike to clean up the mess. The Soviet-born Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike co-founder and chief technology officer, identified two hacker groups, “both working for the Russian government,” as the culprits. The media and the FBI accepted Alperovitch’s word as gospel.

Although claiming only a superficial knowledge of the content of Rich’s laptop, the FBI argued that his survivors have a “privacy interest” in withholding that information from the public. Mazant ruled otherwise: “The Court finds the FBI improperly withheld this information under FOIA.” He ordered the FBI “to produce the information it possesses related to Seth Rich’s laptop and responsive to Plaintiff’s request with 14 days of this order.”

In the movie version, the Washington Post newsroom is abuzz with the information contained in the Mazant memorandum. Reporters would want to know, at a minimum, who on the MDC rejected the FBI’s offer to help, why did the FBI so meekly accept the rejection, how could the FBI have been so indifferent to the laptop’s contents especially given its five-year fight to deep-six it, and who, finally, was the FBI’s confidential source? In the real-world version, unfortunately, the Washington Post shames those who ask such questions.

Three weeks after Rich’s murder, the FBI opened operation Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation into potential Trump-Russia collusion. This investigation would consume the FBI for the next several years. If Rich—and not the Russians—proved to be the Wikileaks source, the whole Trump-Russia narrative would implode, and the fallout would singe half of official Washington. In short, the FBI had even more motive to suppress the contents of the Rich laptop than it did the Biden one.

FBI techs have had six years to scrub the data. Pollyanna herself would be downright skeptical of retrieving anything of value. That conceded, the FBI went to considerable length in its declarations to distance itself from the contents of the laptop. No sane person would bet on this outcome, but those contents would make for a wonderful October surprise.

That Crooked New York Times In Action!

New York Times Helps Biden Pretend He’s Fixing Border Asylum Scam, When He’s Literally Making It Worse

BY: EDDIE SCARRY at the Federalist:

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

Border Patrol and migrants
For a fleeting moment, I was almost convinced by The New York Times that President Biden has taken even an infinitesimally small step in trying to manage the appalling numbers of illegal migrants flooding into the U.S. at the southern border. But per usual, anything read after the first three paragraphs of any immigration article at the Times will show that Democrats never care to do anything meaningful to halt illegal border crossers.

The story in question on Tuesday, no doubt the product of one quick call from an administration official to a couple of friendly reporters, declared at the top that “after months of debate in the White House, the Biden administration has begun to address a small slice of the problem: the woefully backlogged process to decide who qualifies for asylum, or protection from persecution, in the United States.”

The backlogged asylum litigation — which remains close to 1 million cases, each one taking an average of nearly five years to resolve (when the illegal border crosser actually bothers to show up for court) — isn’t “a small slice of the problem.” It’s the biggest problem. Protection for asylum seekers is intended for foreigners persecuted by their governments for political or religious beliefs. It wasn’t supposed to be a back door for all of South and Central America’s destitute to come here for jobs and welfare.

But word has gotten out south of Texas that Washington doesn’t really care. Both Republicans and Democrats have for years sat on their thumbs as impoverished Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans have dumped themselves by the hundreds of thousands into the care of the American taxpayer. More recently, it’s Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans. The surest way to buy time in the U.S. after breaking in illegally is to claim asylum. And it’s just enough time to disappear into the country (even with those very serious and stern court order papers destined for an outdated address).

The Times report went on to say that the Biden administration is attempting to process asylum seekers “faster” by giving the power to determine the validity of their claims to a number of officers who can make a decision quicker than it takes for the case to reach an immigration judge in court.

“Migrants will be interviewed 21 to 45 days after they apply for asylum, far faster than the years it can take in the existing immigration court system,” the report said. “A decision on whether the migrant is granted asylum must come quickly — within two to five weeks of the interview.”

The Times asserted that only a quarter of the 99 asylum seekers evaluated under the new rules were granted permission to stay. The rest were told to pack their bags and get the heck out.

Just kidding! The ones denied asylum status were then simply thrown into the mix of other migrants to appeal their cases in normal court proceedings.

In other words, it’s now easier to gain asylum status by illegally invading the country.

(By the way, 99 asylum seekers is almost .05 percent of the total number of migrants who illegally crossed the border in just August. There’s that Biden efficiency we’ve come to rely on!)

This would be like claiming to be pro-law enforcement by supporting the hiring of more police officers who have no authority to arrest suspected criminals.

Finally, in the 10th paragraph, the Times admitted the administration’s changes do absolutely nothing to mitigate the overwhelmed border. “The new rules … will not change the overloaded system for dealing with immigrants who do not claim asylum,” the report said. “And the challenge of how to quickly deport those denied asylum will remain.”

Cue the overhead lights and confetti. Surprise! You’ve once again been had!

It’s another reminder that Democrats don’t see the crush of migrants as a problem to be stopped, but as an opportunity (new voters) to be managed.


Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone.”

Biden, The Fascist Without A Brain!

The Democrat demographic god that’s failing

By Andrea Widburg at American Thinker:

For decades, Democrats have been certain that demographics would lead them to ultimate power. That wasn’t because they were having babies—actually, they were aborting them—but because America was becoming less White, and non-Whites were and would be forever reliable Democrat voters. Ah, hubris! It turns out that non-White people, just like White people, want a safe, clean, secure, and prosperous country, and the Democrats aren’t delivering. Surprise! Demography is not destiny.

From the day that Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and reputedly said “I’ll have those ****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years,” Democrats have taken for granted the votes, not just of Blacks, but of all non-White voters. In their mind, the one-time slave-holding party was certain that it “owned” these voters.

By 2002, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira had written an entire book on the subject: The Emerging Democratic Majority. The fact that Black women, a Democrat party staple, were sometimes aborting more babies than were being born, was irrelevant. Unlimited immigration was the answer. The Democrats happily added Hispanics and other non-White groups to the roster of voters they “owned.”

The Democrats’ certainty that the future was theirs (a certainty that invariably reminds me of this song; leftists are always so certain of their historic destiny), they forgot one thing: good governance. Under Trump’s watch, the economy soared, crime was at more or less normal levels, the border was becoming increasingly secure, and people of all races were benefitting.

In the twenty months since Biden took office, all those benefits have been reversed—and it’s obviously because the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Crime is soaring, the border is gone, the economy is tanking, we’re on the brink of a possible nuclear war, and the Democrats are using schools to turn our children into mentally ill, broken, racist people who don’t even know what sex they are. Outside of academia and Washington, D.C., these trends are viewed as complete policy failures. For all their talk, Democrats can’t govern.

No wonder that, according to the Wall Street Journal, there’s a huge and significant shift for all non-White voters, especially Hispanic and Asian: They’re trending Republican and doing so hard and fast.

The shift started during Trump’s administration, although it was offset by the fact that minorities in 2020 were still voting for Democrats and they (or, at least, their mail-in envelopes) turned out in greater numbers than usual in 2020 to vote for Biden. With Biden proving to be quite possibly the worst, most damaging, most divisive and, of course, most demented president in American history, the pro-Republican trend is continuing:

To find where the inroads for the Republican Party might prove most influential, The Wall Street Journal looked at census tracts—in essence, neighborhoods—in which 70% of residents are Latino, Asian-American, Black or from a mix of minority groups. We then compared how those neighborhoods voted in 2020 to the outcome in 2016.

The shift was most significant in heavily Latino neighborhoods—those in which Latino residents accounted for 70% or more of the population. The median shift across those neighborhoods was a 7.2-point increase in support for then-President Donald Trump, compared with his share of the 2016 vote, the Journal analysis found.

Keep in mind that the shift described above was before Biden destroyed the border and the economy, and Democrats welcomed a new era of violent crime, all of which strongly affect heavily minority (and, therefore, less affluent) neighborhoods most. One must imagine that anti-Democrat disaffection has grown since then.

Steven Hayward, at Power Line blog, has reprinted two of the most telling charts showing how dramatic the pro-Republican trend is among non-White voters. His post title says everything you need to know: “The Daily Chart that should terrify Democrats.”

Only one thing can destroy this heartening trend: Republican politicians and the Republican party. They are that stupid and that tone-deaf. It’s entirely possible that, mired in the past, they’ll continue to ignore the rising conservativism among minorities and, instead, keep trying to win young, college-educated middle-class Whites who are, mostly, a lost cause. I wish it weren’t so, but these young people haven’t been sufficiently mugged by reality to understand how the world works. They’re still invested in Democrat fantasies about the economy, immigration, gender, race, etc. It’s people in border towns and minority communities in both cities and suburbs who know the score.

Why Do Dems HIRE SO MANY CROOKS?

Within the last few days, the letter that the FBI sent to Peter Strzok when it fired him has been made public. The letter is dated August 8, 2018, and was signed by Deputy Director David Bowdich. Its rebuke to Strzok is stinging and unqualified. Here it is:https://www.scribd.com/embeds/597902354/content?start_page=1&view_mode&access_key=key-x5p6FSJaKVIOYYAXRExQ

View this document on Scribd

The language is largely quotable:

[I]t is difficult to fathom the repeated, sustained errors of judgment you made while serving as the lead agent in two of the most high profile investigations in the country.
***
[Y]our sustained pattern of bad judgement in the use of an FBI device has called into question for many the decisions made during both the Clinton e-mail investigation and the initial states of the Russia Collusion investigation. In short, your repeated selfishness has called into question the credibility of the entire FBI.
***
In my 23 years in the FBI, I have not seen a more impactful series of missteps which called into question the entire organization and more thoroughly damaged the reputation of the organization.

And yet, Peter Strzok is regarded as a hero by many Democrats. Check out his GoFundMe page, where he collected over $450,000 in donations from liberals. (Conservatives are often barred from using the GoFundMe platform, but the site had no problem with raising money for Strzok.) This raises the broader issue of the role of the Russia Collusion Hoax in modern history.

One might liken it to France’s Dreyfus Affair. In the end, there was no doubt about the fact that Dreyfus was innocent, and was vilely framed for political reasons. And yet, as Proust records, those who were pro-Dreyfus–those who were right–were never quite welcome in polite society. For many years, against all the evidence, some continued to insist that Dreyfus was guilty.

We see something similar with the Russia Collusion Hoax. Can you name a single Democrat who has expressed regret at the perpetration of the fraud? I can’t. Have the main organs that propagated the hoax–the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and the FBI and CIA–apologized, or done anything to bring about an accounting and make amends? No: the firing of Peter Strzok and one or two others by the FBI comes closest. And polls indicate that a great many Democrats still believe in the hoax. No doubt that is why so many were willing to pony up cash to support Peter Strzok.

In my opinion, the Russia Collusion Hoax continues to hang over our public life. It will continue to cast a shadow until Democrats are finally willing to admit that the whole thing was a lie, intentionally perpetrated by them and by their press organs and captive agencies, a lie that continued long after the truth was known.

But I suspect that acknowledgement will never come.

Hillary Still Loves Crooked Hillary!!

OCTOBER 2, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:

HILLARY 2024?

Dick Morris says that Hillary Clinton is preparing for another presidential run in 2024:

​Morris, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, said Hillary is setting herself up to enter the race as a “moderate” choice for Democrats in two years for what would be her third shot at the White House.

“I see more and more signs that Hillary’s going to run,” Morris told John Catsimatidis on his WABC 770 AM radio show in an interview that aired Sunday​, noting that she has been remarking that Americans “do not believe in open borders.”

“These are all signals that she is going to be the moderate candidate for president. She’s going to say after the election, ‘See, the left cost us the House and the Senate. If we stay with a left-wing candidate in 2024, we’re going to lose the White House. I’m the only one who will tack to the center and give us a chance at victory​,​’​” Morris said.

I don’t know whether Dick Morris is officially a Republican, but it has been a long time since he has had much to do with the Democratic Party. Still, he has a point: Hillary is right about open borders, and her ambition is likely as boundless as ever.

And if not Hillary, who? The pickings are slim:

“Once Biden pulls out, the polling will show that the Democrats are leaning toward some crazy radical like Gavin Newson, Bernie Sanders. Maybe even AOC herself,” Morris ​said, referring to progressive lightning rod Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Who knows? Maybe Ilhan Omar will throw her hijab into the ring, too. The scenario Morris lays out is actually not unlikely, up to a point. But by November 2024, Bernie Sanders will be 83, much too old for a presidential contender. (Joe Biden will be just shy of 82.) Hillary herself will be 77.

The Democrats plainly need to find someone younger–preferably someone who is not a Bolshevik–but who? One of that party’s problems is that its governors mostly preside over failed states.

Still, all of that said, who would bet against Hillary making one more run? And the sad reality is that if she does run in 2024, she will indeed be the most moderate–least crazy–candidate in the field. Which shows how far her party has fallen in a few short years.

Honesty IS RARE IN THE LEFTIST WORLD!….A FACT OF LIFE!

October 2, 2022

Remember: Leftist Media Polls Are Often Wrong

By Jeffrey Folks at American Thinker:

The usual election spin has begun.  “Biden’s not really so bad.  Democrats will retain the House and Senate.  Newsom will step in for the ’24 presidential election.  Dems will win everything…”

Only it’s worse this time.  The spin began the moment Trump won in 2016, and it has never stopped.  It began with the Russia-gate hoax, then the two false impeachments, the Jan. 6 committee, the raid on Mar-a-Lago, and now it culminates with the confident predictions that Dems will retain the Senate and the House.

Nate Cohn, writing in the New York Times, suggested that “this time may be different” and the party in power may actually gain seats.  Or as CNN’s Chris Cillizza put it in early September, “Democrats have the edge in the fight for Senate control.”  Or as Newsweek’s Jack Dutton had it back in the summer, “Democrats favored to win Senate for the first time as polling improves.”  And again and again, from MSNBC to CBS to the Washington Post, “Democrats will win.”

Don’t believe it.

The midterm elections are only three weeks away.  In almost every midterm election since 1934, the party out of power gains seats (in the House, the exceptions were 1998 and 2002, when Democrats picked up 4 seats under Bill Clinton and Republicans won 8 seats under George W. Bush), and in times of dissatisfaction, they gain a lot of seats.  Barring a miracle, Republicans will take the House, and the Senate is up for grabs.

Biden’s popularity is low, and dissatisfaction with the Democrat-controlled Congress is greater than ever (60% have an unfavorable opinion of Nancy Pelosi).  The media will try to cover it up, but the public is angry.  The events of Jan. 6 were a symptom of that anger, and things have gotten worse since then.  Inflation is not going away, the border is out of control, and foreign policy is a disaster.

 As Michael Barone wrote on Sept 30, “usually, in midterm elections, the president’s party loses a few seats if his job approval is above 50% and many seats if it’s below.”  As for the Senate, Barone notes that recent polls show GOP candidates just slightly behind in Wisconsin, Georgia, and Nevada (other polls show Johnson and Laxalt ahead in Wisconsin and Nevada), but he stresses that “Wisconsin is only one of many states in which polling has consistently shown Democrats running far better and Republicans far worse than they actually have when the results were counted.”

In other words, the polls always lie.

If polls show Republican Senate candidates practically tied with Democrats, it means that the GOP candidates are actually ahead by a convincing margin.  If either Laxalt or Walker win and other seats remain with the same party, Republicans will retake control.

And even some of the polls that always underrate Republicans’ chances now show GOP candidates pulling ahead.  As of Sept. 24–29, GOP candidates lead in Wisconsin and Nevada and are close in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. 

Every election, the left-wing media confidently predict that Democrats will take everything — just to discourage the conservative turnout.  This time it’s as if Republicans won’t win a single seat, and Democrats can look forward to winning even bigger in ’24.

None of that will happen because the American public is at a boiling point.  That anger with progressive politicians will come out at the polls.  Expect a massive turnout of conservatives and huge gains in the House and Senate — perhaps 60 seats in the House and a turnover in the Senate.

There is already evidence of a Red Wave in turnout numbers from the midterm primaries.  As the New York Post reported back in May, “Republican primary voters showed up in droves to take part in Tuesday’s contests, a good early sign for GOP hopes to regain the House and Senate this fall.”  Early voting trends are not yet available, but circumstances are similar to those that produced a Red Wave in 1994 and 2010, when Republicans picked up 54 and 63 House seats, respectively.  The  Democrat margin in the House is currently 6 seats.

The historical record for the party in power is equally bleak with regard to retaining Senate control, especially for Democrats, who have picked up Senate seats only once in midterm elections since 1934 (4 seats under JFK in 1962).  In other years, Republicans picked up 2 seats under Nixon in 1970, 2 seats under George W. Bush in 2002, and 2 seats under Trump in 2018.  It would be highly unlikely for Democrats to pick up Senate seats, or even a single seat, in 2022 since they have done so only once since 1934.

And this is especially so since Biden’s popularity numbers are now among the worst of any president in modern American history.  Fifty-four percent of Americans disapprove of Biden’s job performance, and a full 43% of Americans polled strongly disapprove.  Those are the kind of numbers that translate into voters going to the polls.  And yet liberal media and polling continue to insist that Republicans can’t win on Nov. 8.

Liberals base their predictions on nothing more than what they wish to be true.  I am confident not just because I wish conservatives to win, but because Democrats have governed so poorly that there has to be a response from the American people.  There always has been, when things have gotten this bad.  And things are bad, what with war abroad, global inflation, and predictions from Larry Summers and many others of a serious recession ahead.

I am looking forward to the Nov. 8 election and have already invited friends over.  I have no doubt that the predictions of GOP losses are false.  And I can’t wait ’til ’24, no matter what the media say about the “new Biden.”

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).

What Causes Those Leaks In Russia’s Nord Stream 1 & 2?

October 2, 2022

The Weekly Whodunnit

By Clarice Feldman at American Thinker:

There’s always some mystery in the news that provides a blank page for fantasy thinking. This week’s mystery has initiated a storm of speculation: What happened to cause leaks in Russia’s Nord Stream 1 and 2, designed to send gas to Germany? The speculation runs from rational to delusional.

A good example of more rational speculation is by Jed Babbin at the Spectator: He thinks Russia is the most likely suspect:

Germany, Sweden, the United States, and other NATO nations would not have attacked the pipelines. There has been some speculation among U.S. conservatives that we were responsible for the pipeline attacks. That’s clearly wrong for two reasons.

First, we have no motive for doing so, despite President Joe Biden’s February statement claiming: “If Russia invades Ukraine… there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”

Destroying Nord Stream 2 only hurts our European allies. There’s no reason to do so.

Second, Biden is too gun-shy to order any such strike. He and Secretary of State Antony Blinken would certainly consult with Germany and France before doing so, and they would have vetoed the move.

We may never know which nation did it, but Russia is — despite its protestations — the most likely suspect. 

n one sense I think he’s correct. In another, I think he’s wrong. That is to say, I think Russia is at fault but not because it deliberately caused the leaks which may render the pipelines at worst, irreparable, or, at best, out of commission for months.

You see, I’ve seen firsthand the incompetence and lack of maintenance when I worked in the USSR and you’ve seen it too, if you watched the Russian invasion of Ukraine with poorly designed and maintained equipment. A blogger named LawDog with pipeline experience sets out a very plausible scenario to me:

Two explosions, 17 hours apart. No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. Not without some Spec Ops guy having a fit of apoplexy. One pipe goes up in a busy shipping lane, in a busy sea, and everyone takes notice. Then you wait 17 hours to do the second — with 17 hours for people to show up and catch you running dirty? Nah, not buying it.

The Nord pipelines weren’t in use. To me, that means it’s time for maintenance! Hard to maintain pipes when product is flowing.

Pipelines running methane, under saltwater, require PMCS [Preventative Maintenance Checks and Services] quicker than you’d think, and more often than you’d believe.

I would bet a cup of coffee that any of the required weekly and monthly checks and services since the Russians took over have been pencil-whipped. (See Andreev Bay 1982.) 

He notes they twice shut the pipelines down for maintenance — in July of 2020 and July of 2021. Both times they had issues restarting it. Moreover, there were four major disruptions in gas flow from December 21 through April 22.

He concedes “hostile actions are a possibility” but lists how many things can cause a rupture in an undersea pipeline: The most significant to him is the formation of “hydrate plugs” which under certain circumstances are formed from the natural gas/methane in the pipelines and preventing them requires constant work “requiring vigilance, expertise, diligence and constant water removal.” If they are not removed, the solid hydrates can cause cracks and fires. To clear these plugs in pipelines this size requires weeks of “Slow depressurization from both ends simultaneously.”

In 2000, he notes, the Russians tried to remove a hydrate plug from a pipeline in Siberia using a butane torch and they ruptured the pipe and destroyed “several miles of very expensive pipeline.”

Both Nordstream pipelines were fully charged with natural gas and just sitting at the bottom of the sea — ‘Hundreds of millions of cubic meters of explosive “gaseous hydrocarbons being transported by Russians, and subject to Russian maintenance.”

This theory, while not definitive in the absence of evidence, is persuasive enough to me that the finger pointing at everyone else should take a long pause. It’s pure speculation, while the need for constant maintenance of undersea gas pipelines and Russian incompetence is not.

On the other hand, we do have some evidence to support our suspicion that the federal government used and still uses social media to censor anti-administration news

The administration gave millions in tax dollars to four private groups which worked with social media to censor “massive amounts of social media posts they considered misinformation” during the last national election:

The consortium is comprised of four member organizations: Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, and social media analytics firm Graphika. It set up a concierge-like service in 2020 that allowed federal agencies like Homeland’s Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and State’s Global Engagement Center to file “tickets” requesting that online story links and social media posts be censored or flagged by Big Tech.  

Three liberal groups — the Democratic National Committee, Common Cause and the NAACP — were also empowered like the federal agencies to file tickets seeking censorship of content. A Homeland-funded collaboration, the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, also had access.

In its own after-action report on the 2020 election, the consortium boasted it flagged more than 4,800 URLs — shared nearly 22 million times on Twitter alone — for social media platforms. Their staff worked 12-20 hour shifts from September through mid-November 2020, with “monitoring intensifying] significantly” the week before and after Election Day.

I do not know of a single conservative poster on Facebook right now who has not received warnings, had posts blocked, have had their feeds restricted until well after the midterms, or were outright banned.

The administration’s unconstitutional misuse of federal funds to target their opposition continues in other ways as well. The odious, highly politicized Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is also involved.

The CDC awarded a Soros-backed pro-migrant nonprofit $7.5 million under the guise of pandemic-related support for “LATINX ESSENTIAL WORKERS AS HEALTH PROMOTERS,” and aimed “to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and mitigate impacts among Latinx and Latin American immigrants,” according to an analysis by the Daily Caller.

The group, Alianza Americas, is currently suing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and other Florida officials over migrant flights to Martha’s Vineyard earlier this month.

The group has also received nearly $1.4 million from George Soros’ Open Society Network.

Alianza Americas is “focused on improving the quality of life of all people in the U.S.-Mexico-Central America migration corridor.” The membership-based group, which Soros’ Open Society Foundations network (OSF) sent almost $1.4 million to between 2016 and 2020, was awarded a $7.5 million CDC grant in February 2021, according to a grant listing reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation. — Daily Caller

The CDC funds were distributed under a program called “Protecting and Improving Health Globally: Building and Strengthening Public Health Impact, Systems, Capacity and Security.”

It seems to me that an administration with a well-considered agenda that warrants popular support would not have to go to such lengths to block contrary views. I hope the predictions of a Red Wave at the midterms will result in severe penalties for those who used our tax revenues to shut up the opposition. And I remind you that the best definition of fascism, in my view, is a coordinated state-corporate system which works to silence all opposition to an autocratic government.

Will America Become Civil Again?

OCTOBER 1, 2022 BY STEVEN HAYWARD at Power Line:

THE DAILY CHART THAT SHOULD TERRIFY DEMOCRATS

Normally we’ll just run The Daily Chart on weekdays, but the chart that the Wall Street Journal includes in today’s feature article “Where Democrats’ Grip on Minority Voters Could Slip in Midterm Elections” ought to be giving Democrats nightmares and thus deserves a special notice today.

It is happening with Asian voters, too:

WHEN GLORY EXISTED AMONG THE GLORIOUS AND THE POOR!

How Adolph Is Vladimir?

October 1, 2022

There’s a major reason why the world in 2022 is like the world in 1939

By Vince Coyner at American Thinker:

Vladimir Putin is a bad guy. Vladimir Putin is a megalomaniac. Vladimir Putin is a criminal. All those things are true. Similarly, Adolf Hitler was a bad guy, a megalomaniac, and a criminal. But Vladimir Putin is not Adolf Hitler and Russia in 2022 is not Germany in 1938/39. But in both cases, the future of the world hung on / hangs in the balance. But maybe not in the way you think….

Much of the western world was already engaged in war in December 1941 when the United States joined the fight. Most of Europe and much of North Africa were under the boot of the Nazis. Meanwhile, the Japanese continued their control over Korea and had already invaded French Indochina (today’s Vietnam) and large parts of China. German U Boats were prowling the seas sinking ships around the world from belligerents and non-belligerents alike. There was a world war going on; we just weren’t active, frontline participants before Pearl Harbor. However one looks at that period, the world as we know it was under a fierce attack that eventually would have enveloped the rest of the world, including the United States.

In February 2022 none of that was true. Sure, Russia invaded Ukraine after invading Georgia in 2008 (then leaving after six months) and annexing Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. And sure, Vladimir Putin has been saber-rattling about reconstituting the lost parts of the USSR. But the world in 2022 was not like in 1938/39….

NATO didn’t exist back then. The UN didn’t exist then. More importantly, the economic integration of European nations to one another and the rest of the west didn’t exist to the extent it does today. Lastly, in the late 1930s, the Nazis had the most powerful military on the planet, while today Russia’s troops are rightly seen as inferior to most they would face in the West.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February, the world was not on the brink of anything resembling a world war.

If you took a time machine and went back to February 2022 and asked the American people if they’d be willing to spend more than $50 billion and send the world into an economic tailspin if Russia invaded Ukraine, my guess is they would have said no. They might have talked about bulking up NATO forces, they might have talked about sanctions, but I doubt they would have supported propping up a corrupt regime in a notoriously corrupt nation with tens of billions of dollars that taxpayers already struggling under the weight of inflation and economic malaise would have to pay. Nor would they have wanted to bring America and the world to the brink of a nuclear cataclysm.
But here we are, six months later, exactly there, with Vladimir Putin opaquely threatening to use nuclear weapons and the leader of Ukraine goading the United States to strike first with its nuclear weapons.

What is saddest about all this is it didn’t have to happen. A new piece in Foreign Affairs states, “[I]n April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.” So essentially, in April, less than two months after the beginning of the war, the parties involved were close to agreement with returning to the status quo of what existed the day before Russia invaded. But the agreement collapsed. Why? Two words: Joe Biden.

Pravda, a Russian mouthpiece, claims that Boris Johnson tried to block any peace negotiations. Again, that’s Pravda, but it comports with known facts and Johnson never denied saying in private what he’d already said in public.

So, essentially, the combatants had resolved their conflict, only to have the west appear saying it would rather have more war. The “they” in that statement is telling. Johnson was no doubt acting on behalf of the man who “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades”; that is, Joe Biden.

At the very moment when a fragile peace could have been worked out and negotiators begun to solve the differences between Russia and Ukraine, Joe Biden steps in and does what he does best, mess things up. The timeline here is interesting. Even though, on March 10, the US promised Ukraine $13 billion and, on March 26, Biden told the world that Putin “cannot remain in power,” the Russian and Ukrainian negotiators were still able to come to an agreement on a peace deal. And staggeringly, Joe Biden scuttled it.

Here we are in September, and much of the world is in recession, prices for everything are up dramatically, the US has provided Ukraine with upwards of $60 billion in aid, and Europe is facing energy shortages and skyrocketing prices just as winter approaches. And now nuclear war is in the air.

All of this because Joe Biden wants revenge on Russia for something it didn’t even do.

Most certainly Russia tried to influence the 2016 elections in the US, but even the Washington Post, the Democrat mouthpiece, states that Russia’s “efforts were small in scope, relative to homegrown media efforts” and, instead, blames “Fox News and the insular right-wing media ecosystem it anchors.”

And there we have it. The world of 2022 is looking a bit more like the Europe of the late 1930s and on the brink of nuclear war because of Joe Biden’s Trump Derangement Syndrome. However, rather than being some troll on Twitter reposting Democrat memes from his Mom’s basement, Joe Biden is the leader of the free world and is expressing his TDS by sending billions of taxpayer dollars to Ukraine, sending the world into a global recession and threatening Russia to the point where its leader threatens to use nuclear weapons.

On literally every single issue of consequence today Joe Biden is wrong. On the single biggest issue of today, Joe Biden has not only been wrong but catastrophically so. At the moment the world should be finding ways to pick itself up from the economic body blow of COVID lunacy, the world is watching Putin hover his shaky finger over the nuclear button and wondering how many Europeans will freeze to death this winter because they don’t have enough energy to heat their homes.

In 2022 if the world finds itself in a nuclear conflict, Vladimir Putin will bear some of the blame, but he will share that with the feckless Joe Biden. Putin’s a thug, and Biden’s a dunce, and everyone knows it. Most of the blame however will sit squarely on the shoulders of the purported “81 million” Americans who were so angered by “mean tweets” that they put into the most powerful office in the world someone demonstrably not capable of running a lemonade stand. But at least, like Neville Chamberlain, they had good intentions.