Masking the Truth

There are so many things going on with the Covid resurgence, it is impossible for Americans to make sense of the problem. With the deconstruction of Dr. Anthony Fauci, there is no longer a trusted medical authority disseminating information to the public.  CNN may still love Fauci, but few others believe him.

So, we are left with a symbolic Tower of Babel, a public discourse that is chaotic and even dangerous.

President Biden is at fault, of course.  He is incapable of leading a divided nation in any direction.  His verbal skills are non-existent (repetition of words cartoonish), and his problem-solving ability mirrors that of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez; approximately zero.

Mr. Biden was extremely fortunate to inherit a miraculous vaccination development from the Trump administration.  At first, the new president and his crew were successful in rolling out the vax nationwide.  If you wanted the protection, it was available free at a pharmacy near you.

The developing problem is not every citizen will take the vax.  Plenty of fear. Also, millions of foreign nationals are flooding across the southern border. Many, if not most, are not vaccinated.

President Biden has no strategy to stop the border madness and little ability to persuade anti-vaxxers.  Therefore, when yet another strain of Covid gathered strength, the federal government had no coherent response.  The result is the foolish and destructive panic we are seeing now.

There are two primary groups that will not cooperate in fighting Covid: skeptics in the conservative arena, and African-Americans.  Surveys say about half of black Americans remain unvaxxed, and resistance in right-wing precincts is hovering around 30 percent.

Both groups have rare common ground: they don’t trust the government.

The corrupt media adds to the danger by irresponsible analysis, especially on television.  The liberal networks refuse to criticize African-Americans, and the conservative outlets downplay resistance on the right.  Once again, these corporate media companies and their mouthpieces are in business solely to make money.

They could not care less whether someone dies from Covid.

In the end, President Biden will pay a big price for his poor leadership regarding the virus.  His latest attempt to bribe people to get vaxxed using taxpayer money is insulting.  Voters will remember how weak and befuddled Biden is on a very personal issue.  Most Americans don’t want to wear masks and are horrified their children may again be forced to wear them in school.

There is always a tipping point in any presidential term.  For LBJ it was Vietnam. Nixon Watergate.  Carter gas lines.

If Joe Biden can regain leadership credibility after the Covid redux, I will be surprised.  He, Vice-President Harris, and Dr. Fauci can wear all the masks they want – but most folks see right through them.

The Jan. 6 Committee, Fox News, and “Pelosi Republicans”

On Monday, the day before the January 6th House Select Committee held their first public hearing, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy spoke with reporters about the committee and its mission. When asked about the involvement of fellow Republican representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, McCarthy snidely referred to them as “Pelosi Republicans.”

Of course, the label makes no sense when it comes to lawmaking or political ideology, though McCarthy wasn’t about to make that distinction in front of the cameras. While Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a liberal Democrat, Cheney and Kinzinger are conservative Republicans with the legislative records to prove it. McCarthy’s real issue was the two’s willingness, as vocal critics of former president Donald Trump’s dishonest “stop the steal” campaign, to serve on the committee at Pelosi’s request.

You see, McCarthy and many other Republican leaders in Washington have been arguing that the select committee is a partisan by design. And to an extent, they’re right. What they won’t concede is that it’s largely their own fault.

After calling for an evenly-split bipartisan committee months ago, and directing Republican Rep. John Katko to negotiate with the Democrats to form one (which Katko successfully did), McCarthy did an about-face in May, and assisted Senate Republicans in killing the initiative. In other words, the GOP — after running a cost/benefit analysis — decided that even a fair and square, bipartisan investigation into January 6th and its origins wasn’t worth the political damage its findings would presumably do to their party and their de facto leader, Donald Trump.

What we’re seeing now is a backup plan, in which Pelosi has taken the lead and produced a team that’s politically lopsided in the Democrats’ favor. Though she placed Liz Cheney on it herself, and allowed McCarthy five seats (out of a proposed 13) to fill with additional Republicans, Pelosi ended up vetoing two of McCarthy’s picks (Jim Jordan and Jim Banks) over their votes to stop the 2020 election from being certified. Instead of replacing those individuals with different Republicans, McCarthy quickly withdrew all five of his picks… which handed full control of the panel back to Pelosi. She then added a second Republican in Kinzinger, along with seven Democrats, for a total of nine committee members.

So, by accepting positions on the select committee, Cheney and Kinzinger (who were both much more in favor of the bipartisan investigation their fellow Republicans chose to kill) are now… “Pelosi Republicans.”

Is it just me, or does that logic seem backwards? I mean, had McCarthy played ball, he could have had six or seven Republicans on the committee. Instead, he rescinded and left it up to Pelosi to fill every seat herself.

You know, it’s almost as if McCarthy wanted the entire initiative, which he argued was direly important back in January, to be as partisan as possible so that he and his Republican colleagues could then denounce and discredit it for being — you know — partisan.

Either way, Republican hacks in the media quickly signed on to the mantra:

Again, this strikes me as backwards. What “strengthened” Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party was four years of Donald Trump. He and his conduct as president handed them the House, Senate, and U.S. Presidency. This amounted to the Republicans losing total control of Washington in the shortest time span in almost 70 years. Cheney and Kinzinger, on the other hand, actually won their elections. And unlike Trump, they didn’t cost any of their Republican colleagues theirs, and aren’t trying to unseat any Republican incumbents now.

On Tuesday at the first committee hearing, we heard from four brave police officers who, along with hundreds of others, confronted rioters at the Capitol that day. Their names are Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, Michael Fanone, Daniel Hodges, and Harry Dunn, and their stories were heralding and emotional, as was the video footage supporting their accounts. As cops were beaten bloody with weapons and fists, and sprayed in the face with chemical agents, they struggled to hold onto their weapons which they feared (and were threatened) would be used against them. They were called traitors, Nazis, and n***ers, and were told by insurrectionists sold on Trump’s election lies that they were going to die.

These four officers came from different departments and backgrounds (including political parties), and they suffered — and continue to suffer — greatly from the physical and mental injuries they incurred while protecting members of Congress that day. Though their individual battles took place at different parts of the building, their experiences and perspectives illustrated some common themes…

They performed their jobs with honor and distinction under horrific circumstances, they don’t believe that a number of political leaders (including some they spared from violence on January 6th) have been held accountable for their role in provoking the violence, and they’re angry over an issue that Officer Fanone passionately described in his testimony.

“What makes the struggle harder and more painful is to know so many of my fellow citizens, including many of the people I put my life at risk to defend, are downplaying or outright denying what happened,” said Fanone, who was beaten unconscious by rioters, and suffered a heart attack, brain injury, and PTSD. “I feel like I went to hell and back to protect the people in this room. But too many are now telling me that hell doesn’t exist… or that hell wasn’t actually that bad. The indifference shown to my colleagues is disgraceful.” He slapped his hand down on the witness stand to emphasize his point.

He’s right, of course. And those who’ve been grossly whitewashing the attack, including Donald Trump, Rob Portman, Andrew Clyde, and many other Republican politicians and right-wing media pundits, know he’s right. They just don’t care, because protecting their jobs, power, and influence is clearly all that matters to such people.

Two people who do care, and do think those officers’ sacrifices matter, are Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger (the alleged “Pelosi Republicans”). They’ve likely ended their own political careers by continuing to tell the truth about January 6th, and working to seek accountability for the bad actors who brought it to fruition.

The moment Tuesday’s hearing ended, the first person Fox News brought on for reaction was Rep. Jim Banks (one of the two Republicans who’d been tossed off the committee). He denounced the entire hearing as — you know — partisan. He slammed the questioners for not asking the witnesses why the Capitol wasn’t better prepared to deal with an attack (something these particular witnesses wouldn’t have known anyway), and then unequivocally stated that everything Cheney and Kinzinger had said and asked during the hearing (despite their rhetoric and stated concerns reflecting what they’ve been saying for the last six months) was directly “scripted” by — you guessed it — Nancy Pelosi. He even went a far as to say (again, unequivocally) that the two Republicans’ master plan is to ensure that the Democrats hold onto congressional majorities next year.

You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

On Twitter, American Greatness columnist and frequent Fox News guest Julie Kelly disgracefully called Officer Michael Fanone a “crisis actor” for his impassioned testimony. (Again, Fanone was the cop who was beaten unconscious and suffered a heart attack, brain injury, and PTSD at the hands of January 6th insurrectionists.)

On The Five, Greg Gutfeld called every committee member (including the Republicans) a “phony,” mocked individuals on the panel for tearing up at times, and reduced the implications of the January 6th attack to merely “having politicians’ jobs disrupted for two hours.”

No, I’m not joking.

On Tucker Carlson’s show, Carlson actually laughed at a video clip of Officer Fanone describing the “psychological trauma and emotional anxiety” he suffered from the Capitol attack. Carlson added, “What is interesting is Michael Fanone didn’t mention experiencing any trauma during the time he spent last year on the D.C. police force. It was just last summer that rioters in Washington torched the oldest Episcopal church in the city just steps from the White House.”

How’s that for a whataboutism?

I get that a huge component of the political right’s strategy for glossing over January 6th, and what caused it, is to evoke the (very real) double-standard that a number of Democrats and members of the mainstream media have used when it comes to rioting. But what does that have to do with Fanone?

I know I’m sounding like a broken record with this run-down, but I’m going to venture a guess (having never had it happen to me) that being beaten unconscious, and suffering a heart attack and brain injury at the hands of people trying to wrestle your firearm away while telling you they’re going to kill you… is a tad more personally traumatic than an incident in which none of those things happened to you.

Yet, Carlson is implying, somehow, that Fanone is a hypocrite or being disingenuous… without even knowing the officer’s thoughts on other riots, or what his experiences dealing with other mobs have been. Carlson’s argument was nonsensical… but I’m sure much of his audience ate it up nonetheless.

Laura Ingraham used her show to mock Fanone as well, along with the rest of the officers who testified, by presenting them with acting “performance awards.” I guess it’s only appropriate to “back the blue” when the situation is politically convenient.

Deranged doesn’t even begin to describe these people, but that’s what political tribalism and careerism can do to individuals. What’s particularly notable is how much scorn they reserved for Fanone.

I suspect part of the reason is that Fanone is a Republican, and so — under binary rules — he’s supposed to be on their “side” (no matter what). And because he’s not, and because his honest accounts of that day are politically and ideologically damaging to narratives the political right (including cable news hosts) has worked hard to push, Fanone’s character and integrity must be attacked.

In other words, to them, Fanone too is a “Pelosi Republican” and should be treated like one.

I do have hope, especially with Liz Cheney on board, that the investigation (despite its political lopsidedness) will produce some institutionally helpful findings. Unfortunately, no matter what’s ultimately discovered, I’m pretty confident that the political and media stupidity surrounding the investigation will only worsen.

John Daly’s novel “Restitution” is now available for pre-order (click to reserve your copy)!


The Media Produces Derangement: Proof From New York Times Readers

This past weekend, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd added another column to the myriad irrational and hysterical pieces about the “existential threat” climate change allegedly poses to human life.

As I do after almost every piece I read on the internet, I read comments submitted by readers.

One provided me with an epiphany.

It was a comment submitted by New York Times reader “Sophia” of Bangor, Maine:

“I have one child, a daughter, who told me age 8 that she would never have a child because of global warming. She’s now 34 and has never changed her mind. So I will not experience a grandchild. For her wisdom, I am grateful. I would be heartsick if I did have a grandchild who would have to experience the onslaught of changing climate.”

It is hard to imagine greater proof than that comment of the power of mass media and of the left. That a normal woman would celebrate her daughter’s choice not to be a mother and not to make her a grandmother can only be described as deranged. No normal-thinking human being would think that way. Jews had children during the Holocaust and made sure to have children if they survived the Holocaust.

Does this deranged woman know how few people are dying due to weather-related incidents in the era of global warming?

Danish statistician and economist Bjorn Lomborg noted this past week:

“Over the past hundred years, annual climate-related deaths have declined by more than 96%. In the 1920s, the death count from climate-related disasters was 485,000 on average every year. In the last full decade, 2010-2019, the average was 18,362 dead per year, or 96.2% lower.

“In the first year of the new decade, 2020, the number of dead was even lower at 14,893 — 97% lower than the 1920s average …

“The preliminary estimate of 2021 climate-related deaths (is) 5,569 or 98.9% lower than the 1920s …

“The newest Lancet study of heat and cold deaths show(s) that cold ‘vastly’ outweigh heat, and that climate actually has dramatically lowered (the number of) total death(s) … “

Of course, none of that matters to Sophia — because she relies on The New York Times (and probably NPR and CNN) for her understanding of the world.

For more proof of how deranged many New York Times readers — and Washington Post readers, CNN viewers and NPR listeners — are because they rely on these sources for what they believe about the world, here are some replies to Sophia’s comment from other New York Times readers:

B. Rothman, New York City: “I completely agree. I have 6 grandchildren and weep inside for the calamitous life that is ahead for them.”

Ida Martinac, Berkeley, California: “I weep with you, Sophia. Whenever I look my 11 year old daughter in the eyes I feel so many emotions: guilt for bringing her into this dying world.”

Liberal, Texas: “I feel your pain. I have 2 sons. Neither one will have children and their partners agree. I’ll never have grandchildren. But I also realize that their decisions have in some way been molded by me. I am proud of their decision.”

Liz, Portland: “Frankly, as someone who has been concerned about climate change, and observing what is happening over the last ten years with real dread, I do not understand why anyone in the last ten years would voluntarily have a child.”

CC, Sonoma, California: “My only daughter shares your daughter’s feelings. I will have no grandchildren. As I watch my peers enjoying their final years surrounded by grandchildren, I can’t help feeling a little jealous. At the same time … our daughters are stepping up to the challenge. I’m proud of them.”

Marisa Leaf, Brooklyn, New York: “I, too, am coming to terms and accepting that my 36 year old son will not have a child as well — for stated reasons. It is painful for me when I watch other young men and women his age going about town with their children. But I understand, and concur, on an intellectual level, that of course they’re right. Bringing more children into the world these days is an existential worry. And irresponsible. So, as I grieve for our planet, I also grieve for the grandchildren that I will never have.”

What do all these deranged reactions have in common? How could so many people living in the healthiest, wealthiest society in human history welcome not having grandchildren?

The answer is they have been brainwashed by the media (and college). They have read and heard nothing — absolutely nothing — by scientists and scholars (such as Steve Koonin of NYU, Richard Lindzen of MIT or William Happer of Princeton, to name just three) who have studied climate change and found the hysteria morally as well as scientifically indefensible. It is not possible to live a life insulated from left-wing ideas. But it is extraordinarily easy to lead a life insulated from all non-left-wing ideas.

So, then, the epiphany I had was this: A majority of people will believe anything the mass media tell them. This is especially true of those who received a college education. Colleges teach students not to question, not think for themselves and not to think rationally.

That is why many people believe the world is coming to an end; it is good not to have children or grandchildren; men give birth; Russia colluded with the Trump campaign; Israel is an apartheid state; all-black dormitories on college campuses are progressive; there should be fewer police; it is fair to women to allow biological men to compete in women’s sports; and myriad other absurdities.

There is no other explanation for these deluded readers of The New York Times.

However, I do agree with them on one point. I, too, support their children’s decisions not to have children. The world doesn’t need more fools.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” was released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at


Last Updated: Monday, Jul 26, 2021 18:46:32 -0700

Critical of Critical Race Theory

As an adult who still has the protection of freedom of thought, I can ignore the Critical Race Theory (CRT) concept if I want to.  And I do because it is largely destructive blather.

But millions of American children cannot ignore it and that is a catastrophe.

As you know, a number of school districts are allowing this progressive view of the United States to be taught to undeveloped minds.  You don’t have critical thinking skills at six years old.  Therefore, you can file much of the CRT lesson plan under “indoctrination.”

Essentially, the theory seeks to marginalize all white Americans because selected ancestors persecuted minorities. That did happen so the CRT zealots are demanding contemporary sanctions for past behavior – such as citizens admitting the United States was founded on and still promotes, racism against blacks.  If you reject that premise, well, you’re a racist.

Once you cop to CTR then come the programs for penance.  They can range from cash payments directly to minority Americans, all the way to preferential treatment by the government for certain groups.

And there’s more.  The CRT advocates want to destroy many American traditions including capitalism and due process in legal situations.  Simultaneously, they would create a vast central government to enforce “anti-racist” behavior – which is whatever the totalitarians say it is.

My question is simple: has there ever been a more dangerous theory promoted by some politicians and corporate moguls?  The answer is no, in case you were thinking it over.

History clearly demonstrates villainy.  It happened everywhere on the planet. That’s what evil’s all about.  For example, if present judgment were based on past misdeeds, every religion on earth would be banned.  No country could be considered noble.

Decent people should not want to burden any child with historical sins.  No responsible teacher should divide students along racial lines.  Yet, this is happening.

Boston University, my alma mater, has hired Ibram X. Kendi, the high priest of racial division, to head up an activist program under BU’s name.  Thousands of other colleges are instituting policies solely based on skin color, as we know.

But it is in the elementary schools where irreparable harm is being done.  The kids will not quickly forget the pernicious propaganda being forced upon them.

Simply put: Critical Race Theory is horrendous.  And this country will pay a high price for it in the future.

You Have a Right To Be Transgender. You Don’t Have a Right To Expose Yourself To Women

How many examples could one give to show what a sick world left-wing activists, the media and the Democrats — the left’s political party — have wrought? The number is equal to the number of policies they advocate.

There is no more obvious example than their position on the display of a penis in front of girls and women.

No issue — with the possible exceptions of defunding police departments as murders increase and biological men competing in women’s sports — better reveals the moral and rational decline of an individual or institution. If anyone you care about defends a person’s right to display their penis in front of a group of girls and women, my heart goes out to you. It is very painful to lose respect for a loved one.

Within the lifetime of even the youngest person reading this column, exposing the male organ to strangers, especially women and girls, was considered sick and criminal. Men who did it were arrested and charged with indecent exposure, and rightly so. In the span of a few years, thanks to the schools people still send their children to, and thanks to the media people still watch, listen to and read, exposing one’s penis is to be considered wholesome and not only legal but a fundamental civil right.

A couple of weeks ago at a spa in Los Angeles, a biological man walked into a women’s changing area completely naked. Needless to say, the girls and women were shocked to see this naked man, but thanks to progressive politicians in California, if a man says he is a woman, this individual can go to any place heretofore reserved to women.

Women’s colleges, for example, must accept anyone who claims to be a woman. But to show how intellectually dishonest progressives and women’s colleges are, if a female student at a women’s college decides she is a man, she/he is allowed to remain a student there. Either they do not believe that a girl who transitions to a male is really a male or they no longer believe they are a women’s college.

A Los Angeles Times editorial defending the right of the biological man to expose his penis to girls and women illustrates the intellectual and moral state of the left.

Take, for example, this sentence from the editorial:

“There is no doubt that Wi Spa did the right thing in defending the right of a transgender customer to be nude in the women’s area, even though the sight of male-appearing genitalia discomfited at least one female customer, who complained at the front desk.”

Note the Los Angeles Times’ way of describing a penis: “male-appearing genitalia,” not “male genitalia.”

Regarding the discomfort of any of the girls or women at the spa, the Times editorial simply dismissed it: “No one has an absolute right to feel comfortable all the time.” However, that is not the position of the Los Angeles Times or the rest of the left regarding transgender people. The left emphatically insists that trans people have an absolute right to feel comfortable all the time.

But they don’t. A man who identifies as a woman yet retains male genitalia may have a legal right, but not a moral right, to display those genitalia in front of women.

A man who identifies as a man and exposes himself to a woman, let alone to a group of women and girls, is deemed sick and arrested. But, according to the left, a man who says he is a woman and does the exact same thing — with the exact same disturbing effect on women, let alone girls — is to be given universal support. In fact, however, this individual is the apotheosis of narcissism. And is still a man: As one woman pointed out to me, his engaging in such behavior is demonstrative proof that he is still a man (one with an exhibitionist streak). Women don’t expose themselves like that.

Meanwhile, members of antifa, the closest thing America has to the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth), attacked the woman who led the demonstration against the Wi Spa.

Such is the state of America and the West in the year 2021.

When the right of a man — regardless of whether he identifies as a woman — to expose his penis to girls supersedes society’s obligation to protect girls’ innocence and most women’s sense of decency, we have reached a new low.

For those who believe that mankind inexorably heads in a moral direction, the left’s attacks on Western culture, Western norms, freedom of speech, objective truth and Judeo-Christian values should serve as a disturbing wake-up call.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” was released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at


Last Updated: Monday, Jul 19, 2021 17:29:01 -0700