• 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


Byron York: Yes, Trump is target of ‘presidential harassment’

President Trump often complains that he is the victim of “presidential harassment” — or, as he sometimes puts it, “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!”

“Presidential Harassment by ‘crazed’ Democrats at the highest level in the history of our Country,” Trump tweeted on March 3. “After more than two years of Presidential Harassment, the only things that have been proven is that Democrats and others broke the law,” he added later. “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT! It should never be allowed to happen again!” he tweeted Feb. 7.

The president’s adversaries of course dismiss his protests as self-interested whining. But the fact is, Trump has a point. He is the target of an extraordinary combination, not just of federal law enforcement and congressional probes, but a long list of less-discussed but potentially consequential investigations by state and local prosecutors and regulators.

Together, it adds up to a pile-on of unprecedented proportions, by and large the work of blue-state Democrats who stand to gain politically if their investigations succeed in crippling the president.

Recently, the New York State Department of Financial Services, the agency that regulates the insurance business, issued what the New York Times called an “expansive subpoena” to Aon, the insurance broker for the president’s companies. The agency leaped into action after former Trump fixer Michael Cohen told the House that Trump had at some point inflated his assets to an insurance company. Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and faces serious questions about the truthfulness of his latest testimony, supplied no details.

None were needed. “The subpoena that was served on Aon contains no indication that the company or any of its employees engaged in misconduct,” the Times reported. “Nor does it specify any possible wrongdoing that is the focus of the inquiry by state regulators.” The subpoena demanded “a broad range of materials” related to Trump’s dealings with Aon going back a decade, the Times said.

Also in New York, the State Department of Taxation and Finance announced last October that it is investigating Trump’s taxes going back at least 20 years.

New York state officials have also filed suit against the Trump Foundation, which has agreed to dissolve as part of the investigation.

Speaking of state law enforcement, the recent New York Attorney General race was virtually a contest to see which candidate could vow to go after Trump the most aggressively. In her victory speech, new Attorney General Letitia James said of Trump, “I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings, and every dealing, demanding truthfulness at every turn.”

Outside of New York, the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia are suing Trump, accusing him of violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

Then, there is the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, based in Manhattan. Prosecutors there are said to be investigating the Trump Organization’s finances; the funding of the Trump inauguration; and the funding of the Trump SuperPAC Rebuilding America Now.

The SDNY investigations hold a large place in the hopes of Trump opponents who fear Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller might deliver an underwhelming report that does not make the case that Trump colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election or that he obstructed justice in the aftermath. Indeed, a number of observers believe the SDNY probes pose a more serious threat to Trump than Mueller.

Does there seem something odd about that? In a recent email exchange, I asked Andrew Coan, a University of Arizona law professor who is the author of the book Prosecuting the President, whether there is precedent for a U.S. Attorney’s office conducting a wide-ranging, open-ended investigation of a sitting president.

“The short answer is no,” Coan responded. “I am aware of no comparable prior investigation.”

The reason I asked was that it seems that the basis for the now-expired independent counsel law, and for special counsels that exist today, is that a president, when investigated, should be investigated in a specific way, and not in the normal course of business by federal prosecutors. Coan noted that a special counsel was appointed in Watergate on the rationale that “a U.S. Attorney could not be trusted to investigate the president who appointed him.” Today, by all accounts, Coan added, SDNY prosecutors have pursued their investigation aggressively, but the appointment of another special counsel from outside the Justice Department “would provide some additional assurance that this investigation is not being influenced by political pressure.”

By pressure, Coan meant pressure from the president. But in New York, there could also be the possibility of pressure created by the general atmosphere of resistance to a hated chief executive in a heavily Democratic state.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats have long viewed Trump’s tax returns, which he broke 40-year precedent by refusing to release, as a sort of Holy Grail of Trump investigations. “We have to have the truth,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said before the election. Now, the House Ways & Means Committee is reportedly preparing to demand the Treasury Department turn over the returns. The demand is based primarily on suspicion that Trump must have done something wrong with his taxes or he would have long ago released the returns. If Democrats get the returns, and that is not guaranteed given the expected legal fight, it’s likely they will start even more investigations.

Beyond that, there is the House Judiciary Committee’s recent decision to demand documents from 81 people associated with Trump, a request so wide-ranging that even some Democrats worry that their party’s investigators have overreached.

“The extensive scope could bolster claims by Trump and Republicans that congressional Democrats are seeking to undermine the president and cripple his 2020 reelection effort rather than conduct a disciplined, fact-finding inquiry,” the Washington Post reported. Yes, it could.

And all of that is apart from the Mueller probe and the Senate and House Trump-Russia investigations.

The point is, the scrutiny directed at the president from all sides, not oversight of his administration or even investigations into his election, so far exceeds anything in the past that it could well qualify as presidential harassment.

Democrats would no doubt respond that Trump is singularly corrupt, or that he brought it all on himself. He did not. What has happened is that Democrats, in Congress and in some key blue states, saw investigation as a way to weaken a president they never thought would be elected and want to ensure is not re-elected in 2020. And Trump, with the most extensive business history ever brought to the presidency, presented a lot of avenues of investigation. When he complains about harassment, he has a legitimate case to make.


Churchill: “The Most Exhilarating Experience in Life Is To Be Shot At…….

       …….and have been missed!!”

– – – – – – –


by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

I am currently reading Andrew Roberts’ biography of Winston Churchill. So I followed, with interest, the link that someone (probably Scott) put up as a Power Line Pick to this piece by Roberts in the Spectator about his book tour in America. His theme is that Americans, in general, esteem Churchill now more than ever. Which is a good thing. I want to comment on a single paragraph in Roberts’ article:

The livid scar down the center of his forehead that Churchill received in that accident is visibly to the fore in George W. Bush’s excellent portrait of him that hangs in the Dallas Country Club. At dinner à trois with the former president and Laura Bush there, ‘43’ — as everyone in Texas seems to call him — pondered whether he might turn out to be the last Republican president in American history, because clearly Trump doesn’t count. We discussed the Whig-Democrat struggles of the 1830s and 1840s, and the way that no political party has an inherent right to exist.

Having no reason to doubt Roberts’ account, I take it that at a private dinner at the Dallas Country Club, former President George W. Bush suggested that he might have been the last Republican President ever, on the ground that Donald Trump doesn’t count. And maybe after Trump there will be no more Republicans.

I have never thought of W as an arrogant man–on the contrary–but this attitude reeks of the ignorant contempt with which the establishment, in all its many branches, views President Trump. In what way is Trump not a “real” Republican? I can think of one: he is not a budget hawk. But then, I don’t recall either of the Bushes being much of a budget hawk, either, when in office. At least Trump didn’t run as one.

Trump has governed considerably more as a traditional Republican than I expected. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a classic Republican measure, has been a smashing success, as I testifiedbefore the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. Lots of Republicans talk about cutting needless regulations, but Trump has actually done it to an extraordinary and praiseworthy degree.

Some years ago I was invited to attend an event at SMU sponsored by the George W. Bush Presidential Library. (I wrote about it on Power Line, but I can’t readily find that post in our archives.) The theme of the event was the need to increase our rate of economic growth. Various economists and President Bush himself explained that we should be striving for 4% annual GDP growth, something that used to be considered routine in the U.S., but during the Obama years was said to be a thing of the past. Strong economic growth solves a lot of problems.

Under President Trump, our rate of economic growth has doubled, although not to 4%–not yet, anyway. George W. Bush should be delighted with this result, but it doesn’t sound as though he expressed such delight to Andrew Roberts.

Then there is foreign policy. President Trump is standing up to Russia and China. He has rejected Barack Obama’s absurd dream of an alliance with Iran’s mullahs. He is completing the destruction of ISIS. He is staunchly pro-Israel. To what, in this litany, does W object? Nothing, I assume.

Then we have the voters. Gallup reports that 90% of Republicans approve of President Trump’s performance. Other surveys have placed the number even higher–higher than W’s own approval among Republican voters through most of his time as president. So, in what sense is Trump not a “real” Republican?

In this sense, I think: George W. Bush was a good president. I gave him a B- rating when his second term ended. But he had one great failing: he didn’t fight back against the Democratic Party’s continuous assaults on his administration. He was BusHitler. We haven’t forgotten. Has he?

“Artists” produced images of W’s brains being blown out by assassins, in what turned out to be a preview of the Trump administration. Liberals absurdly claimed that, contrary to the CIA’s assurances, Bush was the one person who knew all along that Saddam Hussein didn’t have vast stocks of chemical weapons–it turned out that Saddam only had small stocks–and Bush lied his way into Iraq in order to “steal” that country’s oil. Which, of course, didn’t happen. It was all a Democratic Party lie.

George W. Bush was slandered in myriad ways, almost all of them absurd. But instead of fighting back, he just took it. His administration gave little or no aid to those, like us at Power Line, who wanted to defend him. And the Democratic Party press-the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press, and all of the fringe characters whom they empower–destroyed his administration.

Donald Trump isn’t like that. He fights back. He calls out liberal news sources that lie about him as “fake news,” which they are. He may lose in 2020–no one knows what next year’s presidential election might bring–but if so, he will go down fighting against the forces that hate him and that hate America, and want to move our country toward socialism. The same forces that ultimately defeated George W. Bush.

The sad thing, in my view, is that W apparently has joined the establishment. He thinks Trump isn’t a Republican, and the Republican Party likely has no future after the current aberrant office-holder. News flash, W: the cause of freedom didn’t die when you moved back to Texas. The Republican Party stands for liberty, for limited government, for a strong foreign policy, for a better life for ALL Americans, not just app developers and Wall Street wizards. And guess what, George: Donald Trump, for all his faults, has done a better job of advancing these ideals than you did.

Which is why virtually all Republicans approve of what Trump is doing. I don’t know what the future holds, but I think Donald Trump has made it more likely, not less likely, that future



Note from ghr:   Churchill was big time popular in our United States  during WWII….even all of the way down to us kids playing war games in the empty lot across the alley where I was raised in St. Paul, MN….Roosevelt was a nobody in our little group.   He always sat and was almost never displayed  on the Movietone News we always saw at the local Highland Park movie theater on Saturdays when war news was shone every opening half hour at the movies.

Because of the war action in our local  Minnesota  movie news from 1942-1945 was primarily from the European theater, the hero of my  time  was this chubby  Prime Minister  of England who was so frequently featured in movie newsreels in body and word.   I was too crippled a reader to read novels then and forever, yet  I had no problems collecting knowledge through encyclopedias, magazines, maps, and daily news, both morning AND afternoon,  and radio.

Personally, I  first discovered in mind and vision the Pacific War ….starting to read newspaper headlines and maps  in earnest a week or so before the American attack on the Japanese bombings at Midway.    That 1941 Christmas of  Pearl Harbor  I got my first globe of the world along with a world atlas from Santa.

My mother was responsible for gift things in those days.

She was aware how fanatic  I was studying  road maps whenever we would go North before the war to Lake Alexander near Cushing, Mn. especially  in our new  1941 Plymouth sedan my dad bought that Spring.   The road maps were free whether at the Shell, Skelly, Standard, Phillips 66, Pure Oil,  or any stations…whenever   we stopped for  gas.   It was  the only means my parents  could keep me  from asking questions about scenery or whatever whenever  dad was driving.   I still have a couple hundred of them  saved to this day.

I can’t remember when or where  I was first exposed to this “most exhilarating experience”  comment.   I do know it was quite persuasive in my decision to join the US Army after I got my first college degree.