• 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


Rumor of the day: Russian chief of staff now in Ukraine to command the war effort

ALLAHPUNDIT Apr 29, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

(AP Photo/Mikhail Metzel, file)

This would be like deploying the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the front of a war that’s already in progress.

It’s the sort of thing you’d only do if you’ve accepted that things aren’t going well and are prepared to pull out all the stops in the name of victory.

Which is ominous, given what “all the stops” could potentially mean.

Ukraine will also be pulling out all the stops in the name of killing this guy, of course, recognizing that it’d be a momentous propaganda victory if they can pull it off. The fact that so many Russian generals and other top officers have died on the battlefield in the past two months has been a great boost to Ukrainian morale and a key ingredient in perceptions that Russia’s army is inept. Turning Valery Gerasimov, Putin’s top military man, into a KIA would dwarf all the rest.

Will their American friends help them target Gerasimov, having already helped them with so many other targets? Stay tuned.

Ukrainian news outlet Defense Express reported on April 27 that Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov will take personal command of the Russian offensive in the Izyum direction.[1] Citing unspecified Ukrainian military sources, Defense Express stated that Gerasimov is already in-theater and will command the offensive “at the operational and tactical level” and claimed the Russian military failed to create a single command structure under Southern Military District Commander Alexander Dvornikov. ISW cannot independently confirm this report. However, ISW previously assessed that Dvornikov’s appointment as overall commander in Ukraine would not solve Russia’s command and control challenges and likely strain his span of control.[2] If confirmed, the appointment of Russia’s senior general officer to command tactical operations indicates both the importance of the Izyum drive to Russia’s war in Ukraine and the breakdown in the Russian military’s normal chain of command.

You need only look at a map of Ukraine to grasp why Izyum is so important to Russia. It’s southeast of Kharkiv and west of the Donbas, making it a key artery for supplying Ukrainian forces in the east. If Russia can hold it and then push south, it can cut the Ukrainian army in half and encircle Ukraine’s troops in the separatist territories, portending their destruction. Russia could end up holding all of eastern Ukraine and then either turn towards Kharkiv or advance towards the southwest to try to finally take Mykolaiv and then Odessa.

So Putin’s putting his best man on the job. It may already be paying off, as U.S. officials have seen some improvement recently in Russia’s ability to coordinate air and ground operations. That’s allowed them to make a little progress in the east, although it’s reportedly slow going. “The attacks are somewhat better coordinated but with small formations. Company size units with helicopter support,” said one European defense official to CNN. “The lowest level of mutual support. In NATO this would be basic stuff.”

Observers are chattering about what Gerasimov’s arrival in Ukraine might mean. Eliot Cohen and Mick Ryan, a retired Australian general, each wonder if he’s been given an order from Putin essentially to win or else don’t bother coming home. Ryan describes Gerasimov as a “renowned” military theorist, albeit one whose ideas are untested on the battlefield.


Given Russia’s logistical and tactical troubles, there’s only so much he can do. Meanwhile, his deployment means there’s now a vacuum at the top of the Russian military. “If Gerasimov goes to Ukraine, and no-one replaces him, who will oversee overall Russian military operations and development in short term, as well as any mobilisation?” Ryan asked. Which brings us to the second rumor of the day:


Maybe … Putin replaces him, for all intents and purposes?

Fears are growing that Russia is headed towards “full mobilization” of the population in order to win the war, which may or may not soon extend to NATO itself. That’s one way to read Putin’s decision to send Gerasimov into battle, as a sign that every Russian must now be prepared to join the fight. But strategist Phillips O’Brien made the point a few days ago that “full mobilization” isn’t a magic wand that can be waved, with miraculous effects to follow quickly on the battlefield. It takes time and resources. With NATO weapons pouring into Ukraine and headed east, Russia doesn’t have time. And with western sanctions weakening the country’s ability to resupply itself, it doesn’t really have resources either.



As conventional options to turn the tide of the war drift further out of Russia’s reach, the temptation to turn to unconventional ones will grow. Buckle up.

How’s Russian morale doing, meanwhile? To all appearances, the great majority of the population continues to support the war. Most are poor and subsist on a propaganda diet of eternal national greatness that’s now supposedly under threat from the peasant Nazi hordes across the border. To Russia’s hyper-rich elite, though, the war is of course a disaster:

“In one day, they destroyed what was built over many years. It’s a catastrophe,” said one businessman who was summoned along with many of the country’s other richest men to meet Putin on the day of the invasion…

When 37 of Russia’s wealthiest business executives were called to the Kremlin for the meeting with Putin hours after he launched the war on Feb. 24, many of them were depressed and shocked. “Everyone was in a terrible mood,” one participant said. “Everyone was sitting there crushed.”

“I’d never seen them as stunned as they were,” another participant said. “Some of them could not even speak.”…

“Some of them said, ‘We’ve lost everything,’” one of the participants said.

Pretty much. The mysterious explosions that are sporadically occurring on Russia’s side of the Ukrainian border may also have begun to influence broader Russian opinion, although it’s hard to predict how. On the one hand, they’ll inflame nationalist pride. “The gall of those Ukrainian subhumans to attack a power as great as us!” On the other hand, the mere fact that Ukraine is able to stage these attacks repeatedly may lead some Russians to wonder how great their power truly is. High stakes for Putin.


APRIL 30, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


Currently there is somewhere around $1.6 trillion outstanding in unpaid student loans. That is approximately twice the amount of all credit card debt. And many thousands of college graduates and dropouts find themselves unable or unwilling to repay their student loans.

How did we get into this mess? It goes back to the Higher Education Act of 1965, but, as with so many government programs, the senators and representatives who voted for it never imagined how it would transform higher education, in part by driving costs relentlessly higher. Now the Biden administration is trying to buy votes in the midterm elections by promising to cancel the entire $1.6 trillion outstanding debt.

The Wall Street Journal comments:

Remember how Democrats sold their student loan takeover as a money-saver? Now millions of borrowers can’t or don’t want to repay their loans, so President Biden says he may cancel their debt. The taxpayers who repaid their loans or didn’t go to college will pay instead.
Federal student loans were established as part of the Great Society to help low-income students. Yet step by step, Democrats have turned student loans into an entitlement for academia and the affluent. …

As the loan limit increased over time—now $57,500 a year for independent undergrads and $31,000 for those dependent on their parents—colleges raised their prices to sop up more federal largesse. It doesn’t matter to the schools if their philosophy grads work as baristas.

As a philosophy major, I object to that last comment. There is more at the link on the corrupt history of the federal student loan takeover. But I want to focus on a question that has perplexed me: how can the president possibly have the legal authority to cancel $1.6 trillion in debt obligations?

Progressives claim that the Higher Education Act of 1965 grants the President sweeping authority to “compromise”—i.e., modify—student loans. Since Congress granted the Education Department the power to create student debt, they argue, the Biden Administration also has the power to cancel it.

This strikes me as a terrible legal argument. The reference apparently is to Sec. 432, Subdivisions (a)(5) and (6). That section describes the legal powers of the Commissioner. It gives him the power to sue and be sued. Subdivisions 5 and 6 empower the Commissioner to:

(5) enforce, pay, or compromise, any claim on, or arising because of, any such insurance; and

(6) enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right or redemption.

Here, “compromise” is obviously used to mean settle, as a lawsuit. So the Commissioner can sue to recover unpaid loans, he can enforce liens, and–of course–he can compromise or settle such claims and lawsuits. The idea that this entitles the Commissioner (or the president) to simply cancel all outstanding loan obligations is ridiculous.

Maybe there is some other provision Biden could rely on, but I seriously doubt that anywhere in the federal statutes is a provision that allows him to totally negate repayment obligations under the student loan program. The Journal’s cynicism is justified:

In December 2020, Mr. Biden said it was “pretty questionable” whether he had the authority to cancel debt across the board. But now he may figure that the courts are unlikely to stop him, at least before the November election. Taxpayers and those who repaid their loans won’t have legal standing to sue. Congress might, but Democrats won’t sue.

In short, Biden threatens (or promises) to take patently illegal action in order to buy votes, in the expectation that his wrongdoing won’t be checked until after November–and perhaps not at all. We live under a scofflaw government.

Biden’s War Invasion To Conquer Texas!

George P. Bush: Time for a declaration of invasion in Texas

KAREN TOWNSEND Apr 29, 2022 4:41 PM ET

 Share  Tweet  

AP Photo/Fernando Llano

The “I” word is beginning to be heard in statements from elected officials in Texas when discussions turn to the Biden border crisis. Some are now openly using the word ‘invasion’ when it comes to the flood of illegal migrants crossing the southern border into border states. Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush is the latest to go on the record using the word. He now calls for a declaration of invasion in Texas in response to the Biden administration’s inaction to secure the border.

Joe Biden has abandoned the state of Texas, leaving our communities to suffer the crippling effects of a mass invasion perpetrated by known terrorists, drug cartels, and human smugglers. The administration’s abject failure to act has created an unlimited criminal enterprise for these bad actors that seek nothing other than personal gain at the expense of everyday Texans,” said George P. Bush.

“Texas has been left with no choice, we must assert our sovereignty and immediately declare an invasion of our state under the US constitution. Texas national guard and DPS troopers are already deployed to the border yet are handcuffed by our current federal policies.

Attorney General Ken Paxton has routinely failed to secure our border, refusing to make legal arguments that give Governor Abbott the backing to take such action and refusing to deploy legal resources to Border County DA offices. He has consistently followed in the shadows of other states less impacted by open border policies, content to fall back and let others lead the fight. Texas needs an Attorney General who is willing to take every action available to secure our state and restore Texas Justice.”

Bush’s criticism is to be expected of his opponent in the run-off election. He plays up Paxton’s legal problems which include facing three felony counts and an FBI investigation. Paxton has been under federal indictment for many months.

“Only one in three Republicans know that Ken Paxton is facing three felony counts in Houston court and facing an FBI investigation looking into bribery and corruption, so part of that is on me,” he told reporters Tuesday night. “I’m going to have to educate the public on this issue, but I’m also going to remind the public why they need to hire me.”

“But the good news is for people in Texas, Ken Paxton is going to run off, so the indicted felon will have to answer to voters,” Bush said.

Paxton has Trump’s endorsement in the race. Paxton has been a loyal Trump supporter, including going to Washington, D.C. on January 6 to attend Trump’s rally that took place before the riot broke out on Capitol Hill. Paxton said he left the Trump rally before his supporters walked over to Capitol Hill. Bush, son of Jeb!, is also a Trump supporter, despite most of the Bush family’s opposition to Trump since 2016.

A week ago, the Texas Tribune reported that there is pressure on Governor Abbott from Republicans, including former Trump administration officials, to issue a declaration of invasion. This would allow local law enforcement to expel illegal migrants apprehended at the border. The term ‘invasion’ is incendiary and a declaration is likely unconstitutional. George P. thinks there is justification under the constitution to allow Texas to secure its border when the federal government fails to do so.

George P. says Texas can invoke Article IV, Section 4 and Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution and exercise wartime powers, using state law enforcement to turn back illegals at the border.

Arizona Attorney General Brnovich is also in favor of declaring an invasion in his state but so far Governor Ducey has rejected the idea. Brnovich is currently running for governor. Ducey is term limited out of office this year. Bush points to Arizona as leading on the issue, not Texas. Ducey and Abbott work closely together on border security issues.

Challenges to the constitutionality of declarations of invasion have not gone well for states in the past.

Some states, like California, have gone to court to try to assert their alleged claim of defining what is and is not an invasion, Hoffman says. “So there is precedent for this… and the courts have rejected these claims because they impact on what they call non-judicial policy decisions that implicate foreign policy and defense,” he says.

Previous challenges to federal enforcement of immigration law have not fared well in court. California v. United States (1997) and Padavan v. United States (1996), courts ruled that the plaintiff’s invasion clause is “nonjusticiable” and that “the protection of the states from ‘invasion’ involves matters of foreign policy and defense, which are issues that the courts have been reluctant to consider.”

Many elected officials in Texas think that everything should be on the table in dealing with the Biden border crisis, especially since DHS announced that Title 42 will end next month. Border states have largely been left on their own to deal with border security. Biden doesn’t care about the humanitarian crisis his policies (or lack thereof) create. He doesn’t care that border states do not have the personnel or financial resources to handle the flood of migrants crossing the border because his administration has not provided what they request. Biden has never been to the southern border. Ever. Let that sink in – he’s been in elected office for about fifty years. He has no idea what is going on. The chaos at the southern border should also be seen as a national security issue. Both Biden and Mayorkas are failing to do their jobs. Their most important job requirement is to keep the United States safe. Immigration is a federal issue but when the federal government fails to act, what choice is there for border states?

Despite his legal problems, Paxton is expected to win the run-off. 2022 Texas Primary Runoff Election Day is May 24.

Our Era Of The Evil Dem Fems LED BY DAME PELOSI!

Democrats are suddenly embracing a congressional stock-trading ban

JAZZ SHAW Apr 30, 2022 10:01 AM ET

 Share  Tweet  

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

There are a number of nervous Democrats in Congress that are searching for some sort of “win” to put up on the scoreboard before the midterm elections come washing over them. With most of their big-ticket (and widely unpopular) agenda items bogged down, some are looking at a possible ban on stock market trading by members of both chambers as one piece of low-hanging fruit that they might be able to get into the books. This is an issue that shows up in the news from time to time but never seems to garner much momentum in Congress. The underlying questions are the obvious issues of the propriety of members making bets on the stock market involving companies that they themselves are charged with regulating, potentially impacting the value of those stocks. There are currently bills in both chambers that would impose some type of restrictions along these lines and they have each gained considerably more cosponsors than similar measures in the past. But that doesn’t mean that either one of them will ever find their way to Joe Biden’s desk, at least in part because of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s seeming lack of enthusiasm for the subject. (Associated Press)

When Rep. Abigail Spanberger first introduced a bill banning stock trading by members of Congress and their families, the Virginia Democrat managed to get only eight co-sponsors. So far this session, 62 — or about one out of every seven House members — have signed on.

It’s a similar story in the Senate. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., a once lonely voice on the issue, had just one co-sponsor for his proposed stock trading ban in the last two congressional sessions. Now, he has nine.

The uptick in support reflects a growing lawmaker appetite to tighten the rules around trading after several members faced heavy scrutiny for their stock transactions during the pandemic.

I’ve always been of two minds on this subject. My inner capitalist recoils at the idea of forbidding anyone – including members of Congress – from having the opportunity to enrich themselves legally. If any of our congressmen want to go out and make some extra cash mowing lawns in their spare time, that’s up to them, provided they are showing up for work and getting their legislative jobs accomplished. The same should be true for investing.

At the same time, however, there clearly are issues to consider when we have people who pass regulations on companies or enact other legislation on entire industries that could impact their stock values trading in those companies’ shares. You don’t have to technically be an “insider” at a publicly-traded company to engage in insider trading. If you know, for example, that there will soon be a bill introduced that will significantly benefit the electric car industry and you run out and start buying up Tesla stock before the news breaks, you have used knowledge not available to the public to turn yourself a profit.

The situation becomes even more complicated when you include the spouses and other family members of the senators and congressional representatives. The way the law is currently set up, members of Congress and most other government employees have to report the purchase or sale of stocks, bonds, and commodities within either 30 or 45 days, depending on the total value involved. But that doesn’t seem to be working very well because the rules don’t stop them from trading in stocks that may be influenced by congressional action. Also, as the linked report points out, there are quite a few members who are regularly either late making those disclosures or never report them at all.

It’s curious that one of the people who has been less than supportive of these types of regulations is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She has drawn a lot of attention over the very lucrative stock portfolios held by both herself and her husband. The Pelosis have reportedly banked upwards of $30 million from their investment plans. It eventually became so obvious that one investment manager launched a product called the “Insider Portfolio” that mimics all of the stock transactions made by Pelosi and her husband. (If you are truly curious about Nancy Pelosi’s trades, you can monitor them here.)

It seems to me that we should be able to get this issue under control without a total ban. If members’ trades are monitored more rigorously, with significant penalties for non-compliance, that would be a start. Also, Any trades made in advance of announcements that would clearly impact a stock’s price should be able to be flagged by an independent auditor, with penalties being charged to those who seem to be gaming the system. The bottom line is, if they think nobody is watching, some of them will try to benefit in this fashion. But if they know that any further insider trading could drain their bank accounts or endanger their phony-baloney jobs, they’ll probably behave a bit better.

“….a model of Nebraska’s “clean energy future,” teaching Nebraskans how to achieve decarbonization”.

April 30, 2022

How to Turn a Whole State’s Power Production to Wind and Solar Dreams

By Joe Herring at American Thinker:

Many ideas considered radical a decade ago now enjoy mainstream support in the environmentalist movement.  Demands to “decarbonize” electricity production are proceeding apace despite the limitations of generating electricity reliably and affordably from renewable sources alone.

The technology to store energy simply hasn’t kept pace with our ability to generate it, leaving renewable sources like wind and solar handicapped by their inherent intermittency.  Consequently, renewables provide only a fraction of Nebraska’s energy needs and find economic viability only through a regime of heavy government subsidy

Despite this technological deficiency, clean energy advocates still insist we decommission “dirty” sources sooner rather than later.  Cities and regions who have done so have encountered grave disruptions in production and delivery, resulting in rolling blackouts, brownouts, and at times grid failure under heavy demand.

This is not entirely by accident.

Artificial scarcity raises prices, which in turn reduces consumption, a prime goal of the modern environmental movement.  When combined with mandated lifestyle changes and forced energy retrofits to homes and businesses, renewables advocates claim that the lower production capabilities of clean energy won’t be a problem, being offset by lower demand from consumers.

However, this strategy ignores the problem of meeting baseline energy needs for manufacturing, communications, internet, medical facilities, and even the charging of electric vehicles, none of which is an elective use of power.

Nebraska has 166 publicly owned utilities, including cooperatives and public power districts, serving approximately 1.9 million residents.  We are the only state served entirely by publicly owned utilities.  This publicly owned structure keeps costs low by removing the profit motive from the equation. 

Omaha Public Power District, Nebraska Public Power District, and Lincoln Electrical System are the major players in power generation in our state and are governed by elected boards, which, according to activist group Nebraska Conservation Voters, now boast majorities of “clean energy advocates.”

Races for public power boards aren’t known as high-spending affairs, so the influx of substantial amounts to one candidate over another can easily swing a race.  A good example can be found in the campaign of Aaron Troester, a farmer from O’Neill, Nebraska, who is now the representative for Subdivision 2 on the NPPD board.

A group calling themselves Nebraskans Against Corruption (NAC) sent out a direct mail piece in support of Troester, touting him as the candidate who “will stand up to NG&T  [sic] and stop the corruption.”

“NG&T” refers to the Nebraska Electric Generation and Transmission cooperative, who supported Troester’s opponent.  NEG&T supports an “all of the above” philosophy toward electricity generation that includes renewable sources when available but stops short of using them exclusively.

Advocates of maintaining a diverse base of electricity generation sources are derided as obstacles to innovation and dismissed out of hand by the environmentalist movement’s policy and funding hegemons, effectively shutting them out of the discussion.

“Decarbonizing” the production of electricity leaves no room for an “all of the above” viewpoint.  Adopting a “carbon neutral” system necessitates mothballing coal- and natural gas–fueled plants, and along with them any dissenting opinion.

Troester denied any knowledge of Nebraskans Against Corruption.  However, his denial is weakened, as his largest contributor (very nearly his only contributor), a group known as Nebraskans for Common Ground (NCG), is the sole funder of Nebraskans Against Corruption and a part of its leadership.

Along with a third group, Nebraskans for Fiscal Responsibility (NFR) this trio of “grassroots” independent committees have funneled hundreds of thousands of out-of-state dollars directly into Nebraska’s public power board campaigns. 

Dividing money from a central source among numerous “cutouts” is intended to give the impression of a larger network enjoying broad popular support, despite many such organizations existing almost entirely on paper alone.  The three “Nebraskans” groups are an example of this tactic, known as AstroTurfing.

Nebraskans for Common Ground has little online presence, with only a Facebook page launched in September of 2020 and dormant ever since.  A vibrant citizen action group would be expected to have far more points of engagement with its supporters than a social media page with eight followers.

Nebraskans Against Corruption spent a little over $7,200 of NCG money in support of Troester, along with nearly $7,000 for Mary Harding and another $4,800 for Sheila Hubbard.  All three were candidates for NPPD, with only Hubbard failing to win a seat.

NCG gave Troester more than $72,000 in cash.  Between the NCG and NAC, Troester received nearly $80,000 in cash and in-kind support to win a race that typically sees total expenditures closer to a quarter of that amount.

All three “Nebraskans” groups are under the care of Lincoln Electric System board member Chelsea Johnson, also deputy director for Nebraska Conservation Voters (NCV) (State Senator Eliot Bostar is the executive director), which is the state-level arm of the League of Conservation Voters, a Washington, D.C.–based environmentalist organization that receives a great deal of its funding from the San Francisco–based Sea Change Foundation. 

Each of Johnson’s groups was established entirely with LCV cash.

The Sea Change Foundation is presently the subject of congressional inquiry, suspected of channeling hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian interests (including the Russian government) to environmental activists in the United States to convince Americans to abandon reliable energy sources in the name of climate change.  The goal is to hamstring America’s economy with high energy prices, an unreliable power supply, and unpredictable economic outcomes.

The Troester campaign is but one of many influenced by Ms. Johnson’s careful management of LCV’s money.  Similar stories attach to other NPPD candidates, including current board members Charlie Kennedy, Mary Harding, Bill Hoyt, and Melissa Freelend, who, along with Troester, give NPPD a board stacked with five “clean energy advocates” courtesy of national and international money.

There were a few others unable to leverage their LCV campaign windfall into victory on the NPPD board, but Ms. Johnson found additional success on the OPPD board, backing current chair Amanda Bogner, current secretary Janece Mollhoff, and member Sara Howard with significant sums and in-kind contributions.

The amounts involved are indeed startling, especially when considering the relatively low profile of the races the money funded. 

According to filings with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission, in the 2020 election cycle alone, nearly $600,000 was spent by the League of Conservation Voters (or their PACs) on Nebraska races for seats on the Public Power boards, a smattering of Democrat party groups, and a state Senate race (Eliot Bostar for Legislature).

Nearly all dollars passed through Nebraskans for Common Ground on its way to hand-picked candidates.

According to the Nebraska Conservation Voters website, they have “won 88% of their targeted races.”

Both NPPD and OPPD started community solar programs, and Nebraska saw more wind energy growth than most other states in 2018 and 2019. In November of 2019, OPPD set the state’s first decarbonization goal of net-zero carbon by 2050. 

In November 2020, LES followed suit and set a net-zero carbon by 2040 goal, and on December 9th, 2021, NPPD set a net-zero carbon by 2050 goal. Nearly every Nebraskan now receives electricity from a utility committed to carbon neutrality.

The commitment made by NPPD prompted Bostar to say,

This is a historic moment for every single Nebraskan. NPPD’s vote to decarbonize highlights what we have known for years — that Nebraskans from every corner of our state support investing in clean energy and reducing pollution because it makes good environmental and economic sense.

As Bostar and those in his orbit describe it, the grassroots of Nebraska have stood up to the monied, polluting interests in our state to demand we remove the “carbon” from our electricity generation. 

Despite creating an impression of broad-based support, the Conservation Voter Movement in Nebraska is much less a “movement” than a well planned and strategically orchestrated campaign funding scheme that has seized functional control of our Public Power systems. 

Bostar, though born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, occasionally visited relatives near York, NE as a child.  He returned to Nebraska as an adult to hitch his wagon to the protest against the Keystone XL pipeline project led by BOLD Nebraska and Jane Kleeb, helping in the construction of their “Clean Energy Barn,” a small structure built in the path of the pipeline Kleeb billed as “powered 100% by renewable energy.”

Featuring both wind and solar power generation on site, the structure was heralded as a model of Nebraska’s “clean energy future,” teaching Nebraskans how to achieve decarbonization.

However, according to information provided by the local public power utility that services the area, the “Clean Energy Barn” routinely relied on electricity generated by coal-fired power plants for more than a third of its total energy consumption.  This, despite the barn being roughly the size of a detached two-car garage.

Undeterred by the failure of their project, Bostar regrouped, and, acting as the conduit for money from the League of Conservation Voters and the League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund (operated out of New York City), he set about taking control of Nebraska’s Public Power systems by overwhelming other candidates with a torrent of east-coast and international cash. 

Absent the campaign-altering dollars administered by Chelsea Johnson and Eliot Bostar, and had they relied solely on “grassroots” support, the “Nebraskans” groups would likely have had little to no effect on the election.

The infusion of campaign funds against which few candidates can hope to compete has succeeded so far in avoiding public scrutiny while achieving a sea change in philosophy on how to run our consumer-owned public utilities. 

No longer does providing reliable and affordable energy form the mainstay of our public power mission.  Thanks to hundreds of thousands of special interest dollars so far, and more to come, our names may still be on the deed to our public power systems, but the control now belongs to an environmentalist elite who are using our utilities to pursue their own agenda.  They make the decisions now; we just get to pay for them.

The author writes from Omaha, Nebraska and welcomes visitors to his website, www.dailyherring.com.  He is also the chief investigative reporter for Nebraska Sunrise News.

“Restoring Trump’s account and getting him to post again would be a potential moneymaker….”

Report: Musk dismayed by Twitter’s “insane” decision to ban Trump

ALLAHPUNDIT Apr 29, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

Britta Pedersen/Pool via AP

Very encouraging that the new owner thinks it was bad form to silence a guy who had just incited a riot by conspiracy theorists at the Capitol and seemed capable of inciting a lot more amidst his mania to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump can rest easy now knowing that his mic won’t be cut the next time he tries a coup, I guess.

This report from the WSJ makes me consider a question to which only Elon Musk himself knows the answer. Namely, to what extent is buying a Twitter a business decision for him? Does he feel pure altruism in wanting to improve an influential communications platform by, among other things, trying to ensure that it treats all of its users fairly? Or are there bottom-line considerations?

I ask because it seems to me that having Donald Trump back on the platform would be good for business in various ways. Yeah, fine, “free speech” and all that. But there’s money to be made too.

People who have spoken to him and his team recently say Mr. Musk remains dismayed that former President Donald Trump is still barred from the platform…

The move riled Mr. Musk, who had previously described himself as “half Democrat half Republican” and endorsed Andrew Yang for the Democratic nomination in 2020.

Mr. Birchall—Mr. Musk’s de facto No. 2—in a text message to an associate described his boss’s view as: “He vehemently disagrees with censoring. Especially for a sitting president. Insane.” Mr. Trump has said he has no plans to tweet again.

There’s evidence that Musk’s motives really are altruistic. Reportedly he spoke to the head of the Babylon Bee in March to confirm that the site had been suspended for goofing on a transgender Biden official as its “Man of the Year” and speculated that he might have to buy Twitter as a result. He and Jack Dorsey also allegedly share a belief that Twitter should be privately held rather than publicly owned so that it can focus on being a “public good” rather than maximizing shareholder profits.

But restoring Trump’s account and getting him to post again would be a potential moneymaker in several ways. It would be a singular advertisement that the culture at Twitter really has changed dramatically, which may convince many more conservatives to sign up for the site. It would be buzzy to the general public too, piquing interest in Twitter due to curiosity about what Trump would say once he’s back on. It could undercut Trump’s own platform, Truth Social, by depriving TS of its chief attraction. And if Trump ends up back in the White House in 2025, Musk’s show of goodwill might earn him some federal regulatory goodwill in return for his various businesses. Trump would have no moral qualms about using state power to benefit a celebrity like Musk who did him a personal favor by restoring his Twitter account, particularly given how much criticism Musk would take from anti-Trumpers for doing so.

Leave Trump aside, though, and return to the question of whether acquiring Twitter is a money-maker or a money-loser for Musk. Does the company have any big-picture financial value to him? Some argue that it does. Musk is a master of the “attention economy” who’s used his gigantic audience to promote Tesla in ways that have made the company many times more valuable than it would be from a traditional “revenue minus expenditures” perspective. “Being the world’s most recognisable businessman – the constant focus of attention – gives him a unique personal ability to move markets,” wrote one analyst this week, noting that Tesla’s total net income after a decade of selling electric vehicles is -$350 million. Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine made a similar point:

Tesla is a company, a relatively small car company, that makes good high-end electric cars, right? And the stock-market value of Tesla, which makes Elon Musk the richest person in the world, comes from a lot of extreme optimism about Tesla’s future ability to make more cars and become the dominant player in car-making as cars become more electric. Also, he’s just, like, a sort of futurist visionary—he’s building tunnels that he seems to think will be the future of transportation. He’s sending rockets into space. And so the value of these companies in the market is largely derived from expectations around how much money they’ll make in the future, as opposed to how much money they’ve made in the past. And those expectations are probably helped by having a charismatic, noisy founder who makes a lot of jokes online and is sort of a science-fiction character himself, and portrays himself as a science-fiction character, and who appeals to people who like that by making jokes…

He might say, “Look, I get so much value out of this direct access to the public.” Owning that direct access to the public—owning that thing that creates so much value for Elon Musk and Tesla—it has to be valuable somehow, whether it’s by increasing the value that it creates for Tesla, or whether it’s by finding a way to monetize the value that it creates for sports stars and celebrities and Donald Trump and lots of other people.

For Musk, Twitter is a hype machine. And by owning it, Musk could conceivably figure out ways to amplify his ability to create hype and draw public attention to his projects even further.

But … enough to justify a $44 billion price tag? When he’s already buddies with Twitter bigwigs like Dorsey, leaving him at little risk of ever being banned and losing his platform? That’s hard to grok.

And it gets harder once you begin to consider the effect this episode is having on Tesla’s value. I sure hope Musk sees financial potential in Twitter because if this is an altruistic endeavor it’s become an extremely expensive one:

Why did Tesla tank when Musk went public with his designs on Twitter? Read Jonathan Last for a likely explanation. Musk is financing his Twitter takeover with margin loans, using Tesla shares as collateral. But the catch with those loans is that if the shares fall below a certain price, the banks can seize them and immediately sell them to pay down the loan. As you might imagine, those sales will drive the price down further — which may cross another margin-loan threshold, triggering further sales by lenders. And suddenly there’s a downward spiral, or at least enough of a possibility of a downward spiral that other Tesla investors may get spooked and try to offload their shares before the price drops again.

And of course, those panic sales drive the price even lower.

Not a big deal for the richest man in the world, who won’t starve if his shares tank. But a very big deal for lesser Tesla investors.

Reportedly Musk has a lot of his shares in Tesla leveraged, which means there may be an ongoing wave of lenders putting those shares up for sale as the price falls further. Last wonders why the hell the board of Tesla didn’t try to stop the Twitter deal, knowing what impact a cascade of margin loans taken out by Musk might have on the company’s value. For our limited purpose here, though, it’s enough to say that the 20 percent downturn in Tesla’s price is a major complicating factor in weighing whether buying Twitter was a good business decision for Musk. For the moment, it looks like a bad one.

And A Gangster Too Far!!

APRIL 30, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine:


It’s been a few days since we checked in on one of President Biden’s appearances and remarks. Yesterday the White House staged a “Meeting with Inspectors General to Discuss his Long-Standing Commitment to Oversight, Accountability, and Transparency When Delivering Results for All Americans,” as the caption on the White House video puts it. Biden spoke after several of those in attendance made remarks that he seemed to follow in a notebook in front of him.

The White House transcript of Biden’s remarks begins in medias res at about 7:30 of the video and omits the mind-numbing comments of those who spoke before Biden’s own mind-numbing comments. Biden began with a walk down memory lane that set the theme of his remarks:

When you’re — these are some of the — the Recovery Act was about $900 billion and the President used to always — President Obama used to like to always kid with me when he did the State of the Union message. He’d never tell me what he was going to say because I presided over the — the joint session as Vice President. And when we — it was a big gamble to decide we were going to spend $900 billion trying to get the economy back on its feet.

And the President said, “And, by the way, we’re going to make sure I’m turning it over to Joe.” And he started calling me “Sheriff Joe.” Well, the first thing I did was go to Earl Devaney and other inspectors general and said, “Look, we’re going to need a lot of work here.”

Because, look, the one thing I’ve learned — and you did when you were the mayor — and — is that people expect us to do what we say, and they don’t always get what they expect from elected officials.

He seemed challenged to recall Obama’s name, but more to the point: what was Biden talking about? Even students of ancient history may be challenged to recall the $900 billion to which Biden referred.

Biden was alluding to the unnamed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that authorized “stimulus” spending to launch “shovel-ready” projects in the name of bringing back the good times. The pitch was “shovel-ready,” the projects not so much.

It didn’t take long for sentient observers to note the failure of the bill to perform as advertised. By 2010, despite, or perhaps because of, the supervision of “Sheriff Joe,” Obama acknowledged that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” when it comes to public works. Michael Barone drew a slightly different lesson from the spending fiasco:

The $787 billion stimulus package passed in February [Ed.: It turned out to be closer to $900 billion], we were told, would hold unemployment down to 8 percent. It reached 9.5 percent in June, and economists of all political stripes believe[d] it w[ould] rise further.

Obama let congressional appropriators write the stimulus package, and they larded it with pet projects that w[ould]n’t come on line for years.

This was predictable–and widely predicted. Obama let congressional appropriators write the stimulus package, and they larded it with pet projects that won’t come on line for years. Immediate deficit dollars were channeled to state and local governments, to insulate public employee unions from the sharp edges of the recession. Obama might have set down markers to Congress, insisting that a larger share of funds be spent much sooner. He declined to do so.

By 2012, Obama jocularly put it this way: “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” Yuk yuk.

Where had you gone, Sheriff Joe? Our nation turned its lonely eyes to you.

According to Biden speaking yesterday, however, that $900 billion bill “was heralded as one of the most well-run programs in American history, in terms of size, scope, and did it do what it said it was going to do.” Anthony Randazzo’s 2913 study of the act for Reason concluded “Stimulus jobs vanish!”

Yesterday’s show had a point. The point was that the gusher of federal spending Biden has unleashed will be well spent — on dilapidated bridges and the like — to achieve the advertised purpose. The history that Biden vaguely recalled at the outset of his remarks does not exactly support the proposition. Sheriff Joe, “What’s past is prologue” would be more like it.

Quotable quote: “No, I’m not joking. I — I really mean it.”

Mr. Biden, Our gangster president graduated from Delaware who practiced his skills in the Senate for around 40 years. He has fit and skilled the Dem fascists in Congress who elected him American president illegally in 2020.


Man with 41% approval rating ready to take it to Republicans on the campaign trail

ALLAHPUNDIT Apr 29, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

This will end in tears.

In 2010, the year of the ObamaCare backlash, Obama didn’t campaign for a single House candidate — except one. Whether that was by mutual agreement that his presence on the trail would be “unhelpful” or because House Dems simply weren’t inviting him to their districts, The One stayed away from individual races. Which was a rational strategy. The last thing a party wants to do is remind angry voters why they’re angry.

But in the waning days of the campaign, Obama made an exception. He swooped into Virginia to support Tom Perriello, a loud-and-proud liberal who had flipped a red district in the Democratic wave year of 2008 and then boldly voted for ObamaCare despite the risk that posed to his candidacy. “We always say we want integrity from our elected officials. And you know what? This is a test case in Charlottesville,” Obama told an excited crowd at a rally for Perriello held a few days before the election.

Perriello lost. Democrats got wiped out nationally.

Maybe Biden has reflected on all of that and concluded that things would have turned out differently if only Obama *had* campaigned more aggressively that fall. Whereas I reflect on it and conclude that a president whose approval is in the mid- to low 40s is a major liability to his party whose presence on the trail is, at best, no help.

But look at it this way. Given the magnitude of the Republican landslide that’s shaping up, Biden probably can’t make things much worse. If he’s looking for an excuse to throw roundhouses at the right knowing that his party is doomed either way, he might as well turn the midterms into a personal soapbox.

He’s gearing up for intense midterm campaigning built around hammering Republicans, as he tries to save Democrats in the House and Senate, but also to tee up a reelection campaign that for now is expected to be announced by next spring.

Biden is frustrated that journalists aren’t calling out Republicans for, as he sees it, giving up their principles in pursuit of power, according to a dozen people familiar with the President and his inner circle. He’s eager to unleash on the GOP ahead of the midterm elections but worries that doing so could endanger his last remaining hopes for bipartisan legislative wins…

Just as Trump is using his midterm endorsements and rallies to cut what could be a path of his own for 2024, Biden sees the next six months as his own opportunity to capitalize on his brand.

“He’s like Scranton in his mind,” said one person who has spoken to the President, referring to the Pennsylvania town where Biden was born and that he often references. “There was a boom, then a bust, but the value hasn’t changed. Only the fleeting market interest has.”

Biden doesn’t have a “brand.” And there was never any real “market interest” in him. His brand in 2020 was Not Trump, which only works when Trump himself is on the ballot. Dems are hoping to re-create that dynamic this year now that Trump is back on the trail himself and campaigning for candidates like J.D. Vance, but I’m skeptical that it’ll work for two reasons. One: Trump was also a presence in Glenn Youngkin’s gubernatorial race last November and that didn’t stop Virginians from preferring Youngkin to Democratic establishment retread Terry McAuliffe.

Two: Uhhhhhhhhh…


I’m skeptical that Trump’s approval rating is really that high but go figure that some “soft” anti-Trumpers might be nostalgic for the Trump economy as terrible new inflation reports trickle in day by day. CNN reports today that “Biden keeps telling his team that if he can just get out of the White House more he’ll be able to convince more people — Americans and lawmakers — to support his agenda,” a line that made me laugh out loud and not just because oratory isn’t Joe Biden’s strong suit. His “agenda” in the eyes of most voters is high inflation, full stop. He can stand there for an hour at a rally and babble about Build Back Better or whatever but the reality of life in America during the Biden presidency will remain what it is.

Which brings us to this new data from Marist:


The Emerson poll mentioned above also sees gruesome numbers for Biden among Hispanics, with his approval currently 35/60 among that group. The share of Hispanics who say the economy is the most important issue facing the country is also the largest of any demographic. A working-class cohort struggling through a period of skyrocketing inflation doesn’t want to hear much about the president’s “agenda,” I’d imagine.

There’s news from RCP today as well. The Republican lead in the generic ballot is now the biggest it’s been all year, thanks partly to rosy data from some right-leaning outfits:

Not since November of 2021 have Democrats touched as high as 44 percent on the generic ballot. The midterms are going to be ugly.

The best one can do in finding good news for liberals today is this new Ipsos data suggesting that the culture wars over education, e.g., CRT and “don’t say gay,” don’t seem to matter much to most parents. “Just 18% of parents say their child’s school taught about gender and sexuality in a way that clashed with their family’s values; just 19% say the same about race and racism; and just 14% feel that way about U.S. history.” Eighteen percent is a big game-changing number *if* it includes a meaningful share of swing voters. But the people complaining about indoctrination in this poll are probably righties who were already committed to voting Republican this fall.

The New York Times has become an organ for outrageous political propaganda worthy of Pravda in Soviet Union days.  

Who has House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy under surveillance?

By David Zukerman at American Thinker:

Two recent articles in The New York Times indicate that not only is the Times doing its best to keep “Jan. 6” alive as a distraction from the disastrous Biden presidency, but it has concocted an illusory scenario where the “attack” on the Capitol on “Jan. 6” was merely the opening assault of a threat to the country instigated by “far right” Republican lawmakers.  These articles suggest, further, that The Times is beneficiary of individuals who have senior GOP members of Congress under surveillance, if not the recipient of audio of phone conversations “obtained” from Republican moles.  (Liz Cheney, after all, was among the GOP House members addressed by Kevin McCarthy, January 10 and 11, 2021.)  Finally, the articles suggest that House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy is either a fool or an agent for the Democrats.  The articles appeared in The Times on April 23 and April 27.

The April 23 narrative, “McCarthy Said/Trump Took on/Blame for Riot,” is bylined Jonathan Martin, Alexander Burns, and Neil Vigdor.

The April 27 narrative, “McCarthy Raised Alarm/About G.O.P. Colleagues,” is attributed to Burns and Martin.

The April 23 story cites “new audio” as the source of the material set forth in the story — that President Trump accepted some blame for “Jan. 6.”  The April 27 article relates: “Audio recordings of [incendiary] comments [by Republican members of Congress] were obtained in reporting for a forthcoming book, ‘This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden and the Battle for America’s Future.'”  (This book is also cited in the April 23 piece.)

 Neither article mentions that Burns and Martin are the authors of the book; neither article reveals how Burns and Martin “obtained” the audio of conversations between Mr. McCarthy and select House Republicans that took place on January 10 and 11, 2021.

According to the April 23 story, the “audio” in question “is part of a series of revelations about Republican leaders’ private condemnations of Mr. Trump in the days after his supporters stormed the Capitol.”  The assertion that Donald J. Trump “may have admitted some measure of culpability for the deadly mob” was made, allegedly, in a Jan. 11, 2021 conference call with House Republican leaders.  The Times said Mr. McCarthy was dishonest for subsequently denying that he called on President Trump to resign.  The April 23 story included the observation that “[t]he book [by Burns and Martin] … has quickly become an embarrassment and a potential political problem for Mr. McCarthy.”  (One may wonder that this comment amounts to a blurb to stir sales of the tome among leftists, which would have the two pieces as little more than promotion for anti-GOP propaganda.)

The April 23 contention that a “deadly mob” was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 is perhaps the greatest insertion of mendacity yet in the left’s “Jan. 6.” narrative.  The one violent death, of Ashli Babbitt, was the result of shooting by a Capitol policeman. 

According to the April 23 story, the “audio” in question “is part of a series of revelations about Republican leaders’ private condemnations of Mr. Trump in the days after his supporters stormed the Capitol.”  The assertion that Donald J. Trump “may have admitted some measure of culpability for the deadly mob” was made, allegedly, in a Jan. 11, 2021 conference call with House Republican leaders.  The Times said Mr. McCarthy was dishonest for subsequently denying that he called on President Trump to resign.  The April 23 story included the observation that “[t]he book [by Burns and Martin] … has quickly become an embarrassment and a potential political problem for Mr. McCarthy.”  (One may wonder that this comment amounts to a blurb to stir sales of the tome among leftists, which would have the two pieces as little more than promotion for anti-GOP propaganda.)

The April 23 contention that a “deadly mob” was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 is perhaps the greatest insertion of mendacity yet in the left’s “Jan. 6.” narrative.  The one violent death, of Ashli Babbitt, was the result of shooting by a Capitol policeman.  There should be no doubt whatsoever that The New York Times has become an organ for outrageous political propaganda worthy of Pravda in Soviet Union days.  This statement, for example, April 27, has not a jot or tittle of newsworthy journalism: in his quest for the speakership, “Mr. McCarthy has spent much of the last year forging a closer political partnership with the far right, showing little public concern that his most extreme colleagues could instigate bloodshed with their overheated or hateful rhetoric.”

The foregoing quote is a call to arms, not journalism, I submit.  And note how the title of the Burns and Martin book talks not of politics, but “the Battle for American’s Future.”  Republican “leaders” like Kevin McCarthy seem, at best, ignorant that a furious battle is underway — and thus are ready to denounce Republican realists for daring to scan the battlefield.  For a leftist, after all, a Republican realist is a “far right extremist.”

Now, who taped McCarthy’s January 10 and 11, 2021 comments to his leadership group, and how did those remarks reach The New York Times?  Republican populists want to know.

days.  This statement, for example, April 27, has not a jot or tittle of newsworthy journalism: in his quest for the speakership, “Mr. McCarthy has spent much of the last year forging a closer political partnership with the far right, showing little public concern that his most extreme colleagues could instigate bloodshed with their overheated or hateful rhetoric.”

The foregoing quote is a call to arms, not journalism, I submit.  And note how the title of the Burns and Martin book talks not of politics, but “the Battle for American’s Future.”  Republican “leaders” like Kevin McCarthy seem, at best, ignorant that a furious battle is underway — and thus are ready to denounce Republican realists for daring to scan the battlefield.  For a leftist, after all, a Republican realist is a “far right extremist.”

Now, who taped McCarthy’s January 10 and 11, 2021 comments to his leadership group, and how did those remarks reach The New York Times?  Republican populists want to know.




Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was unaccountably denied a public defender to appeal of his convictions in the death of George Floyd. Bill Mohrman answered my call for a Minnesota attorney to represent Chauvin on appeal. Bill filed his brief on behalf of Chauvin this week. It is posted online here. Derek Chauvin’s mother has set up a page to support the expenses of appeal here.

Bill’s leading argument on appeal is that pretrial publicity and related riots required a change of venue. As we noted repeatedly during trial, the martial security that protected the courthouse graphically represented the issue. So did the anticipation of riots in the event of an acquittal.

The 24-story Hennepin County Government Center was closed to everything but the trial for reasons of security. Barricades and secure fencing topped with concertina wire surrounded the perimeter. The massive building was off limits to nearly everyone who wasn’t involved in the trial. The building was locked down and everyone — and I mean everyone — knew why.

We will be living with the devastating consequences of George Floyd’s death in Minnesota for a generation. The Minnesota Human Rights Department charge against the Minneapolis police earlier this week is just the latest chapter in the saga. A few contrarians might speak up publicly on behalf of the police to contest the merits of the charge even though it is dubious in critical respects. Good luck trying to get access to the 480,000 pages of documents and other material the department compiled in the course of its investigation.

The adversary process is intended to get at the truth. It doesn’t work if two sides aren’t represented and heard. Although Chauvin has pleaded guilty to the criminal civil rights charge in the duplicative federal case, Chauvin’s appeal of the murder convictions in the state case warrants resolution in its own right.