Search Results

EVERYONE IS CONSERVATIVE ABOUT WHAT HE KNOWS BEST: Jeff Bezos, Amazon Refuting Mail-in Votes For Unionization.

Jeff Bezos — a strong Democratic supporter — and Amazon are aiming to postpone a unionization vote at one of its warehouses in Alabama, the Wall Street Journal reports. Interestingly, Amazon is requesting that the National Labor Relations Board reconsider allowing mail-in voting, claiming the voting process has “serious and systemic flaws.”

Got that? Bezos’ Amazon is doing all it can to prevent any shady activity when its workers cast their ballots.

You are likely trying to figure out how that adds up, right? The Bezos-owned Washington Post called any claims of mail-in voter fraud by Donald Trump or his supporters dangerous and inexcusable. Amazon even banned Parler from its servers, in part, to ensure no one could claim voter fraud stemmed from November’s mail-in ballots. But stop trying, it is not supposed to add up.

In this case, mail-in voting is disadvantageous for Bezos’ e-commerce behemoth. As a result, mail-in voting is now deemed seriously flawed.

Exit question:

(Classical reference in headline.)

ROGER SIMON: Welcome to West China.

Did you ever wonder what it’s like to live in a one-party state?

Well, wonder no more. You’re living in one. The major means of communication—in today’s terms that means social media—have now been taken over completely by the left.

Not only has Donald Trump—still the president of the United States—been permanently banned from Twitter, its rapidly growing, open-to-all substitute Parler has almost simultaneously been de-platformed by Google.

You can’t get their app for Android anymore.

Apple threatens to be next, demanding Parler kowtow (by Saturday!) to Cupertino’s vision of what the world should be.

I suppose that’s a social-justicey-politically-correct totalitarianism led by left-leaning… or so they want us to believe… tech billionaires.

Sound Chinese?

More than a bit.

Think this was planned?

Just the other day I wrote of the “false flag” (left-wing provocateurs) behind the mayhem in the Capitol. Many in high places pooh-poohed what I and others were saying. I wasn’t too sure of it myself.

But let’s review what’s happened since:

Josh Hawley’s forthcoming book… on Big Tech, no less… is “canceled” by Simon & Schuster. Senator Hawley had been among the most outspoken about investigating the possibility of election fraud.

Twitter permanently blocks General Flynn. I guess they don’t think he has had enough already.

Twitter permanently blocks Lin Wood, the well-known attorney working to unmask possible fraud. Ditto for the courageous Sidney Powell.

Not to be outdone, Facebook blocks President Trump’s account. (Not sure who was first—Facebook or Twitter—not that it matters.)

More insidiously, Facebook starts to delete groups or forums of people who publicly stepped away from the Democratic Party because of its scandals. 

(Elsewhere it’s revealed that Facebook banned accounts at the behest of Hunter Biden.)

YouTube announces it will no longer distribute videos investigating election fraud and that producers of such videos will be punished if they do.

All this in a couple of days, the excuse being, in almost all cases, that the conservatives involved were instigating violence, the “outrage” that occurred at the Capitol.

This from the people who ignored exponentially more violence and destruction for months all across urban America.

Sense a strategy here? A plan?

I know—I’m one of those conspiracy mongers. Everything has been “debunked.” Indeed, it was “debunked” before it happened.

Only I’m not a conspiracy monger, my friends. I’m one of those guys who is perfectly willing to admit it was Lee Harvey Oswald working alone from the Texas Schoolbook Depository.

I’m the opposite. I’m a Occam’s Razor guy—what you see is what you get.

And Occam’s Razor tells me the United States is turning into a near clone of the People’s Republic of China.

As Glenn wrote last night, Trump warned you.


Welcome to 2020, when @JovanHPulitzer hacked a voting machine live during a government hearing and the press insists there is no evidence of election fraud.

Shush now. Other countries have press. We have presstitutes, eternally lying back and thinking of Marx.


NEW POLL SHOWS MORE VOTERS THAN NOT THINK THERE WAS ELECTION FRAUD: More voters agree there was election fraud. “While a Tuesday Pew Research Center survey said that it was mostly Republicans who believed that fraud occurred, the new McLaughlin & Associates poll found that all voters, by a 46%-45% margin, believed that there was fraud.”

A REPUBLICAN NEVERTRUMP POSTMORTEM: How history will view these self-proclaimed conservatives and protectors of principle.

Most important, this bipartisan guild believes in the “rules-based international order,” the congeries of multinational institutions whose rules and regulations should limit and hinder our own national sovereignty, which feeds a dangerous “nationalism” sure to mutate into fascism. And they endorse the narrative of “moralizing internationalism,” the century-old, dubious belief that all peoples across the planet want to be Westerners and enjoy our goods like prosperity, peace, human rights, religious tolerance, sex equality, free speech, and all the other cargo of the Western way.

These are the stale ideas that created the “endless wars” in the Middle East that Trump decried and began to end, even as he brokered normalization of relations between Israel and several Muslim states. And he did it by ignoring one of the foreign policy guild’s most cherished narratives: only a Palestinian Arab state, created at Israel’s expense and a threat to her security, could resolve that long bloody crisis––another reason for the RNT, foreign policy and national security division, to hate the president so intensely.

Of course, Trump’s seeming failure to get reelected has no doubt excited the RNT. Now Joe Biden, if elected by the Electoral College, will be running the government according to the decrepit protocols of the traditional postwar ruling class. That Biden will have won likely with the help of widespread electoral fraud won’t matter, any more than the degradation of journalistic professional standards, or the debasement of the FBI and DOJ, bothered the RNT. Their anger, bitterness, and outrage will be assuaged, and they can return to being the Dem’s “good” Republicans, the ones who will sacrifice conservative interests and principles to progressive ones.

If you think that’s an exaggeration, consider this tweet from Steve Schmidt to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the radical New York Congressman. Schmidt is a high-profile RNT who heads  the RNT Lincoln Project. Seeking a partnership with AOC to delegitimize the “other side,” Trump supporters smeared as “white supremacists,” Schmidt tweeted, as reported in PJ Media:

“I have an idea. Let’s approach each other and our points of view with good faith. We say the following with respect and seriousness Ma’am. Our hand is open and we need to work together or we are going to lose America,” Schmidt wrote. “We will not yield and we will never break. We are the side opposed to autocracy.”

Schmidt described Never Trumpers and AOC as “the left and right flanks of a broad coalition. Should we buckle, they will win. We must not. We are together. We pledge to listen. We pledge to learn. We pledge to be open to your ideas and we pledge to compromise. We have no such offer for the other side.”

And Schmidt takes his “togetherness” with the Democrats pretty seriously!

AN ANALYSIS FROM JOHN HINDERAKER: Texas Throws a Hail Mary. “The Texas motion and supporting brief are well-drafted and make a plausible case–importantly, one that, if accepted, does not require extensive fact-finding into alleged voter fraud. Reduced to its essentials, the motion alleges 1) that under the Constitution’s Electors Clause, state legislatures have plenary authority over appointment of each state’s electors; 2) that in each of the defendant states, non-legislative actors (e.g., the Secretary of State) unconstitutionally changed the rules governing this year’s election without legislative approval or ratification; 3) that these changes favored some voters over others, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause; and 4) in each state, the number of ballots that were counted pursuant to unconstitutional changes in election procedures exceeds the margin of Joe Biden’s alleged victory.”

UPDATE: From the comments: “I wonder if the left, and the court realize this is a hail mary to prevent a civil war, not to keep trump in office. 30% of democrats and 80+% of republicans think the election was stolen. That is a loss of legitimacy of the nation’s governments from the state level through the federal.”

They are children playing with nitroglycerin, so no, they won’t realize that. At least, not in time, I’m afraid.

IN THE MAIL: From Carnell Smith, TRAPPED BY LAW: Stop Paying Child Support for Paternity Fraud.

THINGS REMAIN VERY MUCH IN FLUX: EXPLOSIVE: Michigan Illegally Counted or Ignored 500K Ballots, Lawsuit Claims. “In the wee hours of Thanksgiving Day, the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society filed an explosive election lawsuit asking Michigan’s Supreme Court to prevent Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson from certifying the election results until the Michigan legislature can fully investigate fraud claims and to force election officials to hand over all election materials to the legislature for this purpose. The lawsuit claims that officials illegally counted or threw out no fewer than 508,016 ballots, far more than Joe Biden’s 154,000-vote margin over Donald Trump. . . . Citing state records, the lawsuit claims that Benson’s office sent out 355,392 unsolicited ballots. Northon explained that Michigan law requires two signatures for absentee voting: a signature on an application form and a signature on the security sleeve for the ballot. In this election, officials mailed out more than 300,000 ballots that no one had requested.”

KURT SCHLICHTER: Liberals Want You Demoralized, So Don’t Be. “Here’s how it’s going to be. Whether Trump ends up winning or losing – the court battles continue – you’re going to support the Republicans in Georgia in January and everywhere else thereafter. You’re not going to pout in performative despair about how the mean old Democrats cheated and how there’s no point in voting and boo hoo hoo. You’re going to elect people to stop the libs, winning outside the margin of fraud, and you’re going to keep fighting against fixed elections in court and elsewhere. Is it always going to be fair or right or honest? No. So what?”

Kurt’s sounding like the Insta-Wife here, and there’s no higher compliment.

Say, have I mentioned that he’s got a new book out?

ROGER KIMBALL: Waiting for Sidney.

The other main position—and let me hasten to acknowledge that it is mine—is that this election was riddled with voter fraud. Nor was it the usual taken-for-granted and (between us sophisticated men of the world) acceptable margin of fraud but a planned and systematic assault on the integrity of our election that overturned a convincing victory for Donald Trump.

I believe this partly because of the stunning statistical anomalies in the election—I have written about this several times (here, for example, and here).

But I believe the election was fraudulent for other reasons as well. Perhaps the chief reason has to do with the allegations put forward by Sidney Powell, a prominent attorney who is part of President Trump’s legal team. She has laid out her case many times in the last couple of weeks, including at an “opening statement” press conference on November 19 at which she, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and other members of Trump’s legal team offered a précis of their case.

Their presentation was widely, if not quite universally, condemned by the media. “Where is the evidence?” was one cry, but another, less articulate though more insistent was “Evidence be damned, just shut up and get Trump out of office!”

Suddenly, a lot of people were imitating the state of Missouri, responding to every allegation with the demand “Show me!” Tucker Carlson delighted Trump’s enemies and enraged his friends by pointedly asking what evidence Powell had. He later updated his comments, noting that if Powell is right, she has, almost single-handedly, uncovered what is perhaps the biggest political crime in our nation’s history.

Let the truth come out.

IN THE MAIL: From John Fund, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.

AS A PIONEERING SOCIALIST WAS QUOTED AS SAYING, “It’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes:”

ROGER KIMBALL: Save our Democracy! Trump presumably will fight it in court. But I think he should take a page from his own playbook and hold rallies the contested spots over the next couple of days.

I suspect that such Save Our Democracy rallies would attract tens of thousands of people, just as Trump’s campaign rallies did these past weeks. There is no way that Sleepy Joe Biden could compete with them. Not only would they dramatize the extent and enthusiasm of Trump’s support, they would also serve as a salutary reminder that Trump, unlike so many Republican politicians, is willing to fight to assure a free, open, and fair election. They would have the additional attraction of driving the Left even more beyond the pale than than they already are. It’s not nice to take pleasure in the sufferings of others, but I am willing to make an exception in the case of the anguish such rallies would cause among the people who have spent the last four years trying to destroy the president and anyone who came into his orbit.

Save Our Democracy! It has a ring to it. I hope team Trump will consider organizing a bunch of them now, today.

If Trump ends up losing*, those rallies would certainly keep his profile high in the media for whatever he chooses to do next, as Glenn recently wrote:

Trump was big on the national stage long before he was president. Why would he go away after the election is over? He’ll still have tens of millions of (probably angry) followers, deep pockets and a huge megaphone.

There has already been some talk of Trump starting his own television network to rival Fox News, and/or his own social media platform — the latter made more plausible by the heavy censorious hands of those running Twitter and Facebook — and I suspect that Trump would regard a 2020 loss as a setback, not a defeat. Grover Cleveland came back to win a second term after losing the White House, Trump might reason. Why not me? He’ll probably hold campaign-style rallies around the country starting right after the election.

Fox’s dismal performance last night would allow Trump TV to peel away a lot of viewers — and possibly a few of Fox’s hosts, as well.

* As Stephen Kruiser quipped in 2010, every Republican should assume that his election is well within the margin of ACORN.

REMEMBER WHAT I SAID ABOUT THE MARGIN OF FRAUD:  Pennsylvania’s Dem AG Declares ‘Trump is Going to Lose’.

I’M SURE THEY ARE, BUT WHO IS COUNTING THE MARGIN OF FRAUD????  The Trafalgar Group MIGHT be undercounting Trump support.

OUT OF SIGHT, BUT NOT OUT OF MIND: There’s an old sawhorse in media about the “Streisand Effect,” namely, that when someone tries to suppress a story it backfires and gets more attention than it might have without the suppression. There’s a lot about the Hunter Biden story and its suppression that proves this true.

The news that Glenn Greenwald had resigned from The Intercept because management there have joined the open conspiracy among so-called news providers to pretend that there is no substance or legitimacy behind allegations – or even asking questions – about Joe Biden’s involvement and financial interest in his son’s business dealings in Ukraine, Russia or China was stunning. NPR was surprisingly honest about their dishonesty when they “explained” that they would not cover the story because:

“We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions […] And quite frankly, that’s where we ended up, this was a politically driven event, and we decided to treat it that way.”

As has been said repeatedly, they and other legacy media operations’ newfound devotion to media ethics is both amusing and depressing at the same time. These are the same people who had no problem alleging that Justice Kavanaugh was a gang rapist on the say-so of a somewhat mentally frail woman who could produce no documents or corroborating witnesses, could not recount any details and yet, these same publications applied “woke logic” by insisting we “believe all women.”

Every insane allegation and false witness propounded by Michael Avenatti was breathlessly reported and touted as the truth by CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and Washington Post. Avenatti was convicted last year of extortion in a $20 billion scheme against Nike, and still faces trial for defrauding his client Stormy Daniels. Up until this week, these kinds of witnesses and “sources” were more than credible enough to publish defamatory and salacious stories.

If you need a reminder, this is the same media who promised you “pee tapes” of President Trump cavorting with Russian hookers based on evidence that never existed. In one of his magnificent histories of LBJ, Robert Caro retold the story of then-congressional candidate Johnson asking his aide to help spread a rumor that his opponent engaged in sex with barnyard animals:

“We can’t prove that Mr. Johnson,” the aide said.

But we can make the son of a bitch deny it!” Johnson purportedly replied.

For a story that the Biden surrogates and stenographers insist has no factual foundation, they have been rather vocal, splashing a tremendous array of defensive claims. Despite the fact that neither Biden nor his son Hunter have yet to deny the authenticity of any of the documents and emails being reported on by smaller news organizations dismissed as “conservative” those committed to dragging Biden across the finish line no matter what, have said (like NPR) that the story doesn’t pass their standards of integrity; that the timing of the story being advantageous to Trump somehow nullifies its factual underpinning (welcome to political journalism); and perhaps most laughably, social media surrogates insist that “nobody cares.”

This last chimera is perhaps the most revealing. It reveals the arrogant elitism that led the mainstream off the rails in 2016 and shows us how this small group has a genuine disdain for most Americans. Moreover, it underscores the denial they suffer about the inevitable extinction of their long-held and highly profitable grip on public opinion.

The data show how remarkably wrong our moral and intellectual betters are. In the last ten days – and before Tucker Carlson’s bombshell interview – The Daily Caller’s Hunter Biden stories drew 554,566 unique internet visitors. That’s more than half a million “nobodies.”

One of their initial stories, about the laptop left behind by a crack-addled Hunter Biden drew 16,474 unique readers; another story, about Hunter Biden’s setting up a meeting with his father (then Vice-President) and Chinese businessmen was read by at least 89,649 people. Oh, I mean “nobodies.” As JustTheNews’ Editor in Chief John Solomon pointed out:

“[C]riminality isn’t the only standard by which Americans evaluate their leaders. Judgment, ethics and transparency are also essential attributes.” has been doggedly breaking news on Hunter and Joe Biden’s “pay to meet me” scheme. Rough estimates show that JTN’s coverage of this issue has been read by as many as 7.5 million people. Moreover, Tucker Carlson’s interview with whistleblower and ex-Biden partner Tony Bobulinski broke cable news records: as many as 7.6 million viewers tuned in. That’s a lot of nobodies. I’ll bet NPR’s Public Editor Kelly McBride wishes she got a third as many “nobodies” to pay attention to her.

It’s little wonder the mainstream media is going broke. They don’t serve you: They insult you. When they say “nobody cares” what they really mean to say is that the only people who count, who deserve any say in our political process are those who agree with them. Everyone else is a nobody. (Bumped, by Glenn, because this is important).

HMM: Pollster Who Called Trump Win In 2016 is Back With 2020 Call And Issues a Big Red Flag in Pennsylvania. “The state is ripe for voter fraud.”

Turn out in enough numbers to beat the margin of fraud — and be ready to fight for any recount in exactly the way Republicans usually don’t.

WE’VE DESCENDED INTO SOME SORT OF BIZARRE HELL-WORLD IN WHICH – hang on, checking notes – THE WORLD SOCIALIST WEBSITE IS A VOICE OF SANITY: The New York Times and Nikole Hannah-Jones abandon key claims of the 1619 Project.

It is not entirely clear when the Times deleted its “true founding” claim, but an examination of old cached versions of the 1619 Project text indicates that it probably took place on December 18, 2019.

These deletions are not mere wording changes. The “true founding” claim was the core element of the Project’s assertion that all of American history is rooted in and defined by white racial hatred of blacks. According to this narrative, trumpeted by Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones, the American Revolution was a preemptive racial counterrevolution waged by white people in North America to defend slavery against British plans to abolish it. The fact that there is no historical evidence to support this claim did not deter the Times and Hannah-Jones from declaring that the historical identification of 1776 with the creation of a new nation is a myth, as is the claim that the Civil War was a progressive struggle aimed at the destruction of slavery. According to the New York Times and Hannah-Jones, the fight against slavery and all forms of oppression were struggles that black Americans always waged alone.

The Times’ “disappearing,” with a few secret keystrokes, of its central argument, without any explanation or announcement, is a stunning act of intellectual dishonesty and outright fraud. When it launched the 1619 Project in August 2019, the Times proclaimed that its aim was to radically change what and how students were taught about American history. With the aim of creating a new syllabus based on the 1619 Project, hundreds of thousands of copies of the original version of the narrative, as published in the New York Times Magazine, were printed and distributed to schools, museums and libraries all across the United States. A very large number of schools declared that they would align their curricula in accordance with the narrative supplied by the Times.

I agree with the conclusion, but it’s awfully rich coming from the source.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): A friend on Facebook comments: “In a way this is a good day for serious historians. A bunch of charlatans have been forced to back down. There are lessons to be learned more widely about pushing back against dishonesty and bad faith in academia. In years to come this might be seen as one of those turning points. And actually Trump deserves credit here too: he’s made a stink about this.”

Yes, don’t give the left a pass on its lies just because it’s easier to go along. As a famous man said, get in their face and punch back twice as hard.

OUT ON A LIMB: The 1619 Project is a fraud.

New York Times Magazine editors have quietly removed controversial language from the online version of Hannah-Jones’s 1619 Project, a package of essays that argue chattel slavery defines America’s founding. Hannah-Jones herself also asserts now that the project’s core thesis is not what she and everyone else involved originally said it was.

It “does not argue that 1619 is our true founding,” she said on Friday. She declared elsewhere in July that it “doesn’t argue, for obvious reasons, that 1619 is our true founding.”

This is a brazen lie. When the 1619 Project debuted both online and in print in August 2019, the online version’s text stated originally [emphasis added]:

The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding , and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

That same online passage, which was the source of so much controversy among historians on both sides of the aisle, now reads:

The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

To be fair, this Orwellian “history” project is from the same newspaper that brought you Walter Duranty; airbrushing comes quite easy to the Times.

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEF: Democrats Will Use Mail-In Ballots Scam to Throw Election Into Chaos. “Now, no matter the margin of victory should Trump prevail on Nov. 3rd, the Democrats will be caterwauling about counting the mail-in ballots for weeks, or even months. That’s where all of the fraud magic can be made, naturally.”

‘YOU LYING FRAUD:’ Candace Owens calls down the thunder on Cardi B in vicious back and forth about Joe Biden, racism, and taxes.

If you’re asking yourself, “who’s Cardi B?” be thankful for living such a sheltered life: Joe Biden, President Of Cardi B(abylon). Biden gave Cardi B (whose real name is Belcalis Marlenis Almánzar) an interview (of sorts) that was published by Elle magazine on the first day of the Democratic National Convention Last month:

The host asked them about the mega-hit “WAP” by Cardi B. and Megan Thee Stallion. I wrote about it here last week. Here are some of the lyrics that I posted:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, you fu*kin’ with some wet-a*s pu*sy
Bring a bucket and a mop for this wet-a*s pu*sy
Give me everything you got for this wet-a*s pu*sy

Those are among the cleanest lyrics in the entire song. Here is a link to lyrics for the whole thing. 

If you don’t want to read them — and I don’t blame you — you should at least know that the two women who sing it talk about how they want to be forced to perform oral sex until they are gagging and choking. They portray themselves as whores (their word) who have sex for money. And

I’m a freak bitch, handcuffs, leashes … You can’t hurt my feelings, but I like pain.

There’s even dirtier stuff, but you get the picture.

This song debuted at No. 1. It was streamed a record 93 million times in the US in its first week of release, and the video was seen over 60 million times within 48 hours of its release. Cardi B., who once worked as a stripper, and has spoken of how back then, she would invite men to hotel rooms to drug and rob them, instagrammed about being so grateful that “I want to hug the LORD.”

OK, so that’s “WAP”. It is the cultural mainstream. If you haven’t heard of it, then that just shows how far out of the mainstream you are in 2020. How mainstream is Cardi B.? Elle magazine, which put her on the cover, had Cardi B. do a live Zoom interview with the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Joe Biden told her that:

“One of the things that I admire about you is that you keep talking about what I call equity—decency, fairness, and treating people with respect.”

Right. Nothing says “respect” like rapping about how you want a man to put his genitals in your mouth until you choke.

What a sick joke this culture is. I’ve said before that I believe Donald Trump is a morally repulsive man. But I don’t want to hear anyone talk about how Joe Biden is such a moral exemplar when he is willing to embrace someone who stands for the things that Cardi B. does. This is something I do not understand about the progressive elites. On NPR this morning, the guests on 1A (here, just past the 13:00 mark) were talking about “WAP” and the reaction to it. A writer for Billboard lauds “the sexual freedom of this song,” and laments the double standard that lets male rappers get away with sexually explicit songs without criticism. He adds that — “Cardi and Megan have huge young fan bases,” the writer said. He believes that the fact that women rappers have triumphed with such a sexually explicit song is therefore “really remarkable as a cultural shift.”

What he means in context — listen to it yourself to understand — is that Cardi B. and Megan Thee Stallion are teaching young girls that they can be just as raunchy as boys, with no apology.

I linked yesterday to Niall Ferguson’s “‘Weimar America?’ The Trump Show Is No Cabaret. Detractors have been equating the U.S. with 1920s Germany for 85 years, and they are still wrong.” As far as the notion that the US is about to be partying like it’s 1939, I agree. Or as Tom Wolfe famously wrote, “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.” But in terms of pop culture, and its intersection with politics, it’s been Weimar America for quite some time. Joe buddying up to the singer of “W.A.P.” is no different than his former boss meeting with rapper Kendrick Lamar before delivering his last State of the Union address:

Obama announced that Lamar’s hit “How Much a Dollar Cost” was his favorite song of 2015. Obama announced that Lamar’s hit “How Much a Dollar Cost” was his favorite song of 2015. The song comes from the album To Pimp a Butterfly; the album cover shows a crowd of young African-American men massed in front of the White House. In celebratory fashion, all are gripping champagne bottles and hundred-dollar bills; in front of them lies the corpse of a white judge, with two Xs drawn over his closed eyes. So why wouldn’t the president’s advisors at least have advised him that such a gratuitous White House sanction might be incongruous with a visual message of racial hatred? Was Obama seeking cultural authenticity, of the sort he seeks by wearing a T-shirt, with his baseball cap on backwards and thumb up?

To play the old “what if” game that is necessary in the bewildering age of Obama: what if President George W. Bush had invited to the White House a controversial country Western singer, known for using the f- and n- words liberally in his music and celebrating attacks on Bureau of Land Management officers?

Meanwhile, back in 2020, the Biden campaign continues to take a wrecking ball to feminism’s recent obsession with #metoo: Kamala Harris Told Jacob Blake She Was ‘Proud’ of Him, Lawyer Says. However, “For every Jacob Blake, there are millions of Jacob Blake’s victims,” Tiana Lowe opines in the Washington Examiner:  “This story is a tragedy, and it’s being ignored. That is the story of a woman subjected to repeated domestic abuse and sexual assault at the hands of an intimate partner. But unlike the overwhelming majority of the millions of people who suffer some sort of domestic violence or sexual assault per year, Blake’s victim nearly got justice. Consider, it was already exceptional that Blake’s victim reported the crime to the police — just one in four victims does. Of the cases that do get reported, just one in five will lead to an arrest. Even then, the odds were overwhelming that Blake would never spend a day in jail. Of the 5% of alleged rapists who do get arrested, just one in ten will wind up incarcerated. The conviction rate is about as awful for general domestic abuse cases, though the number of victims each year are likely orders of magnitude greater than those of rape.”

WELL, THEN YOU’D BEST NOT LET THE DEMS FRAUD THEIR WAY TO VICTORY:  Hunter Biden, Chinese Dealings Need Investigating.

Remember, go to the polls, on the day. Destroy any unused ballots. Take a friend  or two of whose vote you’re sure. Make the margin of victory an avalanche they can’t overturn.




Former White House advisor Steve Bannon has been indicted by hyperpolitical, anti-Donald Trump prosecutors at the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Southern District of New York.

Prosecutors sent officers to arrest Bannon and three others, including the head of the “We Build the Wall” organization, for allegedly siphoning off hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay the head of the organization. Prosecutors allege that the group had said the group’s founder, Brian Kolfage, would not receive a salary.

The news release issued Thursday morning made sure to include the fact that investigators for the U.S. Postal Service Inspection Service helped investigate the case. Democrats have made the USPS a campaign issue because they’re agitating for an all mail-in election. President Trump has vowed to stop increased funding for the post office to fund a mail-in election predicting it would be nothing short of a disaster and a formula for fraud. The postal workers union endorsed Trump’s opponent, Joe Biden for president.

As “Red Steeze” Stephen Miller tweets, all the memes collide here:

DEPENDS ON THE MARGIN OF FRAUD, DOESN’T IT?  Tuesday Primary: Will Minnesota Voters Fire Ilhan Omar?


Related: Tsunami warning for Republicans.

On the flipside though, as Glenn wrote earlier this month, “But, without getting cocky, ask yourself: If five years ago you’d been told that in 2020 the Democrats’ messaging would revolve around defunding the police and taking down statues of George Washington, how would you have expected the election to go? Still, if you care, get to work: Donating, volunteering, helping out however you can. There’s always the margin of fraud to overcome, and it’ll be bigger this time than in 2016, when the Democrats were cocky.”

DON’T GET COCKY: GOP voter registrations outpace Dems in swing states: report.

But, without getting cocky, ask yourself: If five years ago you’d been told that in 2020 the Democrats’ messaging would revolve around defunding the police and taking down statues of George Washington, how would you have expected the election to go?

Still, if you care, get to work: Donating, volunteering, helping out however you can. There’s always the margin of fraud to overcome, and it’ll be bigger this time than in 2016, when the Democrats were cocky.

DISNEY SIGNS COLIN KAEPERNICK TO FIRST-LOOK DEAL. Expect programming that Kap has signed off on to begin appearing on Disney-subsidiary ESPN. At Outkick the Coverage, Clay Travis responds:

Only in America can you become fabulously wealthy by ripping the entire country and its institutions to shreds.

This is one of the most transparently dishonest media moves I have ever seen, the attempt to turn Kaepernick into some sort of hero despite the fact that he’s a dishonest fraud. I can’t wait for the hagiography ESPN produces that attempts to make Kaepernick Muhammad Ali.

Now I understand why many of you are angry about ESPN turning their backs on the average sports fan. But to be honest, this is tremendous news for Outkick. ESPN has effectively told at least half of the American sporting audience: “We don’t care about you at all. We’re going to reward a non-athlete with millions of dollars and hours and hours of attention.”

They’ve fulfilled every MSESPN claim I’ve ever made in one fell swoop.

And then some.

Like Comcast putting Al Sharpton on the payroll, this serves as protection money for Disney, which also owns ABC in addition to ESPN. Additionally, regularly broadcasting Kap’s boiling hatred of America might help ensure that China won’t close the Shanghai and Hong Kong Disneylands anytime soon, or block the Marvel and Star Wars movies, which is ultimately what it’s all about for Disney:

Earlier: The neoliberal counter-revolution. “Does anyone seriously believe the American establishment — Walmart, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, the trustees of Ivy League universities, the major sports leagues, even Brooks Brothers, for God’s sake — would sign on to a movement that genuinely threatened its material interests?”

ARE DEMS’ DIRTY TRICKS ACTIONABLE? By now everyone knows that the left coordinated a phony registration scam to suppress the turnout at POTUS’ Tulsa rally. It makes me wonder if the campaign has a cognizable cause of action — and maybe even grounds for a TRO — based on the tort of “intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.” The elements vary from state to state, but courts generally hold that the elements of the civil wrong are:

“(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.”

Sounds to me like the campaign has a reasonable case. I find it ironic that the bunch who complain about “suppression” are bragging about doing just that.

Projection. It’s always projection.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): I think such legal actions might also be a response to organized efforts to get people fired; often there are folks with substantial assets involved. Meanwhile, a friend from Facebook writes: “Fraudulent ticket reservations? I think we just learned exactly what will happen with mail in voting. We should thank AOC for demonstrating this.”


The Star Tribune is [Ilhan] Omar’s hometown newspaper. It has failed to follow up on its most-read story of 2019. It has failed to note that Omar’s 2009 “marriage” was performed by a Christian minister — yet one more sign of its fraudulence. Doing the work that the Star Tribune should have done, the Daily Mail contacted the minister this year. The minister isn’t talking either.

The Star Tribune has failed to report on the fallout from the news of Omar’s affair within the Somali community. It has failed to advance the “brother angle” of the story in any respect since June 23.

The story is still out there for the asking in Minneapolis’s Somali community. The fear of Omar is great, yet I was able to interview several knowledgeable sources in the Somali community over the past six months. These sources all confirmed that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is Omar’s brother. Wouldn’t a real newspaper want to stay on this story long enough to bring it to a conclusion one way or the other?

Just think of the media as Democratic Party operatives with bylines, and the Strib’s silence makes perfect sense.

RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! OLD CHAPS: In the Grauniad tonight: Britain needs its own Mueller report on Russian ‘interference,’ by Glenn R Simpson and Peter Fritsch.

Glenn R. Simpson, you say? “FusionGPS, on same week its fraudulent dossier was obliterated, tries to run exact same Russia! operation for Labour,” Mollie Hemingway tweets.

Related: “If the public learned in real time that the Steele dossier and collusion theories were bogus, would Dems have taken over House or won as many seats as they did? Seems like FBI/Mueller election interference by omission,” Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller tweets.

WATCHING FAKE NEWS BEING MADE IN REAL TIME: Reuters, CBS Run With Misleading Headline About Migrant Mother, Mexican Border Guard.

Both CBS and Reuters ran a photo of a Guatemalan migrant mother and a Mexican border guard, including a headline that didn’t quite tell the whole story.

Reuters published the photo with the headline, “Reuters photo captures Guatemalan mother begging soldier to let her enter US.

CBS ran a very similar headline with the Reuters photo, which was taken by photographer Jose Luis Gonzalez last Monday. “Dramatic photo captures migrant mom pleading with border guard as she tries to enter US with son,” the headline read.

* * * * * * * *

Nine paragraphs into the story, however, Reuters shed further light on the context of the situation by including comments from the National Guard and Jesus Ramirez, spokesman for Mexican President Manuel Lopez Obrador.

* * * * * * * *

Following the confrontation, Perez and her son were photographed moving toward the border in order to cross illegally, unhindered by the guard.

And Reuters are still issuing misleadingly labeled photos today. While this shot, unlike the carefully cropped photo mentioned above, includes the Mexican border guardsman’s uniform ID (at least you can now see there’s no US flag on his sleeve), there’s no information in the caption that describes the country he works for:

To be fair, this is far from the worst bit of fake photo journalism ever run under Reuters’ imprimatur — but it is par for the course from the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” wire service.

BYRON YORK: Retrospective: Mueller and the fatal flaw of the Trump-Russia affair.

So as Clinton and her aides pushed the collusion narrative, with the help of an enthusiastic press, campaign officials were also being briefed on the newest, freshest allegations from Steele.

The problem, of course, was that the allegations were not true. Steele also gave his reports to the FBI, which tried to verify them “line by line,” according to former FBI general counsel James Baker. It did not succeed. Nearly three years later, the Mueller report failed to corroborate any of the dossier’s serious allegations. It was wrong at best, a fraud at worst.

The public did not know what was happening behind the scenes. All they heard — if they watched cable TV — was collusion, collusion, collusion. After the election, the allegations consumed reporting on the Trump transition and then the Trump presidency — especially after the dossier was published in its entirety in January 2017, following the decision by the nation’s top intelligence chiefs to brief President-elect Trump on parts of it.

After that, each new revelation that appeared in the press — Flynn, Manafort, Trump Tower, Michael Cohen, all of it — appeared in the context of collusion. Ordinary events became shady scheming against the backdrop of Trump-Russia collusion.

As that was happening, Mueller was trying and failing to establish that collusion ever occurred. From interviews with various players in the investigation, it now seems clear that by the end of 2017 Mueller knew that he could not establish conspiracy or coordination. That part of his investigation effectively ended when 2017 did.

Yet Mueller continued his probe for more than a year, mostly focusing on obstruction allegations. Collusion as a topic of investigation might have been dead and gone by that time, but the fact that the Mueller investigation was still going on kept the collusion narrative alive. And that fed the public perception that events Mueller secretly knew were not part of a collusion scheme were still in some way suspicious.

By letting that happen, Mueller played a partisan role. Related: Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law.



And a friend on Facebook comments: “It is somewhat difficult to feel at ease in a republic wherein federal prosecutors feel comfortable pronouncing sentences of not not guilty. There has been so much talk since a Tuesday evening in late 2016 about the importance of civic norms, and much of it has been correct. Well, this is one too — and a big one.”

Yes, the “norms and civility” crowd has done more to undermine our institutions than Trump. By a huge margin.

A FRAUD ON THE PEOPLE OF WASHINGTON STATE: In 1998, Washington voters adopted Initiative 200 (or “I-200”) by a wide margin (58%-42%). Its operative clause states, “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.”

These days, like California’s Proposition 209 on which it was based, I-200 is honored only its breach in some areas. But it has been reasonably effective in the area of public contracting in particular.

Now comes the effort to repeal it. Last week the Washington Secretary of State certified for the ballot an initiative (“Initiative 1000” or “I-1000”) which, if passed, will bring back race and sex preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting. But it does so in a sneaky and fraudulent way. It retains I-200’s operative clause. It even expands it:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, age, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or honorably discharged veteran or military status in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

But it then defines “preferential treatment” this way:

“‘Preferential treatment’ means the act of using race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, and honorably discharged veteran or military status as the sole qualifying factor to select a lesser qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate for a public education, public employment, or public contracting opportunity.”

Nobody has ever used race, sex, color, etc., as “the sole qualifying factor” for anything. If race had been the sole qualifying factor in Grutter v. Bollinger, that would have meant that every single African American gets in and no Asian or white does. It’s a ridiculous notion. The point of I-200 is that the listed factors should neither count against a person nor in his or her favor.

Another section of the proposal makes it clear that the original I-200 is being eviscerated:

“Nothing in this section prohibits the state from implementing affirmative action laws, regulations, policies, or procedures such as participation goals or outreach efforts that do not utilize quotas and that do not constitute preferential treatment as defined in this section.” 

If somebody in Washington State wants to give the people of Washington the opportunity to repeal I-200, they should be clear and upfront about it.

Here in California, Proposition 209 is responsible for increasing college GPAs, college graduation rates, and STEM degrees for African Americans.  There is no reason to believe that the same thing didn’t happen under Washington State’s I-200.  It needs to be more more strongly enforced rather than repealed.


(Via Small Dead Animals.)

PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS: ‘Such a fraud!’ Joe Scarborough’s past just caught up with him, and boy, is it awkward:

How is Joe Scarborough so bad at this? And by “this,” we mean “everything.”

For some reason, Scarborough thought that Al Sharpton was just the guy to weigh in on Donald Trump’s problematic remarks. Unfortunately, Scarborough apparently forgot that he has a congressional record, one that’s not too hard to find if you know where to look:

Just NBC the size of the memory hole here: Al Sharpton: Power Dem.

Related: Here’s the anti-Semitism the media doesn’t want to mention.

Like Sharpton himself, just think of the media as Democratic activists with bylines, and it all makes sense.

YOU HAD ONE JOB: Or perhaps I had one job.  I seem to have made it insufficiently clear why it was very important we not lose the house.
Yes, yes, I know, “but we got the Senate.”  Fine. It’s not a complete disaster.

OTOH this is how I see it:

The dems get two years to hide whatever inky stuff has been going one with the FBI/CIA.  After another two years that swamp might be permanent.

Trump is by nature a deal maker. After the first two government shut downs, he’ll meet them halfway.  This will wreck our economy and yep his presidency with it.  As they did with Bush in 2006, they now have a chance to wreck the economy and have it blamed on the sitting president.

Border security? What border security? Moar Dem voters, citizenship being insignificant.

Seriously, yeah Judges.  Not all is lost.  But this is bad, very bad.  We failed to beat the margin of fraud.  Maybe it was inevitable.  Maybe Trump won in 16 because they seriously underestimated him.

Yeah, they threw a lot of money at this.  But let’s be real, if they can win the House on promises to raise our taxes and throttle our energy production and, oh, yeah, impeach the president that finally got the economy going?  We need to up our game, and somehow we need to clean up vote fraud. Which is now infinitely harder to do, since the loons got the power. No, I’m not giving up.  But this is a heck of a corner we’ve got ourselves painted into.

I’m going to have two fingers of Devil’s Cut and go to bed. Tomorrow it’s back to the trenches.


After hearing that part of the tape, any decent newsman would say, “Wait just a minute. Where’s the part of her tape with the lawyers? If it exists, we have to hear it too. We can’t just let her accuse Kelly of being a ‘criminal’ after what Kelly said about questions of her ‘integrity.’”

The film script of “All the President’s Men” dramatizes the editorial problem from a newsman’s point of view: “Ben Bradlee: Now hold it, hold it. We’re about to accuse Haldeman, who only happens to be the second most important man in this country, of conducting a criminal conspiracy from inside the White House. It would be nice if we were right.”

Did anyone try to “hold it” at NBC News? I’ve contacted the network to see if such a conversation took place and if anyone heard the rest of the tape, if it existed. As of yet, after several exchanges, I haven’t gotten an answer. But the fact remains, in spite of Kelly’s rather lengthy and moderate (certainly for a Marine general) summary on the tape of what kind of issues had occasioned his meeting with Manigault Newman, NBC showed no on-air interest in the second part of the meeting with the lawyers, which appears to have dealt extensively with issues directly relevant to her credibility. . . .

Manigault Newman was allowed to proclaim her willingness to make her White House personnel file public while NBC made no attempt to ask her what accusations regarding her integrity the White House lawyers had listed in their meeting with her that might impeach her credibility.

Sounds like another instance of Treacher’s First Law of Journalism:

STAY TUNED: Will New Jersey Send A Republican To The Senate?

Democrats are defending 26 Senate seats, Republicans only nine. Five Democratic incumbents are running in states that 21 months ago experienced Donald Trump swoons: He won Missouri by 18.6 points, Indiana by 19.2, Montana by 20.4, North Dakota by 35.7, West Virginia by 42.1. In New Jersey, which Hillary Clinton carried by 14.1 points, Menendez was supposed to be safe.

The Republicans’ most recent presidential victory in New Jersey was in 1988. In the subsequent seven elections, the Democratic presidential candidates’ average margin of victory was almost 13 points. This state last elected a Republican senator (Clifford Case) in 1972. This 46-year drought might end in November.

Robert Hugin, 63, grew up in blue-collar Union City, as did Menendez, with whom Hugin served as student representatives to the local board of education. Hugin became the first in his family to graduate from college (Princeton), served 14 years in the Marine Corps (his two sons are now officers), then went into business, rising to run a pharmaceutical company. This sin, although scarlet in the overheated public mind, might be less so than Menendez’s transgressions detailed in the letter.

With hilarious understatement, James Madison, who was not known for hilarity, said, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” A unanimous Senate ethics committee (three Republicans, three Democrats) in its April 26 letter to Menendez said: “By this letter, you are hereby severely admonished.” Menendez, the letter said, brought “discredit upon the Senate” by the following:

“Over a six-year period,” Menendez “knowingly and repeatedly accepted gifts of significant value” from a friend (an ophthalmologist who, the letter did not say, is currently appealing a 17-year sentence for $73 million of fraudulent Medicare billings). The gifts included air travel on private and commercial flights, a luxury hotel stay in Paris (the committee’s letter is demurely silent about Menendez’s accompanying girlfriend) and 19 visits to a Dominican Republic villa. He neither publicly reported, nor received written permission for, these gifts. In addition, the committee said, Menendez improperly intervened with federal agencies with “persistent advocacy” for his friend’s business interests.

Menendez got off light. The voters should turn him out. But it’s New Jersey, so. . . .


A secret memo marked “URGENT” detailed how the House Democratic Caucus’s server went “missing” soon after it became evidence in a cybersecurity probe. The secret memo also said more than “40 House offices may have been victims of IT security violations.”

In the memo, Congress’s top law enforcement official, Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving, along with Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko, wrote, “We have concluded that the employees [Democratic systems administrator Imran Awan and his family] are an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems and thereby members’ capacity to serve constituents.”

The memo, addressed to the Committee on House Administration (CHA) and dated Feb. 3, 2017, was recently reviewed and transcribed by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The letter bolsters TheDCNF’s previous reporting about the missing server and evidence of fraud on Capitol Hill.

It details how the caucus server, run by then-caucus Chairman Rep. Xavier Becerra, was secretly copied by authorities after the House Inspector General (IG) identified suspicious activity on it, but the Awans’ physical access was not blocked.

And by “for some reason,” I mean:


Journalists reacted in horror Sunday morning after President Trump tweeted a fake video that showed him body-slamming “fraud news” CNN in a fake wrestling match.

While many of the president’s supporters online reacted to the video with humor, the consensus among journalists seemed to be that Trump was inciting violence against the media.

“It is a sad day when the President of the United States encourages violence against reporters,” CNN said in a statement responding to the tweet.

ABC News’ chief political analyst Matthew Dowd claimed Trump is “advocating violence against media” and demanded Republican leaders “put country over party” in response to the fake video of fake wrestling.

“Around the world, journalists are murdered with impunity on a regular basis,” Poynter managing editor Ben Mullin gravely stated. “This isn’t funny.”

CNN commentator Ana Navarro called the tweet “an incitement to violence” in an appearance on ABC News. “He is going to get somebody killed in the media,” she claimed.

None of them actually believe that, of course. What the DNC-MSM is actually angry about is that those enjoying the president’s tweet the most are millions of those same voters whom they’ve trashed for years, not least of which those residing in “downtown Arkansas,” as the New York Times embarrassingly tweeted yesterday. Just this past week, CNN producer Jimmy Carr was caught on hidden camera by an associate of James O’Keefe saying, American voters are “stupid as shit.”

Much more openly, they were mocked on the air by another Democrat operative with a byline back in 2009, also an employee of CNN:

Back in 1992, a Newsweek editor (back when Newsweek was still owned by the Washington Post) defended on C-Span her wearing of a button to that year’s Republican National Convention a pin that read “Yeah, I’m in the Media. Screw You.” A media that allowed such actions with no consequences, and spent decades pretending to be “objective” while trashing anyone with a (R) after his or her name, and who votes quadrennially in overwhelming numbers for the Democrat presidential candidate is shocked! shocked! that they’re suddenly not being treated (and tweeted about) with Marquess of Queensberry rules.

And then there’s the president as pro-wrestler kingpin angle, no doubt also causing vapors in the DNC-MSM. But in 2008, all three major presidential candidates had their dalliance with professional wrestling…

…With the winner of the election going on to eventually be interviewed by a woman who produces YouTube clips while sitting a bathtub full of milk and Cheerios. During his 2008 appearance on WWE, the future POTUS asked, paraphrasing the catchphrase of pro wrestler “The Rock,” “Do you smell what Barack is cooking?”

Yes. And its indigestible aftermath as well. Or as Iowahawk tweeted today:

Take a bow DNC-MSM – to paraphrase the former president, you did that build that.

UPDATE: Retired ABC Reporter Details Obama’s Off-the-Record ‘Profanity-Laced Tirade’ About the Media.

He and Hillary are their bosses. What choice do the media have, but to take it? As Larry Elder tweets, imagine how the media would react if Trump did that. But keep the above link in mind next time someone from CNN theatrically laces into Sean Spicer or Sarah Huckabee.

MORE: “After weeks of hearing how assassination plays* and holding up a severed head was just ‘art’ – the leftist response to [Trump’s] tweet is precious,” podcaster Stefan Molyneux‏ adds on Twitter.

* Sponsored by CNN’s parent company.

THE SCIENCE ISN’T SETTLED: Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job: Almost two decades after its introduction, the implicit association test has failed to deliver on its lofty promises.

Given all this excitement, it might feel safe to assume that the IAT really does measure people’s propensity to commit real-world acts of implicit bias against marginalized groups, and that it does so in a dependable, clearly understood way. After all, the test is hosted by Harvard, endorsed and frequently written about by some of the top social psychologists and science journalists in the country, and is currently seen by many as the most sophisticated way to talk about the complicated, fraught subject of race in America.

Unfortunately, none of that is true. A pile of scholarly work, some of it published in top psychology journals and most of it ignored by the media, suggests that the IAT falls far short of the quality-control standards normally expected of psychological instruments. The IAT, this research suggests, is a noisy, unreliable measure that correlates far too weakly with any real-world outcomes to be used to predict individuals’ behavior — even the test’s creators have now admitted as such. The history of the test suggests it was released to the public and excitedly publicized long before it had been fully validated in the rigorous, careful way normally demanded by the field of psychology. In fact, there’s a case to be made that Harvard shouldn’t be administering the test in its current form, in light of its shortcomings and its potential to mislead people about their own biases. There’s also a case to be made that the IAT went viral not for solid scientific reasons, but simply because it tells us such a simple, pat story about how racism works and can be fixed.

Is there anything in the field of social psychology that isn’t a fraud or a sham?

IN THE MAIL: Fraud: An American History from Barnum to Madoff.

Plus, today only at Amazon: Save on H&R Block 2016 Tax Software.

And, also today only: Save Big on select Stanley products.

And, of course, Fresh Lightning Deals, Updated Every Hour. Browse and save!


Democrats gleefully welcomed Trump’s victory in the Republican primaries with the expectation that they’d bury him in a pile of condescension for being a buffoon and scorn for being the next Hitler. Better yet, they figured that his astounding rise confirmed everything they had long assumed about half the country and were now free to say out loud: they are indeed a basket of irredeemable racist, sexist, homophobic deplorables. Mainstream Republicans would surely hop on board the progressive train rather than be associated with these creeps.

None of this happened, of course. But why? Because what Trump’s enemies failed to grasp was that he wasn’t winning because of the crazy things he was saying, but because of the phony outrage and affected condescension it provoked. Many people empathized with Trump for enduring the contempt that he deliberately brought against himself. Trump kept playing the role of the antihero, and Clinton kept playing the role of the pearl-clutching fraud.

So I’m a scoundrel because I don’t pay income taxes? Maybe so, but it also makes me smart, just like all the other billionaires who are backing your campaign. So I’m a sexist because you found a video of me bragging about how my superstar status enables me to grab women by the p—y? Maybe it does, but allow me to publically introduce four of the women who have accused your husband of everything from indecent exposure to rape. So I’m a greedy businessman who stiffs my contractors? Fine. You’re a corrupt politician who sells out our national interest to line your own pockets.

Maybe everything they say about me is true, but at least I’m authentic, at least I’m real: you on the other hand, are a bloody, disgusting hypocrite.

So say goodnight to the bad guy! Because this bad guy is now our president.

—David Ernst, the Federalist.


What unites these fake news narratives and gives them greater media resonance than other fables and urban myths is again their progressive resonance. Fake news can become a means to advance supposedly noble ends of racial, gender, class, or environmental justice—such as the need for new sexual assault protocols on campuses. Those larger aims supersede bothersome and inconvenient factual details. The larger “truth” of fake news lives on even after its facts have been utterly debunked.

And indeed, the fake news mindset ultimately can be traced back to the campus. Academic postmodernism derides facts and absolutes, and insists that there are only narratives and interpretations that gain credence, depending on the power of the story-teller. In other words, white male establishment reactionaries have set up fictive rules of “absolute” truth and “unimpeachable” facts, and they have further consolidated their privilege by forcing the Other to buy into their biased and capricious notions of discriminating against one narrative over another.

The work of French postmodernists—such as Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida that mesmerized academics in the 1980s with rehashed Nietzschean banalities about the absence of facts and the primacy of interpretation—has now been filtered by the media to a nationwide audience. If the mythical exclamation “hands up, don’t shoot” was useful in advancing a narrative of inordinate police attacks against African Americans, who cares whether he actually said it? And indeed, why privilege a particular set of elite investigatory methodologies to ascertain its veracity?

In sum, fake news is journalism’s popular version of the nihilism of campus postmodernism. To progressive journalists, advancing a leftwing political agenda is important enough to justify the creation of misleading narratives and outright falsehoods to deceive the public—to justify, in other words, the creation of fake but otherwise useful news.

“Fake News: Postmodernism By Another Name,” Victor Davis Hanson, Defining Ideas.

Hangover: Anthropologists and other scholars plan read-in of Michel Foucault to mark inauguration of Donald Trump.

Inside Higher Education, January 16th.


JOHN FUND: Do Illegal Votes Decide Elections? There’s no way to know. But the evidence suggests that significant numbers of noncitizens cast ballots.

Donald Trump’s claim that illegal voting may have cost him a popular-vote majority has touched off outrage. Widespread voter fraud, the media consensus suggests, isn’t possible. But there is a real chance that significant numbers of noncitizens and others are indeed voting illegally, perhaps enough to make up the margin in some elections.

There’s no way of knowing for sure. The voter-registration process in almost all states runs on the honor system. The Obama administration has done everything it can to keep the status quo in place. The Obama Justice Department has refused to file a single lawsuit to enforce the requirement of the National Voter Registration Act that states maintain the accuracy of their voter-registration lists. This despite a 2012 study from the Pew Center on the States estimating that one out of every eight voter registrations is inaccurate, out-of-date or duplicate. About 2.8 million people are registered in more than one state, according to the study, and 1.8 million registered voters are dead. In most places it’s easy to vote under the names of such people with little risk of detection.

An undercover video released in October by the citizen-journalist group Project Veritas shows a Democratic election commissioner in New York City saying at a party, “I think there is a lot of voter fraud.” A second video shows two Democratic operatives mulling how it would be possible to get away with voter fraud. . . .

How common is this? If only we knew. Political correctness has squelched probes of noncitizen voting, so most cases are discovered accidentally instead of through a systematic review of election records.

The danger looms large in states such as California, which provides driver’s licenses to noncitizens, including those here illegally, and which also does nothing to verify citizenship during voter registration. In a 1996 House race, then-challenger Loretta Sanchez defeated incumbent Rep. Bob Dornan by under 1,000 votes. An investigation by a House committee found 624 invalid votes by noncitizens, nearly enough to overturn the result.

How big is this problem nationally? One district-court administrator estimated in 2005 that up to 3% of the 30,000 people called for jury duty from voter-registration rolls over a two-year period were not U.S. citizens. A September report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation found more than 1,000 noncitizens who had been removed from the voter rolls in eight Virginia counties. Many of them had cast ballots in previous elections, but none was referred for possible prosecution.

Of course not. They vote for Democrats.

QUADRENNIAL HEADLINE. Two Investigators: Chicago Voters Cast Ballots From Beyond The Grave, CBS’s Chicago affiliate reports.

Why Are Democrat-monopoly cities such cesspits of zombie-based voter fraud?



For years here in Virginia I have observed massive fraud – in the registration process, in the absentee ballot casting, in the battle to remove photo IDs, in the voting at the polls. Recent studies have shown thousands of illegal alien registrations in Virginia, and hundreds of voters also casting votes in other states (college kids the worst offenders). My own identity (SS No.) was stolen last year and used to get a fraudulent tax refund and voting. I have written in the past about the massive fraud here with illegal alien voting. For over a decade the SEIU and its local affiliates have gone through the extensive illegal alien community here in Virginia fraudulently registering illegals who then vote in large numbers, usually in early voting or absentee ballots, because there are no poll watchers to challenge them. They even brag about it.

In 2006, George Allen was beaten by illegal alien vote margins, giving the Senate to the Democrats. Terry McAuliffe is governor because of a narrow margin granted him by illegal alien voting – and a Trump-like NeverCuccinelli movement by establishment Republicans (sound familiar? National Review? Powerline?). We lost two consecutive Attorney General elections by several hundred votes, with illegal aliens the difference. Warner defeated Gillespie for Senate in 2014 by a small vote difference provided by illegals. And my friend the local former Fairfax County Democrat head brags about it when we have coffee together.

So why should Trump say that he will blindly accept the results when Virginia fraud is multiplied 51 times across the country? When Podesta talks about getting illegal aliens to vote with drivers licenses? When Project Veritas shows gloating Democrat operatives talking about registering illegals?

If you’re not even willing to make a stink about it, what are you willing to do?

ARE THESE THE TWO BEST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES EVER, OR WHAT? It Was Easier To Cure Trump Of His Trumpiness Than Hillary of Her Hillaryness, Ben Shapiro writes:

Trump had to stop being Trump in order to gain in the polls; Hillary has to stop being Hillary in order to do the same. But it was easier for Trump to stop being Trump. That’s because Trump defined himself as a borderline nut job, a crazy man willing to do or say anything. To stop being Trump merely required him to start reading a script. So, like Shia Lebeouf, he got on message during the filming, and saved his actual cannibalism for his off-hours.

For Hillary, the problem runs deeper. People think she’s corrupt and dishonest. That’s because she’s corrupt and dishonest. To stop being Hillary, she must stop being corrupt and dishonest. It’s easier to feign sobriety than it is to feign truthfulness. Even when Hillary tells the truth these days, it sounds like a lie. And there’s no way for her to escape herself.

You can find DNC-MSM columnists asking “When will the real Hillary emerge?” dating back to at least 1999, during her carpet-bagging New York Senate run. But as Jonah Goldberg wrote immediately after the 2016 Democrat convention, “Considering how much I’ve gotten wrong this year, indulge me for a moment to say I got this one exactly right. For years now, I’ve been writing that there is no new Hillary, that she’s the woman who tells you “there’s no eating in the library,” and that no matter how many times we’re told she’s been “reinvented” and “reintroduced” the dog food still tastes the same. It’s Hillary all the way down.”


PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS. “‘Opportunity of a Lifetime’ to Dine With The Donald — and Mitt,” as Newsmax noted on May 31st, 2012:

The Democrats may have raffled off a couple of seats to an overpriced dinner with George Clooney a couple of weeks ago, but, not to be outdone,  the GOP has responded with an “opportunity of a lifetime” to dine with the Donald — and Mitt.

The Romney campaign officially launched [Website redirects to and now 404s – Ed] on May 30 amid the hype and sensation that seems to follow billionaire businessman Donald Trump everywhere he goes these days.

“What a spectacular opportunity to dine with two really tremendous individuals — one that is an international icon, and the other the future president of the United States of America,” Michael Cohen, Trump’s executive vice president and spokesperson told Newsmax. “It’s really an opportunity of a lifetime and we suspect that it will raise an enormous amount of money.”

Cohen estimated that the promotion will generate “many millions” of dollars for the Romney campaign.

Trump himself tweeted the following message to his 1.2 million followers on Twitter: “What could be better than dinner with @MittRomney and me?”

Today, Romney tells voters that Trump’s “bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who work for them. He inherited his business, he didn’t create it. And whatever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there’s Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks and Trump Mortgage. A business genius he is not.”

And Trump replies:

“He was a disaster,” Trump said of Romney. “He ran one of the worst campaigns in presidential history. That was an election that should have been won by Republicans.” Trump also noted that Romney “begged me for my endorsement four years ago” — an endorsement he eventually gave (as immortalized in the picture at the top of the post). [Reprinted below — Ed]

At Commentary, Jonathan S. Tobin responds, “Right Message. Wrong Messenger,” given that Romney “is the embodiment of the party establishment that so many Republicans have come to despise:”

This animus for anybody that has been part of the party leadership in the past isn’t terribly logical or fair. But a lot of Republican voters are angry at the failure of their party to halt President Obama’s liberal agenda and dissatisfied with government in general. The affable Romney embodies both of these concerns because of his defeat at the hands of President Obama and his characteristic moderation. Having been around for two presidential election cycles and with a past as a liberal Republican governor of a blue state during which he laid the foundations for ObamaCare, the party base was never happy with him and likes him even less today.

And of course, as Michelle Malkin writes, where was this Romney in the fall of 2012 when it came to attacking his actual opponent in the race, or the media that propped him up?

Exit quote:

Senator Geary, call your office.

Mitt Romney, Donald Trump

Donald Trump greets Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, after announcing his endorsement of Romney during a news conference, Thursday, Feb. 2, 2012, in Las Vegas. (AP photo and caption.)


Travel at your own risk.

Just in time for the holidays, the State Department issued a global travel alert to U.S. citizens warning of the increased likelihood of terror attacks by legions of terrorists — including the murderous Islamic State.

The terse warning, posted on the State Department website Monday, said American travelers should use “particular caution” in the coming weeks and through Feb. 24.

“Current information suggests that (ISIS), Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other terrorist groups continue to plan terrorist attacks in multiple regions,” the State Department wrote.

The possible attacks could include “a wide variety of tactics … targeting both official and private interests,” the State Department added.

That’s odd – 11 days ago, on Friday morning before their Paris attack, President Obama reassured us all that ISIS is “contained.” Perhaps Mr. Obama failed to add, “within our solar system.”

But speaking of being afraid, journalists at the Daily News, serving as Charles Schumer’s Democratic operatives with bylines, are way ahead of Barry on the fear front:


As AWR Hawkins writes at Big Government, “NY Daily News Sets Up NRA To Be Scapegoat For Future Terror Attack:”

After a week of subtly baiting the NRA to enter into a shouting match over the Democrats’ efforts to expand background checks to include the no-fly list, the New York Daily News is taking the not-so-subtle approach of setting up the NRA to be the scapegoat for any future firearm-related terror attack.

The NY Daily News is going about this in the classic leftist sense by vilifying NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre–criticizing him for refusing to take the Democrats’ bait and come out swinging in the wake of the heinous Paris terror attacks. And having vilified him, they then continue their attack without ever feeling the need to explain why a no-fly list that includes a 4-year old going to visit his grandmother is supposed to be part of the database through which background checks are run.

Moreover, they do not explain how a no-fly list so imprecise that it once barred Senator Ted Kennedy from commercial flights is now the key to keeping American safe.

Instead, the NY Daily News overlooks the imprecision of the no-fly list and quotes Senator Church Schumer (D-NY) saying, “The same nefarious individual we monitor and bar from our planes, we turn the other way when it comes to allowing them to get guns and explosives. The NRA has fought tooth and nail to prevent these individuals from the terror watchlist from being added over the past several years.”

And for good reason, Sean Davis adds at the Federalist.Sorry Democrats, But There Is No ‘Loophole’ That Allows Terrorists To Legally Buy Guns — In their zeal to defeat Republican terrorists, Democrats have decided that the constitutional right to due process is a loophole that must be closed:”

According to several Democratic sponsors of the bill, the proposed law would allow the attorney general to deny a criminal background check clearance to any individual whose name appears on the national terror watch list. The huge problem with this expansive new power is that there are precisely zero statutory criteria for inclusion on this massive list. In fact, when statutory authority for the centralized government database was first codified into law via the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress gave all authority for determining criteria for inclusion in the watch list to unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats. If some faceless Beltway bureaucrat decides you might be a terrorist, then you’re a terrorist. End of story.

It gets even worse, though. If your name erroneously appears on that watch list, which as of 2013 included nearly 900,000 names, the Democrats’ proposed legislation renders you virtually powerless to find out why your name is on there, let alone to have it removed. And having your name erroneously or fraudulently added to that list isn’t as far-fetched as you might think.

In 2014, for example, Weekly Standard writer and Fox News contributor Stephen F. Hayes was informed that somebody added his name to the Department of Homeland Security’s terrorist watch list. There is zero credible evidence that he has any ties whatsoever to terrorism or to any terrorist organizations. Yet, under the Democrats’ new bill, he and everyone else who is erroneously listed would be banned from ever purchasing or possessing a firearm. Hayes’ apparent crime was traveling overseas for a cruise. Hayes is not alone. Each year, thousands of names end up on the terror watch list for no good reason whatsoever.

Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.

As Charles Cooke writes, “Let us avoid gloss or euphemism and speak plainly: This idea flies directly in the face of every cherished American conception of justice, and it should be rejected with extreme prejudice:”

You will note, I hope, that Reid, Schumer, Jentleson, and co. are not proposing to place restrictions on those who have been “accused,” “charged,” or “convicted,” but upon those who are “suspected.” They are not referring to those who are working their way through the judicial system, but to those who remain outside of it. They are not seeking to limit the rights of those who are out on bail or awaiting trial, but those who have not so much as been handcuffed. Loudly and proudly, they are arguing in favor of removing fundamental rights from anyone whose name has been written down on a list. Because they hope to confuse the public, their talk is peppered with references to “Paris-style” “assault” rifles and “automatic” weapons. But this is a red herring: Their proposal applies equally to guns of all types, not just those that give Shannon Watts and Diane Feinstein the willies.

In times past, officials advocating the simultaneous undermining of a range of constitutional rights would have been tarred, feathered, and dumped into the sea, along with their staff, their press agents, and anyone else who saw fit to acquiesce in the scheme. A little of that spirit might be welcome here.

However the press might cast it, there are not in fact “two sides” to this issue. It is not a “tricky question.” It is not a “thorny one” or a “gray area” or a “difficult choice.” It is tyranny. Somewhere, deep down, its advocates must know this. Presumably, Chuck Schumer would not submit that those on a terror watch list should be deprived of their right to speak? Presumably, Harry Reid would not contend that they must be kept away from their mosques? Presumably, Diane Feinstein would not argue that they should be subjected to warrantless searches and seizures? Such proposals would properly be considered disgraceful — perhaps, even, as an overture to American fascism. Alas, there is something about guns that causes otherwise reasonable people to lose their minds.

And lose their minds the bill’s champions have. As of today, there are almost one million names on the terror watch list — that’s names, not identities — of which around 280,000 are linked to nothing much at all. This should not surprise, for one does not in fact have to do a great deal in order to find one’s way onto the list. Perhaps you know someone who is already on it? That’s suspicious, right? On you go! Perhaps you have annoyed someone powerful? Oops! On you go! Perhaps you once said something intemperate in public? Better to be safe. On you go! Perhaps you are a Muslim? On. You. Go.

Oh well – “travel at your own risk,” the New York Daily News would likely sniff in response.

Related: Schumer plans for Senate Democrats to “bring a universal background check bill to the floor of the Senate early next year.” Moe Lane responds, “Senate Democrats could have done this in 2009 when they had sixty votes in the Senate, instead of the forty-five they have now.  Of course, if they had we’d probably have sixty votes in the Senate right now and a President who would have cheerfully signed a repeal bill in 2013. What is Senator Schumer’s victory condition, here? Does he even know?”

END COLLEGE FOOTBALL, Victor Davis Hanson writes:

The truth is that the university is a dysfunctional institution. Free speech no longer exists. Trigger warnings, micro-aggressions, and safe zones have created a climate of fear and bullying on campus. Affirmative action criteria emulate the abhorrent ‘one-drop’ rule of the Old Confederacy. Campus identity is defined by race and gender, but never class.  Annual hikes in tuition exceed the rate of inflation. Faculty are paid widely asymmetrical compensation for instruction of the identical class, depending on archaic institutions like tenure and seniority. Non-teaching personnel have soared. Graduate PhD programs have proliferated, even as jobs for their graduates have shrunk. Undergraduate university graduation rates have declined. College graduates are assumed to earn high paying jobs; but the dismal rate of bachelor degrees translating into employment commensurate with staggering college costs and student loan debt would prompt federal investigations of fraud and false adverting in any other institution.

At the center of such chaos and contradiction, sits college football — the most hypocritical of all university institutions. It may have survived past liberal criticism that it was a veritable money-making and exploitative industry, run amok and immune from the campus laws that govern faculty and students. But it should not survive present liberal demands for racial diversity, proportional representation due to disparate impact, and zero-tolerance for sexual assault.

Related: Carl Cannon of Real Clear Politics on “Riding the Academic Tiger.”


THE DEAD HAVE ARISEN — AND THEY’RE STILL NOT VOTING REPUBLICAN! Yes, Really: 141 Counties Have More Registered Voters Than People Alive:

“Corrupted voter rolls provide the perfect environment for voter fraud,” said J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel of PILF. “Close elections tainted by voter fraud turned control of the United States Senate in 2009. Too much is at stake in 2016 to allow that to happen again.”

As Hugh Hewitt likes to say, if it’s not close, they can’t cheat. And as my friend Stephen Kruiser quipped in 2010, every Republican should assume that his election is well within the margin of ACORN.

(Headline via noted election scholar Bartholomew J. Simpson.)

FIRST THAT BOGUS GAY-MARRIAGE STUDY, now this Alice Goffman beat-down by Steven Lubet, in which he both suggests that her research is fraudulent and notes that she — seemingly without realizing it — admits to committing a felony in the course of conducting it.

I do not know if Goffman’s editors and dissertation committee held her to a journalist’s standard of fact checking. There is no footnote for the hospital incident in On the Run, and her dissertation is not available from the Princeton library. Alas, it is now too late to obtain any additional documentation, because Goffman shredded all of her field notes and disposed of her hard drive.

Who does she think she is? Hillary? But the felony part is worse — it’s conspiracy to commit murder.

A few days after the funeral, “the hunt was on to find the man who had killed Chuck,” whom the 6th Street Boys believed they could identify. Guns in hand, they drove around the city, looking for revenge. This time, Goffman did not merely take notes – on several nights, she volunteered to do the driving. . . .

Taking Goffman’s narrative at face value, one would have to conclude that her actions – driving around with an armed man, looking for somebody to kill – constituted conspiracy to commit murder under Pennsylvania law. In the language of the applicable statute, she agreed to aid another person “in the planning or commission” of a crime – in this case, murder. As with other “inchoate” crimes, the offense of conspiracy is completed simply by the agreement itself and the subsequent commission of a single “overt act” in furtherance of the crime, such as voluntarily driving the getaway car.

I sent the relevant paragraphs from On the Run to four current or former prosecutors with experience in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. Their unanimous opinion was that Goffman had committed a felony. A former prosecutor from the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office was typical of the group. “She’s flat out confessed to conspiring to commit murder and could be charged and convicted based on this account right now,” he said.

This seems a rather serious professional breach. Related: “The professor and the thug, entirely different lives, separated by the thinnest of margins.”

It’s a bad week for social science.


With acceptance letters in hand, millions of high-schools seniors ruminating over where to attend college—and their parents who are panicked that their kid might pick the place with the best climbing wall—should all take a breath: It doesn’t much matter where you go to college.

What matters is “how you go,” says Purdue University President Mitch Daniels, the former governor of Indiana. He then lays out the results of the Gallup-Purdue Index, a national survey of 30,000 college graduates that was first released last year. The survey attempts to quantify not only what graduates earn but also how well they are navigating adult life.

A mere 39% of college graduates report feeling engaged with their work, and in that group as many hail from top-100 schools as don’t. The three most important contributions that college makes to a sense of workplace thriving after graduation: Having one professor who made you excited about learning, feeling as though teachers cared about you, and working with a mentor. Graduates who checked those boxes were more than twice as likely to sense they are flourishing at work.

But only 14% of those surveyed said they had hit that trifecta in college. Other positive factors from undergraduate experience: working on a long-term project, having an internship and participating in extracurricular activities. Where graduates went to college barely registered as a predictor of job satisfaction.

This surprises me not at all.
But there’s more:

That was two years ago, soon after Mr. Daniels arrived at Purdue. His first order of business: freeze tuition.

“I had a sense, first of all, it seemed like the right thing to do. Not to skip over that. But secondly that we probably could do it without great difficulty,” he says. For decades college tuition has outpaced inflation, forcing students to increase their borrowing, but next year’s Purdue seniors will have never seen a tuition increase.

“I thought this whole process—it’s sort of like a bubble, and people are using that term—just couldn’t go on much further, and so why not get off the escalator before it broke,” he says.

Not many colleges have followed, and Mr. Daniels has a few theories about why. “Corporate boards 15 years ago or so were roundly and rightly criticized for being too compliant with the desires of management. If this was true of corporate boards, I think it’s really been true of a lot of college boards and trustees,” he says. “They have such an affection for dear old alma mater, love those 50-yard-line seats, ‘Whatever you want to do, Mr. President.’ And so it’s been observed a long time that colleges will spend everything they can get their hands on, in the absence of either market pressure or stewardship by a strong-minded board.”

There is also what he considers an “insidious” idea that “if we don’t raise our price, people will think we don’t have confidence in our product.” He points out that “in the absence of proof, people assume a higher price must be a better product or education.” But according to data released last year, half of high-school seniors accepted by their first-choice college attended a different school, and most cited cost as the reason.

The jig is about up. And the many people worried about CEO pay being too high because the board is too close to the CEO might look more closely at higher education, and the nonprofit world in general.

Related: A Degree Signifying Nothing?

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) has released a report titled “The Unkindest Cut: Shakespeare in Exile 2015.” According to the report’s author, Dr. Michael Poliakoff, only 4 out of the top 52 liberal arts colleges and universities in the country require English majors to take a course on Shakespeare. “If reading Shakespeare is not central to a liberal education, what is? For English majors to miss out is far worse. A degree in English without serious study of Shakespeare is like a major in Greek Literature without the serious study of Homer. It is tantamount to fraud. A department that claims to cover the full span of literature written in English and represent the highest standards of academic study cannot marginalize the writer most honored and beloved in English literary history,” writes Poliakoff. The report notes that, while many colleges are giving Shakespeare superficial treatment, trendy courses, and even courses that focus on the works of children’s book authors, are growing in number. As ACTA’s president Anne Neal said in a recent interview, “It’s no wonder that the public is rapidly losing faith in our colleges and universities.”

Well, no, it isn’t.

ED MORRISSEY: Why a GOP Wave Election Will Surprise the Media. Just remember, it’s not enough to win: You have to win outside the margin of fraud.

TRYING TO SHRINK THE “MARGIN OF FRAUD:” Christie wants GOP control over ‘voting mechanisms.’ “Christie stressed the need to keep Republicans in charge of states – and overseeing state-level voting regulations – ahead of the next presidential election.”

Dems are predictably apoplectic, even though they had their own “Secretary of State Project” to do the same thing.

NICE POLLS, KID. DON’T GET COCKY. Things are looking better and better for Republicans in Colorado.

The survey of 500 likely Colorado voters shows that 46 percent prefer Gardner, while only 39 percent say they’re going to go for Udall.

“The findings in the state, which President Obama carried in 2008 and 2012, signal an electorate that seems to be tipping toward the GOP. The poll … comes as voting centers opened this week in Colorado and thousands of the state’s distinctive mail-in ballots have been cast,” USA Today reported.

The poll also had good news for GOP members of the Centennial State’s House delegation, especially vulnerable Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo. “Those surveyed now support the Republican candidate for Congress in their district over the Democrat by 51%-39%, doubling the GOP’s advantage in September on the so-called generic congressional ballot and well outside the poll’s margin of error,” the report added.

The survey reveals that many voters in the Centennial State have turned on Udall for supposedly running an ugly and negative campaign.

“Supposedly?” But remember, you have to beat the margin of fraud.

ROGER KIMBALL: Dem Panic According to the NY Times.

Remember, you don’t just have to beat them. You have to beat them beyond the margin of fraud.

JOHN FUND: Colorado Braces for Voter Fraud In Country’s Closest Senate Election.

UPDATE: Or maybe we’ll be outside the margin of fraud: Gardner Pulls Away from Udall as Colorado Democrats Face Upset.

THE “MARGIN OF FRAUD” JUST EXPANDED: Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin’s voter ID law. “In a related action, a district court judge in Texas ruled that state’s voter ID law is racially discriminatory and violates the Voting Rights Act. The state attorney general’s office said it would appeal.”

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: The Incredible Shrinking President: Hour by hour he gets smaller and smaller!

Less than two years after voters gave President Barack Obama a strong mandate for a second term, the White House is struggling against perceptions that it is losing its grip.

At home, the bungled rollout of the Obamacare website and the shocking revelations about an entrenched culture of incompetence and fraud in the VA have undercut faith in the President’s managerial competency.

Abroad, a surging Russia, an aggressive China, a war torn Middle East and a resurgent terror network are putting his foreign policy credentials to the test. With the GOP hoping to seize control of the Senate in November’s midterm elections, and the inevitable decline in presidential power that occurs as second term presidents move toward lame-duck status, Obama risks being sidelined and marginalized for the remaining two years of his term.

Last week’s tempest over the Bergdahl exchange seemed to roll all the President’s troubles together into a single storm.

Not so sure his reelection — with fewer votes than 2008 — was a “strong mandate,” but the most telling sign of incompetence is that the White House clearly expected the Bergdahl business to be a big, and easy, PR win.

ROLL CALL: Senate GOP More Optimistic About Midterms. “At the dawn of the election year, Senate Republicans feel a renewed sense of optimism in their fight to net the six seats necessary to win the majority in 2014. The stumbling rollout of Obamacare has given the GOP hope it can loosen the Democrats’ grip on the majority by ousting its four most vulnerable incumbents. Still, several factors could influence how things appear in the final months of President Barack Obama’s second midterm cycle. And Democrats have proved in recent years they know how to win tough Senate races.” Yes, a GOP win has to be beyond the margin of fraud or votes will be found, as with Al Franken.

I CAN’T FAULT HER: Freudian Slip: Candy Crowley Calls Him ‘President Romney’.  Yesterday on the way back from the rally I kept doing this to my family’s amusement.  Stuff like “When the president was speaking”  “Mom, he wasn’t there.”  “Romney, yes he was.”  “Yes, but he’s not the president.”  “Oh, sorry.”  And five minutes later, again.  Let’s hope my subconscious is right!  Oh.  Forget hoping.  GO VOLUNTEER.  AND VOTE.  Even if you DON’T have to crawl over broken glass, we need enough votes to overcome margin of fraud.  GO.

WELL, YES: “I can pretty much guarantee that this man photographed at a Romney rally in Lancaster, Ohio, is not in fact a Republican, but rather is a plant sent out by the Democrats as a dirty trick.”

Whenever the Dems are in trouble, they start this sort of thing. They’re in trouble now. Expect the bylined Democratic operatives formerly known as journalists to help as much as they can.

RELATED (From Ed): It’s time to print up new versions of signs such as these, which were rather effective in pointing out false-flag plants at the Tea Parties in 2010:

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SENDS S.W.A.T. TEAM TO WRONG HOUSE over defaulted student loans. Everyone involved should be tarred and feathered. But in fact, there will be no consequences to speak of.

On the other hand, if Congressional Republicans are looking for some budget cuts, how about a rider banning any funding for armed agents at the Department of Education?

UPDATE: Education Department says it wasn’t about a student loan. But they won’t say what it is about. I agree with this commentary:

This will certainly come as a relief to Millenial deadbeats, but the notion that “bribery, fraud, and embezzlement of federal student aid funds” is all it takes to get a paramilitary squad to bang down your door at 6 a.m, handcuff you in your boxers, and throw your three pre-teen children into the back seat of a squad car, all in the service of a warrant aimed at someone who no longer lives in your home, is frankly every bit as terrifying.

Unless and until we hear that this “criminal investigation” involves some kind of imminent threat of violence, there will be no margin of excuse for it, only new opportunities for bureaucrats and commentators to demonstrate that they are perfectly content living in and even contributing to a police state.

Tar. Feathers. And defunding.

IN WISCONSIN, PROSSER IS AHEAD, but with a lead that’s inside the “margin of fraud.” Expect a box of Kloppenburg ballots to be “found” soon. . . .

UPDATE: Alternate view: The unions brought out all their big guns, and all they could manage was a dead heat in a judicial election?


One of Washington’s biggest lies about federal spending will be endlessly repeated in coming weeks by President Obama, congressional Democrats, special interest advocates and the liberal mainstream media. The myth is that the federal budget really cannot be cut except on the margins because government programs are managed efficiently, with minimal waste, fraud and abuse, and they deliver essential services that cannot be provided any other way. Two reports focusing on federal job training programs — one from the Government Accountability Office and the other from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. — that were made public Wednesday put the lie to such claims.

I mean, if Congressional Democrats want to go out and tell the American public that “government programs are managed efficiently, with minimal waste, fraud and abuse,” well. . . you won’t need to cue the laugh track for that one. It’ll cue itself.

SUSPICIONS OF FRAUD IN NEVADA: “Voter Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid’s name was already checked. Ferrara said she wasn’t alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.”

North Carolina: “Sam Laughinghouse of New Bern said he pushed the button to vote Republican in all races, but the voting machine screen displayed a ballot with all Democrats checked. He cleared the screen and tried again with the same result, he said.”

Related: A pattern of fraud?

And more thoughts from Stephen Green: “It’s going to be a long week when the first two stories you see reflect just how big the ‘margin of cheating’ is going to be this year.”

People need to pay attention. Desperation is going to lead to a lot of corners being cut. Make an example of ’em so they won’t do it again next time.

Also: New ACORN effort is mobilizing voters, run by woman indicted for violating election laws.

UPDATE: Dallas.

Hey, I’ve been pushing paper ballots since 2002 for a reason.

VOTE FRAUD IN MASSACHUSETTS? You’re Not Supposed to Get an Absentee Ballot in a Box of Cracker Jacks. Video at the link.

Gerard van der Leun: “There’s your margin of fraud right there.”

UPDATE: An open thread to report vote-fraud incidents.

ZOGBY IS PREDICTING a Coakley win. Well, I think it all depends on turnout, etc. Emphasis, perhaps, on the etc.

UPDATE: Brown’s obviously focusing on turnout, with a VoterBomb to follow up the money-bomb of last week.

Meanwhile, a Massachusetts reader emails:

I voted in an upper-middle class Boston suburb this morning around 9:00 AM. The polling place was very busy. Short wait time, but still a stream of people going in and out. I drove by another nearby polling place that was busy. Both locations had two Brown volunteers (in the slushy snow) on the street with signs, one was homemade. No Coakley volunteers, just one sign stuck in a snowbank.

I stopped for a haircut at a place with two old guys who know everyone and make it a habit to collect local information. They said LOTS of people are voting for Brown. One of them said he grew up here in a Catholic neighborhood where his grandmother basically told him you wouldn’t get into heaven if you voted Republican. He said he’s taking his chances and voting for Brown. He was adamant about it.

We’ll see how many there are like him. And reader Rich Andrews emails:

I voted this morning in the Mass Senate race. Here are some random observations/thoughts.

Got to the polling place about 6:45; there were about 10 people ahead of me in line. By the time the polls opened at 7, the line was out the door.

Usually special and off year elections get about 15% to 25% turnout. One of the local news stations said that the turnout for this election was expected to be 70%.

When you consider that something like 52% of the registered voters in Massachusetts are independent (technically the term here is “unenrolled”) and that polls show them breaking 2 to 1 for Brown this could be a day I never thought I see here in the People’s Republic.

Local news stations are also reporting that the demand for absentee ballots had been very high. If there is fraud in this election, this is where it will come from. I hope that the margin of victory is much greater than the margin of fraud.

The last time that Massachusetts elected a Republican to the Senate, I was in eighth grade. I’m now 50.

I’ve been voting in here since 1982. This is the first time that my actually counted for anything. I’d like to get used to that feeling.

I’m not sure when Martha Coakley would be up for re-election as Attorney General. If she loses this election which is the closest thing politics has to a gimme, her political career will be over.

Good riddance to bad trash…

Well, stay tuned.

POLL: Christie 47, Corzine 41. If true, that’s probably outside the “margin of fraud,” even in New Jersey. . . .

UPDATE: Various readers tell me that there’s no such thing as outside the margin of fraud in New Jersey. . . .

MULTIPLE VOTING, INSECURE MACHINES: We dodged a bullet this time, with an election that was outside the “margin of fraud.” But we really need to do something about the electoral system’s problems before next time. Will we?

IN THE MAIL: Joseph Cummins’ Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises.

This might profitably be read along with John Fund’s Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy. Our podcast interview with Fund is here.

JONATHAN ADLER: “An analysis of state-wide records by the Poughkeepsie Journal reveals that 77,000 dead people remain on election rolls in New York State, and some 2,600 may have managed to vote after they had died. The study also found that Democrats are more successful at voting after death than Republicans, by a margin of four-to-one, largely because so many dead people seem to vote in Democrat-dominated New York City.”

UPDATE: According to Mark Kleiman, there’s less to this story than appears above.


Everyone is speculating about which party will control Congress after next month’s voting. But we may not know for a while. We could see either party pursue the kind of lawsuits that Al Gore unleashed in Florida in 2000 and contest any number of tight races that are within the “margin of litigation.” Recounts and even seating challenges in Congress could stretch on for weeks–another endless election. “We’re waiting for the day that pols can cut out the middleman and settle all elections in court,” jokes the political newsletter Hotline.

He also offers a lengthy roundup of election problems. And you can hear our podcast interview with Fund on election fraud here.

NOT EXACTLY THEOCRACY: In the mail, a copy of Andy Olree’s new book, The Choice Principle: The Biblical Case for Legal Toleration. According to the enclosure, its central thesis is that “God ordains governments, but only for the very limited purpose of protecting citizens from those who would directly harm others through force or fraud. This understanding would exclude legislation for other purposes, such as discouraging sexual impurity or the hoarding of wealth . . . . an evangelical commitment to moral absolutes and the authority of Scripture need not entail government endorsement of religious truths or legislation of any particular view of what constitutes a virtuous life.”

Not exactly theocracy, as I said. Or anyway, if this be theocracy, make the most of it. . . .

IN THE MAIL: John Fund’s book, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.

My thoughts on the subject can be found here.


Ukrainians are voting for a new president in a repeat ballot called after outrage over fraud led to the cancellation of the result.

Pro-Western opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko is strongly tipped to defeat Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, whose 21 November win was widely discredited.

Correspondents say the margin of victory will be almost as important in a country with a sharp east-west split.

About 12,000 foreign observers are monitoring the vote across the country.

Let’s hope that all goes well.

MORE AFGHANISTAN PHOTOS from Major John Tammes. His description of the photo on the right:

Here is a voter receiving instructions before going to the booth to select
his choice.

And his description of the photo below:

This fellow is keeping the ballot box at a school in Dasht-e Robat (we had a Los Angeles Times reporter and photog accompany us!)

Tammes also forwards this Word version of the Afghan electoral law, and this Powerpoint presentation on the process.

There have been a few complaints:

[O]pposition candidates claimed the polls were unfair because the ink used to mark people’s thumbs so they vote only once rubbed off too easily.

I’d be shocked if there weren’t some fraud, of course — but given that the United States still doesn’t require photo identification, or mark people who have voted with indelible UV ink, etc., I don’t suppose we’re in a position to point fingers unless it’s fairly significant. At any rate, given that critics were predicting that the elections would be derailed by chaos and mass violence (even worse than this!), complaints about insufficiently-indelible ink seem like a pretty good sign to me. I expect media stories to play up the fraud complaints and to downplay what a colossal achievement — and rebuke to those critics — this was. Read this for more background.

And from the look of these photos, the Afghans are already ahead of us in ballot technology!

UPDATE: Related thoughts here. (“Who can simply accept the results anymore? These days, there must be an elaborate, contentious post-election phase to magnify the losers’ discontent. The only hope to avoid that is a wide margin of victory. That hope seems better in Afghanistan than in the U.S.”) We’ve successfully exported American-style democracy already!