• Pragerisms

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

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

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

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

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

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

Trump’s Haters: Victor Davis Hanson At His Best!

Trump Haters, Supporters, Neither, and Both

by Victor Davis Hanson at National Review:

“Partisan conflict is not new, nor is GOP internal dissent. What’s new is in-fighting among the elites. The Left-Wing Trump Haters About a third of the Democratic party (15–20 percent perhaps of the electorate?) loathes Trump, from reasons of the trivial to the fundamental. The hard-leftist hatred is visceral; it is multidimensional; and it is unalterable. Trump is rich, crass, showy, a white male, and 70. As the anti-Obama, he punches every progressive button in existence. A candidate like Trump was not supposed to exist any longer in the 21st-Century Age of Obama, much less should he have ruined the anticipated progressive Obama-Clinton 16-year regnum. Trump’s accent is outer-borough and seems to exemplify for Trump haters the gaucheness of the golden trump name stamped all over New York. The Europeans have utter contempt for Trump, and that embarrasses leftists especially. 00:53Trump sets down in Texas to address Harvey victims Powered by Unlike some Republican politicians who wished to be admired by cultural progressives, Trump prefers baiting the Left and its media appendages, as if to remind them that he prefers to overturn the entire progressive project of the last eight years — if not on ideological grounds (Trump not so long ago voiced a number of centrist and liberal views), at least out of tit-for-tat animosity. Unlike a restrained presidential Bush or a sober Romney, the president answers in kind — and trumps — the boilerplate leftist charge of “fascist!” and “Nazi!” leveled against him. The Trump haters dominate our media and the universities, the entertainment industries, Silicon Valley, the billionaire green classes, the foundations and the brigades of professional foot-soldier activists, identity-politics operatives, and the Bernie Sanders shock troops. They are frenzied because they think their 1,000 cuts have finally hit arteries — only to see Trump revive in Nietzschean fashion, emerging stronger for the wounds. To come so close to ending this nightmare only to realize they are at the alpha and not the omega of their efforts intensifies their hatred. Ritually cutting off Trump’s head, blowing him up, stabbing him to death, hanging him, beating him to a pulp — these all are the rhetorical bookends of the Left’s efforts to subvert the Electoral College, the Russian-collusion mythologies, the impeachment and 25th Amendments psychodramas, and Trump’s hoped-for physical collapse under the stress of pure hatred.

The calls for Trump’s assassination or maiming, if, mutatis mutandis, aimed at Obama would have earned long jail time for dozens; now assassination porn becomes an object of emulation. Yet Trump hatred only solidifies the Trump base. It also reminds independents and wavering centrist Republicans that in a Manichean fight (and the Trump haters seem to envision the current landscape as just that), one inevitably chooses sides. If the choice is reduced to a crude rant at a public Trump rally or the rioters at Claremont, Berkeley, and Middlebury, a screaming Madonna, the “pigs in blanket” chanters of Black Lives Matter, and the masked marauders of Antifa, the Trump haters probably lose. The Loyal Opposition, Sort Of Mainstream Democrats in politics are bewildered as much as repelled by Trump.

They find him scary because their party that professes contempt for wacky Trump supporters somehow finds conservatives in control of all the traditional levers of political power, from the local to the state to the national level. There is no more Blue Wall, and Democrats know why. Trumpism is insidiously predatory and picks off Democratic working constituencies like wolves do wandering sheep from the herd — with nocturnal howls to fair trade, reenergized industrialization, energy production, immigration enforcement, realism aboard, and infrastructure investment. Likewise, savvy Democrats fear Trump because they had long preached that “demography is destiny” only to learn that lots of minority bloc voting in solidly red or blue states was not as electorally potent as a riled working white class in key swing states. The knowledge that the outsider and supposed fool Trump grasped that truth while both his Republican primary rivals and Hillary Clinton did not proves especially irritating. Hillary is now reduced to daydreaming about what a tougher Hillary might have said to Trump during the debate, incoherently bragging she was not intimidated as she proves that in fact she was.

What also scares mainstream Democrats is that Trumpism may have exposed an existential vulnerability of the contemporary Democratic party, heretofore known but rarely voiced: It is now a rich man’s, bifurcated party of the two coasts. It hates the culture of the middle classes (who lack both the romance of the poor and the refinement of the rich) and cynically relies on promises of never-ending entitlements for the underclass. It offers boutique issues for the affluent who, with winks and nods, are assured that they will have the clout and money to navigate around the messy ramifications of their own policy positions. In other words, it is tailor-made to empower a figure like Trump. Democratic establishmentarians fear that their own identity politics are feeding Trump’s rise. But they’d rather lose elections than forfeit a decade’s worth of race and gender investments. Progressives do not mind being called starry-eyed, utopian, impractical, or even socialist; they do fear being tagged as elitists by populists and economic nationalists, especially by a Manhattan billionaire. Trump has leveled that charge as no other Republican has since Ronald Reagan in 1984. Like addicts who know that their fix is both killing them and yet cannot be kicked, so too Democratic establishmentarians fear that their own identity politics are feeding Trump’s rise.

Nevertheless, they would rather lose elections than forfeit a decade’s worth of race and gender investments. For now, they fool themselves into thinking that the latest Trump outrage is the longed-for final straw that crushes the presidential back. Yes/No Trumpers Ten to 15 percent of the electorate are pure pragmatists. In general, they like neither politics nor controversies. They have enough moral figures in their lives without requiring their president to be an ethical icon. Their idea of a good president is one rarely seen or heard, but evident on autopilot when we have a robust economy, quietude overseas, and unity at home. Independents liked Obama’s last year when he vanished from view and let candidates duke it out — as the abstract idea of Obama was always preferable to the reality. Yet independents also notice that an incompetent and haughty Obama left havoc in his wake, though they nod that at least he was “presidential,” which means presentable to elites abroad. If American under Trump hits a 3 percent rate of GDP annual growth, unemployment dips below 4 percent, a soaring stock market does not crash, and the administration makes some progress on lowering the deficit, carefully raising interest rates, and reducing taxes, the fence-sitters become Trumpers. If not, they are loud anti-Trumpers repulsed by his tweets and Make American Great Again rallies. Right now, they sense — but are not quite convinced — that it is more likely for a while that Trump’s negatives will be overshadowed by good economic and foreign-policy news.

The Republican Never Trumpers About 10 percent of Republicans — overrepresented among the coastal intellectual, political, and affluent strata — despise Trump every bit as much as do their hard-core progressive counterparts. For some, to be fair, the loathing is entirely principled: After damning progressives for being uncouth, reckless in their personal lives, loose in speech and behavior, how can they now excuse Trump, the messenger, just because his message is often convenient? This species of Never Trumpers sees support for Trump as abject ethical treason. They would even rather live with a Clinton Supreme Court for 30 years than be stained by Trumpian enablement and hypocrisy (“wrong with Hillary is preferable to right with Trump”). They prefer catharsis to governance with Trump and dream that they will be ready to rebuild the party of George H. W. Bush and Paul Ryan after the fires of such ritual cleansing have incinerated the Trump yahoos. Other sorts of Never Trumpers are schizophrenic and even somewhat remorseful. After a bad Trump week, they exuberantly brag to friends or write “I told you so” columns. When good Trump news lingers for a few days or so, they grow sullen in fear not merely that others are fooled by Trump and amoral in their utilitarianism, but that they might be fooled as well: They hate Trump the man, in the abstract, while they’re relieved that Trump the message, alongside his concrete actions, is almost what they wanted. A final Never Trump cadre is neither ideological nor political, but more careerist. They had bet that the outrageous Trump candidacy was a joke that had no chance of winning, and so they made the necessary careerist adjustments. They wrote him off and bet their reputations for wisdom on their opposition to Trump, and in some cases they even ventured to support the sure-thing Clinton administration. After November, they became orphaned for their wrong-headed wagers, without a constituency among their own, and increasingly deemed less useful by the Left, MSNBC, or NPR. When Trump won, they doubled down and swore that he would implode from sheer incompetence or crudity, or would finally reveal his Manhattan liberalism, in league with Senate Democrats………..”   There’s more of the reality below….Please continue reading!

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450903/trump-haters-left-right-versus-trump-supporters-civil-war-field-guide

Advertisements

Prager University’s George Will Clarifies the Core of Leftism’s Rule of Political Correctness

Lesson sent by conservative Mark Waldeland.

Joe Arpaio a Victim of Obamaling Conspiracy Ignored by Rinos

RINOS Wrong on Arpaio

By Daniel John Sobieski   at American Thinker:

 “Arizona Sen. John McCain’s limited understanding of the law and the Constitution was on display when he falsely claimed that President Trump’s pardon of former Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio undermined the rule of law. McCain was joined by his Arizona colleague, Sen. Jeff Flake, who is up for reelection in 2018:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) blasted President Trump over his pardon of former Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday, arguing it “undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law.”

“Mr. Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for continuing to illegally profile Latinos living in Arizona based on their perceived immigration status in violation of a judge’s orders,” McCain said in a statement.

“The President has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions.”

Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt after he disobeyed a federal judge’s order to stop racially profiling individuals suspected of illegally entering the U.S.

McCain’s counterpart in the Senate, Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), also criticized Trump’s decision to pardon Arpaio on Friday.”Regarding the Arpaio pardon, I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course,” Flake wrote on Twitter.

Indeed, as McCain acknowledges, the power of the President to pardon anyone for any reason is absolute. It cannot undermine the rule of law for the Constitution trumps, no pun intended all laws, and one can argue that the judge’s order Arpaio is said to have criminally violated is no more valid or soundly rooted in the law than the rulings that initially blocked President Trump’s temporary travel ban.

As Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett noted on the subject of Trump’s pardon of Arpaio in a series of tweets:

Sen. McCain’s ignorance of the Constitution is surprising. Presidential pardons cannot, by definition, undermine the rule of law, nor respect for it. The Founders conferred an absolute right in a President to pardon any person for any offense. Trump exercised this right, just as every President before him has done. But under McCain’s standard, all pardons would undermine the rule of law. Obama pardoned General James Cartwright and commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning. The President had the right to do so.

House Speaker Paul Ryan also headed for the tall grass, echoing McCain’s sentiments:

“The speaker does not agree with this decision,” said Doug Andres, a spokesman for Ryan. “Law enforcement officials have a special responsibility to respect the rights of everyone in the United States. We should not allow anyone to believe that responsibility is diminished by this pardon.”

Okay, Speaker Ryan, just whose rights are being diminished here? The rights of American citizens to have their citizenship mean something or the rights of illegal aliens who have no right to roam our streets, much less to prey on our citizens like the murdered Kate Steinle?

As Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona, noted in his response to criticism of Trump’s pardon of Arpaio, not only did Trump have the authority but also “Sheriff Joe” deserved it:

The pardon has received support from other Arizona Republicans, including Rep. Trent Franks, who said the ex-lawman is a “patriot.”

“In his last days, (President) Obama commuted the prison sentence of Chelsea Manning — a treasonous intelligence analyst who shared a trove of intelligence with the infamous Wikileaks,” Franks, R-Ariz., said Saturday in a statement to Fox News.

“While no one can dispute Manning acted to undermine our country’s national security, Joe Arpaio has spent a lifetime trying to maintain it… It is easy to discern that Arpaio is a patriot, while Manning is a traitor.”

Arpaio was found guilty by a Clinton-appointee after he was denied a trial by jury based on the relative minor nature of the charge, a misdemeanor punishable by six months in jail. The ruling reeks of politics, with the decision to prosecute Arpaio on profiling charges made by an incoming Obama administration bent on throwing open the nation’s borders to illegal aliens:

The guilty ruling, by Bill Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, is the latest chapter of a nearly decade-long saga of legal proceedings against Sheriff Joe initiated by leftist groups opposed to his aggressive policing of illegal aliens. The 85-year-old Arpaio now faces up to six months in jail.

The charges against Arpaio stem from a civil rights suit demanding he cease “racial profiling” in his Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s immigration enforcement operations. After a federal judge issued an order demanding certain practices, Arpaio was charged with contempt for continuing to try to enforce the law as he saw fit.

Because Arpaio was charged only with a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of six-months in jail, the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee him a right to trial by a jury of his peers. Arpaio and his attorneys repeatedly petitioned for a jury, only to be denied by Judge Bolton in March and again in May. Sources familiar with the proceedings have told Breitbart News the decision to charge only the misdemeanor was likely a ploy by federal prosecutors to avoid a jury trial in the community where Arpaio served as sheriff for more than 20 years…

The decision to criminally prosecute Arpaio was taken while the DOJ was run by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Arpaio was cleverly denied a jury of his peers, a jury comprised of Arizona citizens beset by illegal aliens and the crimes they commit, according to National Center for Police Defense (NCPD) President James Fotis, who was present in the courtroom, and was highly skeptical a Phoenix jury could have ever found Arpaio guilty. He told Breitbart News:

“I sat through three days of testimony and it was clear from the beginning that the DOJ had no evidence to make their case. In fact, all of the DOJ’s witnesses made it clear that Judge Snow’s order was unclear and ambiguous. There is no way a jury would have determined that the Sheriff willfully and intentionally violated the judge’s order.”

As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized at the time, the decision to prosecute Joe Arpaio smacked of hypocrisy, injustice, and legal gymnastics involving one Thomas Perez, current foul-mouthed head of the Democratic National Committee and former Obama administration DOJ official:

The administration that refused to enforce voting rights law in the New Black Panther case is going after America’s best-known sheriff for what it calls discriminatory policing practices involving Hispanics…

With a thoroughness not seen in Justice’s handling of the “Fast and Furious” federal gun-running debacle that resulted in the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry a year ago, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, head of the department’s Civil Rights Division, listed Arpaio’s alleged excesses and said a three-year civil investigation found that the sheriff and his deputies engaged in unconstitutional conduct and violations of federal law that jeopardized his “commitment to fair and effective” law enforcement…

No doubt Arpaio has been under scrutiny for some time. But the timing of the announcement is curious, not only because of the announced Supreme Court review of SB1070, but also because it can be seen as another attempt to rally the president’s Hispanic base as we enter an election year, and to portray border security advocates as racist and anti-Latino.

If the name Thomas Perez sounds familiar, it should: Perez was heavily involved in the decision to drop the voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. Perez testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that “the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes.”

The fact is that Joe Arpaio was in fact enforcing federal law as originally written, only to have the Obama administration rewrite the law in order to prosecute Arpaio. Under the federal government’s 287(g) program, Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office was authorized and trained to enforce federal immigration law and ask those suspected of a crime their immigration status:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano quickly piled on. “Discrimination undermines law enforcement and erodes the public trust,” she said. “DHS will not be a party to such practices.

“Accordingly, and effective immediately, DHS is terminating (the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s) 287(g) jail model agreement and is restricting the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office access to the Secure Communities program.”…

DHS has memoranda of agreement (MOAs) with around 70 state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in 287(g) partnerships to enforce federal law. Under the 287(g) program, Arpaio’s deputies could question jail inmates about their immigration status.

What makes this case interesting, as the Washington Examiner’s Byron York has reported, is that in September 2008, nine months before DOJ first informed Arpaio of its investigation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted its own investigation of Arpaio’s office and procedures and found nothing inappropriate or illegal.

Perhaps if Arpaio had given away the nation’s secrets, or been an international felon like the Clinton-pardoned Marc Rich, or been a New Black Panther intimidating Philadelphia voters in 2008, McCain, Flake, and Ryan might have a case. But they don’t. Joe Arpaio was and is a patriot fighting to protect our nation’s borders from invasion and was acting in good faith in enforcing federal laws it was originally written, not as reinterpreted by a liberal judge.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/rinos_wrong_on_arpaio.html

Nazi = NATIONAL SOCIALIST No Matter How Often Today’s American Leftist Democrats LIE

NEO-NAZIS AND COMMUNISTS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

“Neo-Nazis have been around for a long time. I remember learning as a teenager that there was an American Nazi party led by George Lincoln Rockwell. It seemed odd, but no one paid much attention. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists–the terms seem to be used interchangeably these days–have been with us for decades, regarded as irrelevant fringe groups consisting of nuts and watchful FBI agents.

Suddenly, though, that has changed. Neo-Nazi/white supremacist groups turned out a few hundred tiki torch-carrying goofs in Charlottesville, and now these fringe kooks have become, we are told, a crisis of the republic. Politicians race to denounce them, and President Trump has been criticized in many quarters for not denouncing them fast enough, or harshly enough, or uniquely–that is, without denouncing anyone else at the same time. If that sounds crazy, you are right. It is crazy.

Neo-Nazi sightings, no matter how lame, have become newsworthy. Thus, the Daily Mailreports, breathlessly, on “The shocking moment Neo-Nazis gather at Arlington shopping center to commemorate assassinated leader with Nazi flag and salute.”

A small group of neo-Nazis held a ceremony outside a shopping mall, sparking a protest by angry neighbors in response.

The neo-Nazis, five men and one woman, were marking the 50th anniversary of the assassination of American Nazi Party founder George Lincoln Rockwell in Arlington, Virginia, around noon on Friday.

The small group fit into a single parking spot at the Dominion Hills Shopping Center, where 50 years previously, on August 25, 1967, a disgruntled fellow Nazi shot and killed Rockwell.

Here they are. All six of them:

Their brief ceremony prompted a much larger outpouring of outrage from nearby residents who were determined to show, apparently, that they are opposed to the scourge of Nazism:

After 70 years of irrelevance, neo-Nazis have finally arrived, although they are still (or perhaps more than ever) rare birds. I personally have never met a neo-Nazi or a white supremacist. I have, however, met quite a few Communists. And last year, the Democratic Party likely would have nominated for president a man who admits he is a socialist and who spent his honeymoon in the USSR’s Communist utopia, but for the DNC’s rigging of the primary process.

Historically speaking, Marxian socialism of the sort that is almost, but not quite, advocated by politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn is at least as great an evil as national socialism, which is supported by…whom, exactly? And, as it happens, there are quite a few more members of the Communist Party USA than there are white supremacists or Nazis, at least as measured by participants in demonstrations:

So why is it that neo-Nazis, an irrelevant fringe group until a month ago, are suddenly a major issue, while the apparently larger number of American Communists continue to be ignored? Why are insignificant marches sponsored by neo-Nazis covered in real time by pretty much every news outlet, while larger demonstrations by Communists go unreported? Does anyone seriously believe that either faction commands any significant support, or plays any important role in our political life? If not, why the current obsession with neo-Nazis and (if there is a difference) white supremacists? And why has this obsession with neo-Nazis suddenly appeared?

Perhaps I am missing something. But it seems blindingly obvious that the answer is: hyping neo-Nazis became an opportunity to serve the Left’s interests in January of this year, based on leftists’ more or less insane association between neo-Nazis and American conservatives, while hyping the American Communist Party does not–and will not at any time in the future–serve the Left’s interests. That is the difference.”

When Will Negroes of Urban America Finally Realize They Are Still Slaves of Democrat Plantations

Chicago carjackings: Arrests down as crime skyrockets

by Thomas Lifson  at American Thinker:

“It can’t be easy to be a police officer in Chicago, where the murder rate is like a war zone, and where incitement against cops leads to “social media riots,” where cops are fired upon based on false rumors spread on social media.

The horrific murder rate has been largely confined to two gang-infested neighborhoods, but the violence appears to be spreading.

With the City of Chicago nearly insolvent owing to burdensome pension agreements, police are apparently having to prioritize certain crimes over others. For instance, carjacking. Examine the table below, drawn from the Second City Cop website, in particular the bottom line:

Please, please read on:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/08/chicago_carjackings_arrests_down_as_crime_skyrockets.html

Justice Wins! Joe Arpaio Freed of Leftist Racist Judge’s Dictate

TRUMP PARDONS JOE ARPAIO

by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

“President Trump today issued a pardon to the man he calls “Sheriff Joe” — Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. Arpaio was convicted of failing to follow a court order to end the practice of detaining people based on the suspicion that they lack legal status and turning them over to the border patrol.

The White House provided this explanation of the pardon:

Arpaio’s life and career, which began at the age of 18 when he enlisted in the military after the outbreak of the Korean War, exemplify selfless public service. After serving in the Army, Arpaio became a police officer in Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas, NV and later served as a Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), formerly the Bureau of Narcotics. After 25 years of admirable service, Arpaio went on to lead the DEA’s branch in Arizona.

In 1992, the problems facing his community pulled Arpaio out of retirement to return to law enforcement. He ran and won a campaign to become Sheriff of Maricopa County. Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio continued his life’s work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now eighty-five years old, and after more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon.

I think there should be a strong presumption against granting pardons. I would prefer that the judicial system, flawed though it is, have the final word on the fate of those who are, or who may be, before it.

But if presidential pardons are going to be granted, and every modern president has granted them, it seems to me that Arpaio is a good candidate, basically for the reasons set forth by the White House. Sheriffs shouldn’t defy court orders. But in a real sense, Arpaio’s crime consists of being overzealous in combating illegal immigration.

It arose in the context of lack of zealousness on the part of the federal government. According to this account, the judge found Arpaio couldn’t detain those who lack legal status because that’s the federal government’s job. But the feds hadn’t been doing that job.

Arpaio was accused by the Obama Justice Department and other left-wingers of targeting Hispanics. Indeed, the legal case that led to his conviction arose from claims of racial profiling. But in Maricopa County, the illegal immigrant population is overwhelmingly Hispanic. Had the County been plagued by mass illegal immigration by Koreans, chances are Sheriff Joe would have targeted Asians. And he would have been right to do so. Sheriffs shouldn’t be expected to check their common sense at the door.

To be sure, the pardon of Arpaio is, at least in part, a political act by a president who campaigned on a tough-as-nails immigration policy and who received Arpaio’s backing. But there’s a pretty good argument that the prosecution of Arpaio was also political.

It was the highly politicized, left-wing Obama Justice Department that chose to prosecute Arpaio in connection with the hot button political issue of enforcing immigration laws. The judge whose order Arpaio defied apparently was satisfied with civil contempt. Team Obama went criminal on the octogenarian sheriff. And it did so, according to Arpaio’s lawyers, just two weeks before he stood for reelection.

The pardon thus can be said to represent a political end to a political case.

Some may defend the pardon by comparing it to egregious pardons of the past, like President Clinton’s pardon of wealthy fugitive Marc Rich and President Obama’s pardon of a Puerto Rican terrorist. Arguing form these outliers strikes me as misguided. Their pardons were so flagrantly unjust that the same argument could be used to defend a great many indefensible pardons.

No such argument is required to defend Trump’s pardon of Arpaio. It was a reasonable exercise of the pardon power.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/trump-pardons-joe-arpaio.php

Klobuchar and Franken Block Minnesota’s David Stras to the U.S. Court of Appeals

KLOBUCHAR’S IMPOSTURE

by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken are blocking the Senate from taking up President Trump’s nomination of David Stras to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Stras is a justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court; he is widely respected. His nomination is opposed by approximately no one, not even by Klobuchar or Franken. Yet they have withheld their blue slips to prevent the Senate Judiciary Committee from acting on the nomination.

Senator Klobuchar is using the Stras nomination for narrow partisan purposes. She seeks to have a hand in the appointment of Democrats to four federal vacancies in Minnesota: United States Marshal, United States Attorney and two federal district court judgeships. Klobuchar and Franken actually convened a panel of attorneys to recommend a nominee for United States Attorney. I believe that Klobuchar supports the appointment of Democrat Joe Dixon for United States Attorney. Neither Klobuchar nor Dixon has responded to my request for comment since I first reported this three weeks ago.

Klobuchar is negotiating with the White House over Minnesota’s federal vacancies. Her role in this scenario shows her to be a partisan player. She doesn’t talk about it and her friends at the Star Tribune have left the story alone since July 8.

Appearing at the Minnesota State Fair yesterday and sitting for an interview with Minnesota Public Radio, Klobuchar was asked about the Stras nomination. The interview generated an AP story by Kyle Potter (posted at the link along with the audio of Klobuchar’s MPR interview) that also made it into the Star Tribune.

Klobuchar denied that she’s blocking Stras’s nomination. That’s what she said, anyway. This is a lie. Klobuchar is blocking the nomination pending a deal with the White House that has nothing to do with the merits of the nomination of Justice Stras. Klobuchar referred to the pending federal vacancies and to discussions with the Department of Justice as well as the White House counsel’s office without acknowledging that she is holding her blue slip on Justice Stras in connection with these discussions.

Franken asserts that he’s still reviewing Justice Stras’s “lengthy record.” Justice Stras is a young man. His record can be mastered without an exorbitant expenditure of time. If only Franken hadn’t spent so much time promoting his new book — he even took a turn hosting SiriusXM’s Grateful Dead channel for a day — he’d be done by now. But this is not to be taken seriously. It’s a joke, so to speak, of the unfunny political variety that Senator Franken now retails.

The editors of the the Star Tribune editorial page do not encourage op-ed columns that break local news the Star Tribune itself hasn’t gotten around to reporting. Today, however, they let Third District Rep. Erik Paulsen report that Klobuchar and Franken have in fact blocked the Senate from taking up Stras’s nomination. Rep. Paulsen tells the story in “Klobuchar, Franken impede the path of an outstanding judge.” It’s a good and even important column on the merits of the Stras nomination. Please read it all.

Rep. Paulsen omits elaboration of Klobuchar’s game here (he leaves it at “partisan game-playing in Washington”). Senator Klobuchar is sensitive about it. No one involved wants to ruffle her feathers. I sympathize, but let’s get the full story out.