Is President Biden Calling the Shots?

Although neither man would ever admit it, Presidents Biden and Trump have a major character trait in common: they both need approval in order to function effectively.

And this is crazy but it’s true, both men have sought approval from the same power sources.  They are The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Late in 2019, Mr. Trump asked me if he should cooperate with Bob Woodward, an editor at the Post, who was writing yet another book on him.  The first exercise hammered Trump and I believed the second would also do that.

Bob Woodward is a legendary reporter and a shrewd guy.  He had to deliver an outline to his publisher in order to secure a multi-million dollar contract.  Mr. Woodward could not just say he’d write whatever he learned. No, that kind of uncertainty does not lead to many dollars.  Woodward had to produce a strong point of view, which he did.  Simply put, President Trump doesn’t listen to anyone and is tremendously ill informed.

And that’s what Bob Woodward wrote, because that’s what his primary audience would pay money to read.

I explained the situation to President Trump just as I am explaining it to you.  And then I asked him a simple question:  why would he actually help Woodward trash him again?

The President said he wanted his side of the story to be told.  Which Woodward did.  But only after at least three former Trump cabinet members pounded Trump into pudding for about 150 pages.

I could be wrong, but I think Donald Trump thought he could convince Bob Woodward that his administration was doing a good job. But if you understand that The Washington Post and its rival The New York Times promote an almost exclusively liberal point of view, Donald Trump’s effort was doomed no matter what he said.

Enter President Biden who will gladly cooperate with the Post and Times because he measures his success by their approval. In fact, I believe the two newspapers have more influence on Mr. Biden than any other vehicle in the world.

It was almost shocking to see Joe Biden become a clone of Bernie Sanders during his first week in office.  Casting “unity” completely overboard, Biden signaled he’ll try to destroy the fossil fuel industry, open the nation’s borders to chaotic illegal immigration, and favor “marginalized” groups and individuals over white citizens.

That was even too much, too soon for the New York Times editorial board, which advised Biden to slow down on the Executive Orders so as not to produce a ferocious backlash.

Expect the President to slow down.

It seems incredible that two leftist newspapers could be formulating policy in America but the evidence is there.  The corporate TV news agencies often imitate what the papers do and say.  Biden, of course, knows that.

Throughout his entire political life, Joe Biden has been a “go along to get along” kind of guy; a moderate in Democrat clothing, a backslapper who sought compromise.

But that’s gone, baby, gone.  Now Mr. Biden promotes tax dollars for abortion, is a Climate Change zealot, and believes equality should be diminished for the favoritism of “equity.”

No accident that his voyage to the left wing promised land mirrors the stated beliefs of the Times and Post – which look to be the real captains of the good ship Biden.

If you value American tradition, get ready for some rough seas ahead.

The Most Important Question About the 2020 Election

Since the day after the 2020 presidential election, I have said I am agnostic with regard to whether the election was honestly or dishonestly decided.

The primary reasons for my agnosticism are the usual ones:

The anomalies:

In 132 years, no president has received more votes in his run for reelection and lost. Yet Donald Trump received 10 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016 — and lost.

Trump won 18 of the 19 counties both Democrats and Republicans regard as the “bellwether” counties that virtually always go with the outcome of presidential elections. Yet he lost.

He won four bellwether states — Florida, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina. Yet he lost.

Republicans held onto all the House seats they were defending and gained another 13 seats. Yet, Trump lost.

Add the following to the anomalies:

Unprecedented efforts were made in some states to change election laws.

Mostly Democratic states sent out tens of millions of ballots or applications for absentee ballots to people who never requested them.

Voting began in some states six weeks before Election Day.

People have submitted sworn affidavits at great personal cost and with possible perjury charges that they witnessed ballot tampering on election night.

But all these things would matter little if Democrats involved in ballot-counting felt morally compelled to count votes honestly.

So, then, there is one question I have never heard posed that trumps all other considerations: Would moral considerations prevent Democrats from cheating to oust Trump? Or, to put the question in the positive: Would Democrats deem it morally obligatory to cheat on behalf of Joe Biden?

The answer to the first question is no: Moral considerations would not prevent decent Democrats from cheating to prevent Trump’s reelection. The answer to the second question is yes: Decent Democrats would deem it morally obligatory to cheat on behalf of Biden.

For four years, the media and their party, the Democrats, told us every day that Trump is a fascist, a dictator, a racist and a white supremacist; that he was an agent of the Russian government — a real-life Manchurian candidate. We were also repeatedly told by the lying media (Trump’s accurate description of the mainstream media) that in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump said there are “very fine” Nazis (see the PragerU video, “The Charlottesville Lie”). Yes, the media told us with a straight face that a man with a Jewish daughter, Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren said there are fine Nazis. Biden said he decided to run for president because of this lie.

So, then, here is the question: Why would anyone who sincerely believed Trump is a white-supremacist fascist dictator not cheat if he or she could prevent such a person from becoming or remaining president of the United States?

Let me sharpen this question: Isn’t someone who could prevent a fascist, white-supremacist, Nazi-defending dictator morally obligated to cheat if he or she could prevent such a person from becoming president?

I certainly would. If I were in a position to cheat in order to prevent a fascist from becoming president, why would I not cheat? I think of the most relevant example: the Nazis in the 1932 elections, Germany’s last free election until after World War II. Though the Nazi Party did not receive a majority of votes, the Nazis held the most seats in the Reichstag, and the head of the party, Adolf Hitler, was named chancellor of Germany. If I were in a position to have prevented the Nazis from coming to power by cheating in the vote-count, wouldn’t I have been morally obligated to do so — and therefore done so? The answer is obvious.

To repeat, I have never said Biden did not win the election. And even if there was considerable fraud, that doesn’t mean the election result would have been different.

But there are consequences to beliefs. Unless Democrats knew they were lying for four years when they labelled Trump a fascist, racist, Nazi, dictator, etc., were they not duty-bound to cheat on Biden’s behalf? So, then, when you have circumstantial evidence (not proof), combined with opportunity, desire, motive and, most important, no moral argument against cheating and a strong moral argument for cheating, it isn’t a “lie,” and it isn’t a crackpot conspiracy theory, to wonder about the integrity of America’s 2020 presidential election.

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, Jan 25, 2021 18:32:30 -0800

Can Donald Trump Mount a Comeback?

The “Turtle” snapped.  Powerful Senator Mitch McConnell, aka the Turtle, is not opposing the impeachment trial of President Trump, signaling the two men are no longer “Happy Together.”   If you don’t understand that reference, shame!

There is no doubt that the traditional leaders of the Republican Party want nothing further to do with Donald Trump.  However, they have a problem because so many Americans continue to support him, and believe he is being treated unfairly by the establishment.

So the Turtle and other GOP power brokers should be very careful if they want to keep power.  President Trump is not a man to be easily dismissed.

The road back to authority for Mr. Trump is paved by just one person: Joe Biden.  And I’m not talking about running for President again which is a long shot, but not impossible, for Donald Trump.

No, I’m talking about political influence and credibility.

The conniving Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer well understand that President Trump will retain “people power,” much the way Barack Obama did when he left office. That’s what is driving this absurd second impeachment which could be worse than the first farce.

Donald Trump did encourage Americans to protest the election results.  Absolutely, he did that.  But he never even contemplated the violence that occurred on January 6. Maybe he should have.  But a misjudgment, even when it’s drastic, is not a removable offense for a president.  If it were, most of our Chief Executives would have been impeached.  Or am I wrong?

Therefore, the latest impeachment is designed for just one thing: to finish Trump forever in the political arena.

At this point, the betting odds are that Mr. Trump will not be convicted.  Schumer needs sixteen Republican senators to support the democrats.  A few like Mitt Romney are salivating to cancel Trump.  But most are not.

Now back to President Biden.  The smart play would have been for him to discourage impeachment in the name of national unity.

Instead, Biden did his best impression of Pontius Pilate and stood aside. Are you surprised?  It would have taken courage to go against the howling left wing mob.

Somewhere Barabbas is smiling.

The overreach by Democrats and their media allies is just getting started, and it is here where Donald Trump might benefit.

First, the cancel culture.  This despicable trend is owned exclusively by the left.  The cruelty and unfairness of the effort is obvious to any decent person.  The more traction the cancel thugs get, the more anti-liberal backlash there will be.

Immigration.  Soon the southern border will be under siege again because President Biden is sending open border signals.  The approaching chaos will anger many Americans.

And finally the economy.  Already gas prices are rising because oil companies know Biden will try to hurt them.  So the energy moguls are stockpiling cash.  Higher gas prices will hurt working people.

I could list many other examples but here’s the headline.  If President Biden’s liberal policies fail, and that’s almost a given, Americans will be looking for someone to stop the madness.

And it won’t be the Turtle.

[Sign up to watch O’Reilly’s No Spin News on your TV or other device.]

Eternal Denseness of the Binary Mind

I’ve been arguing for some time that media-conservatives’ vehement reliance on whatboutism has led to some of the dumbest and laziest political debates in our country over the past four years, and I’m looking forward to it largely going away — at least on the right — now that Donald Trump has left the building.

No longer under immense daily pressure to defend the indefensible when it comes to the president, righties’ forced abandonment of this embarrassingly weak deflection tool should ultimately prove to be a healthy thing for Republicans and conservatives. Sure, Trump’s shadow will loom for a while (especially with the Senate likely taking up his impeachment trial), and the former president will continue to insist on loyalty from the GOP, but he shouldn’t be nearly the intellectual liability he’s been for Republican leaders and “conservative” pundits since 2016. The new political landscape will hopefully provide a stronger opportunity for principled ideas and substantive policy battles.

What I’m not as optimistic will disappear is the partisan media’s narrowly focused, binary hold on our country’s political debates. It’s been a big problem on both sides for a while, but it worsened significantly in the Trump era.

I vented a little about this issue on Twitter the other day:

When one relies on cable news commentary and other partisan-media outlets for their political news, they are conditioned to believe that there are exactly two arguments to every single issue:

  1. the argument presented and promoted by the partisan commentators they listen to.
  2. an opposing argument crafted and presented by those very same partisan commentators.

In other words, it’s the same partisan entity who is putting forth both sides of the same story, with their side reliably being the far more compelling argument, and the other side (which often doesn’t reflect what political opponents are actually saying) reliably being the patently ridiculous argument.

It’s a binary choice, as far as partisan consumers are concerned. Third, fourth and fifth arguments (which are usually much better ones), put forth by less partisan individuals (who typically don’t enjoy as large of platforms), aren’t even recognized. Thus, they’re not considered… even at their very source.

Case in point, I’ve written three pieces for this website regarding the attack on the U.S. Capitol, and its aftermath. In each, I laid out the prominent role the president played in inciting the violence by describing how he spent two months (actually longer than that) selling millions of Americans on the perverse lie that our nation’s democracy had been hijacked, that he had actually won the election, and that January 6th at the U.S. Capitol would be the day of reckoning.

Here are some of the rebuttals I’ve received to those columns:

“You see, I’m a free speech absolutist, and to suggest that Trump saying ‘we must fight this injustice’ is tantamount to calling for physical violence is a dangerous road down which to travel. Every politician says ‘we must fight’ the political enemy, for Christ’s sake!”

“I am no Trump fan but if people weren’t so lazy and actually read or heard what Trump said there would be no blame of this on him. The people that were planning to storm the Capitol were already were motion while Trump was still speaking. Not to mention that the lax security sure looked like it was a setup.”

“Individuals are free to make their own judgments, tell me how this fits high crimes and misdemeanors and if it does would it not also apply to others who’ve made incendiary statements?”

You may notice a common theme among those responses. Each of them is working off the premise that my “incitement” argument is defined specifically and solely by what Trump said to his supporters in front of the White House on January 6th, not long before they moved over to the Capitol where the attack occurred.

The problem is that I never made any such argument. I never quoted a line from that speech, never directly blamed what was said in that speech for what happened, and never argued that common-use political terms like “fight,” on their own, are dangerous. My argument was about conduct and rhetoric that spanned more than two months… not just a snippet of speech from the day of the attack.

The proper context was even included in the Articles of Impeachment filed by the Democrats (though I think it should have been expanded): “In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials.”

So, who were these commenters responding to, since they clearly weren’t responding to me? The answer is a conservative-media opposition narrative, tailored and repeated ad nauseam by Fox News commentators and right-wing talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, in an effort to diminish the case for why Trump should be held accountable for his actions.

To be clear, no one is arguing that select lines from one speech, by themselves, incited the attack. At least, I haven’t seen anyone making that argument. Trump’s “stop the steal” campaign leading up to January 6th is why it happened. His speech that day was just the cherry on the cake.

That reality would have been very hard for Trump’s toadies in the media to defend. Reducing the entire issue to a soundbite or two, however, has made things much easier. So easy, in fact, that all they’ve had to do is present another soundbite or two in return.

Dennis Prager demonstrated this in a column on this website last week:

“Over and over, in every left-wing medium and stated repeatedly by Democrats, Trump is blamed for ‘inciting’ the riot in his speech just before it took place. Almost never is a Trump quote cited. Because there is none. On the contrary, he did say, ‘I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard’.”

Notice how Prager also attributed the incitement claim purely to the left, despite the fact that numerous prominent Republicans and conservatives have stated the same thing. That’s how the binary game is played.

Bill O’Reilly did the same thing this week:

“The Trump case is subjective, an opinion that he directly incited a mob to violence. However, he used the word ‘peacefully’ in public remarks to the protestors so that is certainly exculpatory.”

To Bill and Dennis, it’s as if those two months prior to January 6th never happened.

I would say you can’t make this stuff up, but you clearly can. And a number of media-conservatives have had extra incentive to do so, being that so many of them (as Bernard Goldberg recently pointed out) ran interference for President Trump as he tried to steal an election he unequivocally lost, helping to legitimize the false narrative of massive voter fraud that ultimately infuriated enough people to provoke a domestic terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The alternate reality they helped spread is further proof of the intellectual ineptitude of binary political arguments. On Fox News commentary shows from election night until January 6th, how many right-leaning voices were given air-time to unequivocally shoot down Trump’s demonstrable lies about massive voter fraud? That work was left almost entirely to the network’s vastly outnumbered liberals like Juan Williams, which effectively deemed that position to be the “liberal” (and thus wrong) argument in the eyes of the network’s viewers.

Imagine if there had been serious, frequent debates between conservative commentators on Fox’s highest rated shows about Trump’s claims of election fraud, with one of those commentators explaining precisely why those claims were total nonsense.

In the past on Fox News, honest brokers like Charles Krauthammer would have been invited on to prime-time (by hosts like Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly) to transcend the hyper-partisan B.S., and call things straight. Instead, viewers tuning in were largely handed the binary choice of agreeing with angry grifters like Dan Bongino that something screwy was going on with the vote counts, or buying the supposedly “liberal” argument that Joe Biden won fair and square.

Poll after poll has shown that a strong majority of Republican voters believe that the election was stolen for Joe Biden, and that Trump actually won. What we saw on January 6th demonstrated why that fiction is so dangerous. What we heard from many prominent media-conservatives, for two months, helps explain why that fiction was (and still is) subscribed to by so many people.

It’s a result of binary politics, and it’s only worsening our culture.


Note from John: I’ve been writing a weekly non-political newsletter since October, covering topics like art, music, humor, travel, society and culture. I’ve been surprised by, and thankful for, how many people have been signing up for it. If it sounds interesting to you, I’d love for you to subscribe (it’s free).

Order John A. Daly’s novel “Safeguard” today!

Why the Left Has To Suppress Free Speech

Let us begin with this fact: The left always suppresses speech. Since Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, there has been no example of the left in control and not crushing dissent.

That is one of the important differences between liberal and left: Liberalism and liberals believe in free speech. (The present leftist threat to freedom in America, the greatest threat to freedom in American history, is made possible because liberals think they have more to fear from conservatives than from the left. Liberals do not understand that the left regards liberals as their useful idiots.)

The left controls universities. There is little or no dissent allowed at universities.

The left controls nearly every “news” medium. There is little or no dissent in the mainstream media — not in the “news” sections and not in the opinion sections.

The left controls Hollywood. No dissent is allowed in Hollywood.

That is why we have “cancel culture” — the silencing and firing of anyone who publicly dissents from the left, and even “publicly” is no longer necessary. The National Association of Realtors has just announced that if you express dissenting views (on race, especially) in private, you may be fined and lose your membership in the organization — which effectively ends your career as a realtor.

So, we return to the opening question: Why does the left need to crush all dissent? This is a question made all the more stark because there is no parallel on the right: Conservatives do not shut down dissent or debate.

The answer, though the left will not acknowledge it, is the left fears dissent. And they do so for good reason. Leftism is essentially a giant balloon filled with nothing but hot air. Therefore, no matter how big the balloon — the Democratic Party, The New York Times, Yale University — all it takes is a mere pin to burst it.

Leftism is venerated by intellectuals. But there is little intellectual substance to leftism. It is a combination of doctrine and emotion. The proof? Those with intellectual depth do not stifle dissent; they welcome it.

That is why universities are so opposed to conservatives coming to speak on campus. One articulate conservative can undo years of left-wing indoctrination in a one-hour talk or Q and A. I know this from personal experience on campuses. You can, too. Watch the speeches given by any conservatives allowed to speak on a campus — many of these talks are still on YouTube — and you will see large halls filled with students yearning to hear something other than left-wing pablum. Look at their faces, filled with rapt attention to ideas they never heard that are clearly having an impact. Universities are entirely right to fear our coming to speak. We come with the pin that bursts their $50,000-a-year balloon.

That is also why it is so hard to get any of them to debate any of us. In 35 years of radio, I have never mistreated or bullied a guest. I was unfailingly polite to an icon of the left, Howard Zinn, the America-hating author of the America-hating “A People’s History of the United States.” I even invited a UCLA political science professor and violinist, one of seven members of the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra who refused to play when I conducted the orchestra in a Joseph Haydn symphony in the Disney Concert Hall — solely because I’m a conservative. Despite his public letter, in which he accused me of holding “horribly bigoted positions” and wrote, “Please urge your friends to not attend this concert, which helps normalize bigotry in our community,” I nevertheless invited him on my national radio show. He agreed. I had him in studio for an entire hour and treated him and his wife (who accompanied him) with great respect, despite my contempt for his false accusations and his advocacy of the cancel culture. Every American should hear that hour.

Unfortunately for the emotional and intellectual health of our society, he, Zinn and a few others were anomalies. Of the 100 or so left-wing authors, professors and columnists invited to appear on my show, almost none has responded in the affirmative. They prefer NPR, where they are never challenged.

The opposite, however, is not true: Every conservative intellectual I know says yes to every one of the (very few) left-wing invitations we receive. Of course, we are almost never invited. We regularly invite leftists. Leftists almost never invite us. They claim it’s because we are not up to their intellectual level and they have no desire to waste their time. One would think that the opportunity to publicly show how vapid we conservatives really are would be too good to pass up.

Leftists do not debate us or appear as guests on our shows and prevent us from speaking whenever possible, because they (correctly) fear conservatives. Race-baiters such as Ibram X. Kendi or Ta-Nehisi Coates or “White Fragility” author Robin DiAngelo would never debate Larry Elder, for example. Why won’t they? Because they would be shown to be the intellectually shallow purveyors of hate they are. Deep down, they know it. Larry Elder is one of many conservative black intellectuals who left-wing blacks (and whites) refuse to debate.

Now you know why the left suppresses free speech: because they have to. If there is free speech, there is dissent. And if there is dissent, there is no more left.

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, Jan 18, 2021 11:02:35 -0800