• 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

The Whistleblower Conspiracy from Foul Dem, ADAM SCHIFF!?!

So the whistleblower went to Adam Schiff first, not the designated intelligence authorities?

By Monica Showalter at American Thinker:

 

Remember when intelligence leaker Ed Snowden’s gentlest critics said he should have taken his complaints of intelligence abuses through established internal channels instead of stealing thousands of documents of top-secret intelligence files and then leaking them to the press?  That “mistake” — and I don’t think it was one — is what drove him to seek refuge in the old Soviet Union just a few years ago.

Remember when the same was said of then-private Bradley Manning, who leaked troves of military secrets to WikiLeaks before being packed off to Leavenworth?  He should have gone through channels…

The idea is that these people shouldn’t have been addressing the issues that they claimed motivated them to do their dirty betrayals the way they did, because there were plenty of internal channels to work with, and they didn’t bother.

Turns out we got another one, according to a report from Sean Davis at the Federalist, citing reporting at the New York Times: the impeachment “whistleblower,” who seems to have gone to congressional Democrats first, not the intelligence inspector general (IGIC) or, for that matter, two other agencies, which dismissed his secondhand complaints out of hand.  Davis writes:

An anti-Trump whistleblower at the center of ongoing Democratic efforts to impeach President Donald Trump coordinated with Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his Democratic staff prior to filing his whistleblower complaint, The New York Times reported on Wednesday afternoon. The bombshell report that the whistleblower and his Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) colleagues actively worked exclusively with congressional Democrats before filing the complaint raises serious questions about whether the complainant followed federal laws providing whistleblower protections for employees within the U.S. intelligence community.

“Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer,” The New York Times reported. “Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump.”

The New York Times noted that the anti-Trump complainant only notified the committee’s Democrats of his allegations.

“The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy,” The New York Times wrote.

Bzzzt.  Not a whistleblower.  This is yet another leaker, a partisan one, same as Snowden and Bradley (partisan, same as one of the original reports noted), making this ongoing impeachment matter against President Trump a very different kind of story.  President Trump was right to have called this another case of a spy or traitor, because this is what it was.

It leaves the current whistleblower system’s credibility now in tatters.  Why go through official channels when you’ve got Adam Schiff?  Who’d bother with official channels now that this leaker has gotten away with oversharing classified information with Democrats in Congress first?  Eric Felton at RealClearInvestigations has much more about the full scope of the problem here.

In this whistleblower case, the issue stinks, because it wasn’t even intelligence that was involved here; it was diplomacy.  Presidents do, after all, have a right to diplomatic and secret communication with their foreign allies as a matter of state.  What’s more, their counterparties do have a right to expect that these conversations will be private and not all over the front page of the New York Times.  The president of Ukraine is as much a victim of this Schiff grandstanding as is Trump, and other foreign leaders are going to take note.  Russia’s President Putin is already on record saying he doesn’t want his conversations with Trump leaked (which kind of suggests that maybe Trump yelled at him), and even Putin has a right to that.  If he doesn’t, well, then all diplomacy can be conducted by Twitter (or through leaks and congressional grandstanding), and actual national security can go out the window.

This person didn’t follow channels, but instead went to Rep. Adam Schiff, the highly partisan leftist chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, whose interest was anything but neutral or bipartisan, as the IGIC office is supposed to be.  This person didn’t follow channels any more than Snowden did, but now he gets cloaked in whistleblower protections for partisan blabbings.

The benefit that Snowden didn’t have that the whistleblower does is that by using the whistleblower statute, the whole violation of national security on his part cloaks the complaint in far graver seriousness than it actually has, given that the Left has actually made it an impeachment matter.  If the whistleblower had not used those whistleblower statutes for protection, he would be busted, same as Manning, or else on the run, same as Snowden.

The failure to follow procedures though, now makes him or her a leaker, a political manipulator, a partisan operative, a person who uses secret intelligence to his own personal ends, not a whistleblower. And for that reason, this person would at a minimum be entitled to zero anonymity protections that whistleblowers get and the IGIC should be the first to toss out any merit to the allegation to save its own credibility. If he or she gets away with this, then the whole whistleblower system has no credibility.

This person ought to be in the dock now, explaining why he or she leaked classified information to unauthorized parties, and then answering questions about why he or she decided to cloak it all in whistleblower protections, a fake stunt that makes the whistleblower system into a joke, but certainly spares the leaker a stretch in Russia or Leavenworth.

This makes two aspects of this whole whistleblower imbroglio utterly built on a lie. First, we learned that the matter was not about actual intelligence, it was about a classified presidential conversation with the president of Ukraine, which a diplomacy matter, not a spy matter.

Now we see that the whistleblower had pre-coordinated a political attack involving Adam Schiff on the sitting president beung well before he or she retreated back into the whistleblower status to avoid any accountability or responsibility. President Trump is the one now left to clean up that mess.

Both premises are false. In addition, there were a string of other irregularities that Davis noted in earlier pieces, such as this one I wrote about yesterday here.

Maybe it’s time to get rid of the whistleblower statutes, given how easily they are being politically abused these days and just let every deep state leftist in government leak all the spy secrets they like. Either that, or the system in place can reassert its reason for existence by hosing out all this political partisanship and go back to being a precise tool for pinpointing invisible abuses of power. It can either be one or the other, and the left can’t have it both ways.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/so_the_whistleblower_went_to_adam_schiff_first_not_the_authorities.html

SWEDES Fleeing Lefty SWEDEN!….GUESS WHY!!

In migrant-surged Sweden, now it’s the Swedes who are fleeing

by Monica Showalter at American Thinker:

 

Sweden has drawn praise for opening its doors to thousands of fleeing Middle Eastern and African refugees and migrants, in numbers comparable only to Germany:

When it comes to refugees, [U.N. Secretary-General Antonio] Guterres praised Sweden for being “absolutely exemplary” and said Europe had failed to provide support by taking coordinated action to ensure equal distribution in the area.

“Instead, Europe was totally unable to find solidarity for this kind of integrated European solution. There was no European solution.  As there was no solidarity at all, two countries, Sweden and Germany have essentially been the ones receiving the overwhelming majority of the refugees, which is absolutely unfair, which doesn’t make any sense.”

Turns out that wasn’t such a bright idea, given that Swedish cities such as Malmö have turned into Muslim-dominant no-go hellholes, which Swedes now find unlivable.  The migrants freely admitted to Sweden have placed about as much value on that entry as the price they paid for it, which is nothing.

Now it’s the Swedes who are fleeing, setting off a second refugee wave of sorts as Swedes move away to either the Swedish hinterlands or else to other countries, according to this Gatestone report.

  • “As a parent, you become angry, desperate… The result is that those who can, and can afford it, move…. To a quieter part of the country or abroad. Those who do not have the same opportunities [to move] remain where they are. It’s devastating…” — Former Minister of Labour Sven Otto Littorin, who now lives and works in Dubai, on Facebook.
  • “About 13 percent of the population in Sweden experience problems in their own residential areas with crime, violence or vandalism. It is one of the highest proportions in Europe.” By comparison, the other Nordic countries were placed among the countries with the lowest percentage of the population who experience such problems….” — Statistics Sweden, April 25, 2019.

Swedes are on the move. Problems in many municipalities are prompting Swedes to leave for other areas with fewer socioeconomic problems. The issue has recently gained the attention of the Swedish mainstream media.

They’re calling it a “population exchange,” which isn’t exactly a gain.  According to Gatestone:

Take the small, picturesque town of Filipstad (population 10,000), for example. Swedish television recently made a documentary about the town, which finds itself in both a financial and an existential crisis. “We are experiencing a population exchange. You can think of that what you want… But it is simply a statement of fact that this is actually what we are going through and we have to deal with it”, Jim Frölander, integration manager in the Filipstad municipality, says in the documentary. Between 2012 and 2018, 640 native Swedes left the town, and 963 foreign-born people moved into the town. Those leaving are people of working age (20-64), which means that the municipality’s tax revenues are shrinking, exacerbating [the] town’s financial crisis.

Oh, sure — the idea of taking in thousands of unassimilated and hostile Muslims into Sweden’s cities may have sounded great to the country’s central planners.  Its own population after all, is in a death spiral as a result of its past socialist policies, which created a high-cost, low-marriage, low-child, graying country with a potential pension crisis.  But Sweden also wanted to virtue-signal to other countries as it opened its gates to all comers and drew all that U.N. praise.

What this report signals is that Sweden ended up exchanging its well educated, law-abiding, and high-social-capital population for an unemployable, uneducated, lawless, and low-social-capital one.  The central planning here — and as this excellent New York Post article notes, it is a country with a lot of central planning — didn’t quite work out the way they thought it would.  Sweden isn’t gaining the population its social engineers thought it would gain from this top-down maneuver; it’s actually losing its most productive citizens as an unintended consequence, because for every unassimilated refugee coming in, a Swede is moving out.

Now it’s the Swedes who are voting with their feet.  Countries that fought to keep high numbers of unvetted, unassimilated, and hostile migrants from their shores drew a lot of opprobrium, but at least they aren’t seeing this kind of flight.  It all boils down to migrants placing about as much value on the country they are admitted to as the price they actually paid for it.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/in_migrantsurged_sweden_now_its_the_swedes_who_are_fleeing.html

 

 

Dems’ Fascism, AT LAST, Is Beginning to be EXPOSED!??!!

WHITHER IMPEACHMENT?

by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

More information is coming out about the “whistleblower”–read, Democratic Party activist–who triggered impeachment mania, and it does not put the Democrats in a positive light. The New York Times reports that the “whistleblower” has long been working with Congressional Democrats:

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

A “spokesman”? I assume that means a Schiff spokesman, although that isn’t clear.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

A striking admission!

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff.

So a great deal has been going on behind the scenes. The complaint was filed in August, so Schiff had known about it for a month and a half before it became public. This means that the leaders of the Democratic Party had lots of time to coordinate the rollout of the impeachment drama. Which, in turn, explains my observation that within hours after Nancy Pelosi announced the launching of an impeachment inquiry, I was getting emails from Democratic politicians with coordinated talking points, demanding that the president be impeached.

Many have noted that the “whistleblower’s” complaint reads like a brief written by a lawyer. It turns out that his is exactly what happened. Democratic House staffers lined the “whistleblower” up with a lawyer–another Democratic Party loyalist who has worked for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, and donated to Joe Biden–who drafted or helped to draft the complaint. The whole story stinks.

Why are Schiff and the Democrats using the friendliest possible news outlet to make these facts public now? Because the “whistleblower” will testify before the House Intelligence Committee, and Republican members of the committee will bring out the history of his or her contacts with Democratic officials and staffers. The story isn’t pretty, and the Democrats are using time-honored messaging techniques–getting ahead of the news, putting out their version preemptively, and using a friendly news organ to give it a positive spin.

Still, the facts are bad, mostly because the “whistleblower” was wrong. The conversation that he or she described in the complaint never happened. Trump’s discussion with President Zelensky was, in my view, blameless. In any event, no sane person could consider it grounds for impeachment. The Democrats must be frustrated about this. That frustration came out in Schiff’s bizarre committee performance, where he pretended to be quoting from the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call, but in fact made the entire thing up, along the lines of the “whistleblower’s” complaint. If only it were real, Schiff seemed to be saying!

Schiff also, by the way, lied when he claimed that “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” No surprise there; the surprise would be if Schiff, for once, told the truth.

Meanwhile, President Trump went on offense today during a press appearance with the President of Finland. The White House press office is pushing out quotes from Trump’s comments on the impeachment fraud. This is just a sampling:

The whistleblower said terrible things about the call, but I then found out he was secondhand and third hand. In other words, he didn’t know what was on the call. No. These are bad people, these are dishonest people.

He wrote a vicious conversation. In other words, he either got it totally wrong, made it up or the person giving the information to the whistleblower was dishonest and this country has to find out who that person was, because that person’s a spy, in my opinion.

This whole thing revolves around a simple conversation and if you remember at the beginning, it was ‘quid pro quo.’ That’s all you heard about and I think he said seven or eight times ‘quid pro’ — in other words, ‘you’re going to do that or we’re not going to give you money. You’re gonna do this or we’re not’… I never said it.

That is true, of course. Trump teed off on Adam Schiff:

Not a thing wrong unless you heard the Adam Schiff version where he made up my conversation. He actually made it up. It should be criminal, it should be treasonous. He made it up, every word of it, made up, and read it to Congress as though I said it. And I’ll tell you what, he should be forced to resign from congress, Adam Schiff.

On the impeachment inquiry:

They’ve been trying to impeach me from the day I got elected. I’ve been going through this for three years. They’ve been trying to impeach me from the day I got elected. And you know what? They failed. And this is the easiest one of all, because this one is based on one conversation.

Trump is right about that: Pelosi has said that the impeachment inquiry will be limited to Ukraine, and there is nothing to Ukraine but a single phone call, which is easy to defend to anyone who has read the transcript. Maybe Pelosi will decide to broaden the inquiry.

Finally, on the president’s favorite target:

You have corrupt media in this country and it truly is the enemy of the people. You people should be ashamed of yourself. We have the most dishonest media that you could imagine and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Again, Trump is right. More important, a majority of Americans agree with him.

Where do we go from here? Soon we will be awash in poll data. A few days ago I cited a survey that found a majority of respondents agreeing that the Ukraine allegations are “serious.” Of course, that was before most people knew they are also false.

At The Hill, Sharyl Attkisson dissects a CBS News poll that over-sampled Democrats, the results of which were equivocal. Another basic indicator is the Rasmussen survey, the only poll that continuously samples likely voters on a daily basis. Trump had been climbing in Rasmussen’s numbers before the impeachment frenzy broke, with an approval rating of 52%, implying a relatively clear path to re-election. The Democrats have indeed brought his numbers down, to 48/51, currently. But that is hardly a catastrophic drop during a period when the Democrats have had the news cycle mostly to themselves.

But the problem with these early polls is that very few people know the facts. Many, not surprisingly, assume that where there is a great deal of smoke, there likely is some fire. But the Democrats face an intractable problem that will only get worse with time: no rational person could find grounds for impeachment in Trump’s phone call with Zelensky.

While guest hosting for Dennis Prager yesterday, I likened the transcript of the call to the child’s game of “find the hidden picture”–where is the outline of a tiger, a baseball cap, etc., in a drawing? It would be fun to take a liberal through the transcript line by line and ask him to specify where, exactly, the impeachable offense occurs. Any possible answer to that question could only be laughable.

All of which is to say that I am beginning to come around to the view, not that the Democrats have overreached–that has been obvious from the beginning–but that there is a good possibility the voters will punish them for their fanaticism and their dishonesty in November 2020.

Whither Impeachment?