• 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

Has Paul Mirengoff Ever Visited Rural Town Minnesota?

CARLSON’S COMPLAINT REVISITED

by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

Steve Hayward’s post about an upcoming event with Tucker Carlson, which Steve will moderate, refocused my attention on Carlson’s controversial monologue in early January. I wrote about it here .

I concluded my post, which praised Carlson for his “insights and plausible, thought-provoking claims” about the problems in rural America, by saying that he avoided the question of “personal responsibility.” I did not elaborate. I want to do so now.

Carlson said that “in many ways, rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.” This may be an exaggeration, but let us assume it to be true.

When conservatives discuss the plight of places like Detroit, we typically mention social pathology, as Carlson did in his monologue. Symptoms include kids leaving school early, girls having babies, fathers assuming little or no responsibility for these babies, youths choosing crime as a way of life, adults preferring welfare to work, and so forth.

Carlson blamed these problems on “big government” and conservatives agree that government policies have contributed to them. But each problem is founded on bad personal choices. Those who make these choices bear some responsibility for the adverse consequences they produce. Thus, conservatives typically insist that the concept of personal responsibility have a place in the discussion.

If we’re going to insist on personal responsibility in the context of Detroit, we should insist on it in the context of “rural America.” Arguably, we should be more insistent, since rural Americans were never subjected to systematic racial discrimination.

But the concept of personal responsibility didn’t make it into Carlson’s rant. Its absence became apparent to me when he complained that males in rural America are lagging behind their female counterparts. Carlson plausibly blamed the demoralization of the rural male population, and its inability to marry, on this phenomenon.

But why are white males lagging behind females? They attend the same schools. They come from the same families. In these families, I assume, parents expect their sons to achieve at least as much as their daughters.

Why aren’t they? Carlson notes that job opportunities in traditionally male jobs are shrinking in rural America, while jobs in traditionally female jobs are holding steady. But is that the entire story? Men are not barred from jobs in schools and hospitals. Nor are they barred from learning skills that will help them land jobs in other flourishing sectors.

Thus, to the extent that young males in rural and rust belt America aren’t doing as well as young females, I think it’s due in part to bad choices they make — e.g., using drugs, not taking school seriously, choosing leisure over work. J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy, a book that highlighted the crisis in parts of rural and rust belt America that Carlson picks up, is populated with folks who made such choices. But it also includes some, and not just Vance himself (a special case), who made better choices and thrived as a result.

Carlson blames the lack of thriving in rural America on market capitalism and greedy elites — mercenaries, he calls them. I believe that, just as with Detroit, some of the blame must reside with the people making choices that are inconsistent with success in life.

Is this point worth making or should we take the bad decisions people make as a given — something we must work around? The answer is that, philosophical concerns to one side, as a matter of policy making we can’t ignore, or work around, the concept of personal responsibility.

In the case of “Detroit,” we must decide how far to go in order to improve, in the short term, the material condition of the population. How much should we spend on welfare? How lenient should we be with criminals? Should there be monetary reparations? Should there be forced integration?

In the case of rural America, the policy questions prompted by Carlson are different. How much trade protection should certain American industries receive? To what extent should we limit legal immigration?

The answer in both cases depends in part on how much weight we place on the concept of personal responsibility. Those who take the concept seriously will be less inclined to transfer vast amounts of money, or to tolerate high risk associated with the early release of criminals, than those who don’t.

They will also be less inclined to think Americans should pay more for consumer goods as a result of trade barriers and restrictions on the number of people who can work in the U.S. They may ask how much more they should pay for cars because males in rural America are making irresponsible personal choices.

The best answer might well be “somewhat more.” Even for conservatives, the concept of personal responsibility isn’t absolute. We are willing to spend a considerable amount of money on welfare even though we know that if recipients made better choices, we would be able to spend considerably less.

Without some sense of empathy and national solidarity — some notion that we are all in this together — America is in big trouble. But we’re also in big trouble if we place the concept of personal responsibility off-limits in our policy discussions.

Dear Mr. Mirengoff ….I presume you cross the border into  Minnesota from time to time.  Or do you fly in to the Twin City airport from your flat on Manhattan or where ever?
Have you ever  been to, through  Ely,  Duluth,  Ada, Hill City,  Grand Rapids,  Willmar, Roseau,  Fulda, and nearly every other  forced learning places where Goopherland  lefty  fascism isn’t dictated  at “schools”?   Have you noticed the steady decay of small town MAIN STREET Minnesota since Billy Clinton sold NAFTA to the Western Hemisphere about 25 years ago?
How many farmsteads have the Soviets disappeared from our  Gopherland since then, Mr. Mirengoff?   How many shops?…..  locally owned restaurants, and garden centers?
Have you found a locally made cup of coffee at Minnesota small town Main Street cafe recently?  Ten years ago?   Twenty years ago?    How many locally owned clothing stores have disappeared during that span?
Capitalism has come to stink when small town folk are crushed when  BIG MONEY INVESTORS and PROFITEERING AMAZONS RULE THE WORLD AND DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT UNCLE SAM’S RURAL MINNESOTAS.
CARSON IS CORRECT with his statement you’ve suggested below…  Where have you been?   Ditsy feminists and feminazis of all sexes, shapes, and sizes “own” our Minnesota schools these days.  Truth is of no matter to these modern  Dems.  FEELINGS, especially the femmy  ones are in vogue these days.
Carlson said that “in many ways, rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.” This may be an exaggeration, but let us assume it to be true.
Wake up Mr. Mirengoff at PowerLine!   The human male is bored when schools are run by morons.   Gals go whereever gals hangout.  Have you ever examined the k through 12th grade curriculum results in Minnesota schools lately ?
Mirengoff wonders:  “But why are white males lagging behind females? They attend the same schools. They come from the same families. In these families, I assume, parents expect their sons to achieve at least as much as their daughters.”
Mirengoff blames people making choices:  “Carlson blames the lack of thriving in rural America on market capitalism and greedy elites — mercenaries, he calls them. I believe that, just as with Detroit, some of the blame must reside with the people making choices that are inconsistent with success in life”.

Reviewing the Murder of Abortion

How Democrats’ Obsession With Abortion is Helping the Evangelical Church

by Michael Brown  at   the Stream:                   Article sent by Mark Waldeland.

It is a cycle dating back at least to the days of President Bill Clinton. Evangelical leaders call for urgent prayer because of a “godless” president. We cry out for revival. We hold special prayer rallies. We mobilize believers to vote. Then, when we win the next elections, we take our foot off the gas and we go back to complacency.

That has been a terrible and costly mistake for at least two reasons.

Sensing the Urgency of Prayer for Awakening

First, no president can do what the church is called to do. No president can bring spiritual renewal or moral transformation. Only the church can do that through the gospel.

Second, regardless of who is in office, America remains in desperate need of awakening, while much of the church remains in desperate need of revival.

We have no business taking our foot off the gas. The situation remains urgent.

Fast forward now to the Trump presidency.

Regardless of who is in office, America remains in desperate need of awakening, while much of the church remains in desperate need of revival.

In keeping with our pattern, we protested the policies of President Obama. We decried his pro-LGBT, pro-abortion activism (among other things). We bemoaned his Supreme Court appointees. And we said, “Revival is our only hope!”

Then, with the unlikely rise of Donald Trump (all the more unlikely as the champion of evangelicals), we once again shifted our focus and cut back on our fervent praying for awakening.

Looking to Political Leaders to Do Our Job?

Because of that, the battle is now over allegiance to Trump or opposition to Trump.

The emphasis is now on getting more conservatives on the courts. (To be sure, Trump’s court nominees are highly significant. But they can only accomplish so much.)

The focus is now on the 2020 elections, which will surely be heralded as the most important in our lifetimes (just as the last few elections were described).

Each of these has its place, but we have once again taken our foot off the gas, looking to the White House and Congress and the courts to do what only we can do. Until.

Until something major happened.

Evil Revealed

The Kavanaugh hearings revealed the fangs of the radical pro-abortionists.

The new abortion laws in New York and Vermont (along with one proposed in Virginia) reminded us of abortionists’ blood lust.

Pro-infanticide comments made by the governor of Virginia shocked the sensibilities of many moderate Americans.

And now, as reported by LifeNews, “House Republicans will bring up the request to vote on the Born Alive bill every day for the next 30 days,” thereby forcing Democrats to show their hand. (So far, Democrats have blocked the vote the first two days.)

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

As Rep. Steve Scalise tweeted, “Before the entire House, I asked for immediate consideration of a bill that protects infants born alive during abortions. But Democrats rejected my motion and refused to consider it. Why won’t they go on record and tell the American people where they stand on infanticide?”

All this has freshly energized pro-life Christians across America, including many a pastor who had remained on the sidelines in the past.

Pro-life Christians Speaking Out

Pro-life Christians are speaking out openly and clearly, some of them for the first time in their lives.

They are recognizing the church’s complicity in the sin of abortion, primarily because of our silence and inactivity.

They are asking, “What can we do? How can we make a difference?”

They are even calling for days of repentance and prayer and mourning.

This is very important and represents a major step forward. If only we will learn to keep the pedal to the metal!

Now, More Than Ever, We Must Remain Energized to Repent and Pray

Now, more than ever, we need to seek God for genuine revival and awakening.

Now, more than ever, we need to take stock of our own lives, getting our own houses in order and turning away from disobedience.

Now, more than ever, both on our knees and in the streets, we need to push back against America’s culture of death and restore a culture of life.

Now, more than ever, we need to put our trust in the Lord rather than in politics (although we pray for our political leaders and remain politically involved).

Now, more than ever, we cannot be distracted from our mission and our calling.

To Seek God Is Urgent Now and Will Be for Years to Come

The hour truly is urgent, regardless of who is in the White House and who sits on the courts. And the hour will be urgent for years to come.

America is teetering on the edge of moral anarchy and spiritual confusion.

The pro-abortion, infanticide-endorsing militants are overplaying their hand, and millions of evangelicals (and others) are waking up.

The church must be renewed. The church must lead the way. Jesus must be central.

Otherwise, collapse is near.

Thankfully, what people mean for evil God can turn for good, and that’s exactly what is happening today.

The pro-abortion, infanticide-endorsing militants are overplaying their hand, and millions of evangelicals (and others) are waking up.

Let us be vigilant and diligent, staying alert, staying active and staying on guard.

We cannot afford to take our foot off the gas again, let alone fall asleep at the wheel.

 

 

https://stream.org/democrats-obsession-abortion-helping-evangelical-church/

The Battle Against Pelosi Fascistic SOCIALISM!

TRUMP: “THE TWILIGHT HOUR OF SOCIALISM”

by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

President Trump has rejected the status quo ante in American foreign policy. He has rededicated the United States to the support of Israel. He has withdrawn the United States from the disgraceful deal with Iran. He has tightened the sanctions regime with the intent of disabling the mullahs. He has shaken up matters with the North Korean regime in the interest of putting their nuclear weapons program on the path of termination. He has now come out for the removal of the socialist dictator of Venezuela. I could multiply the examples, but you can fill in the blanks. In each of these cases, Trump is right and Obama was wrong.

Yesterday President Trump went to Florida International University in Miami to give a speech on Venezuela before a friendly and raucous audience. I am unable to find either the text or the video on the White House site. I have posted a news video of the speech in its entirety below. It is a gloriously Reaganite speech; it is a great speech. In it Trump stands for freedom against the forces of socialism, tyranny and immiseration.

Trump notes in the course of the speech that National Security Advisor John Bolton is in the house. Readers of Surrender Is Not An Option will infer that he had a hand in the speech. He is an old-fashioned conservative.

Trump is forcing the issue in Venezuela. The United States is on the right side. It is leading in the push to get Maduro out of there. Events are coming to a head. This speech is part of the pressure intended to produce a constructive outcome. It merits your attention.

The New York Times has a good account of the speech here, FOX News here, CNN here

Quotable quote: “The twilight hour of socialism has arrived in our hemisphere and frankly in many many places around the world. The days of socialism and communism are numbered, not only in Venezuela, but in Nicaragua and in Cuba as well.”

One more: “America will never be a socialist country.”

 

 

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/02/trump-the-twilight-hour-of-socialism.php

Dem Feminazis Are Making Their Move to Destroy Our American Republic

The Green New Fascist Deal

by  Mark Musser   at  American Thinker:

 

The “Green New Deal” is a fascist utopian plan written by environmentalist lawyers that is purportedly designed to tackle the global warming apocalypse which capitalism, particularly of the American kind drunk on fossil fuels, has precipitated through economic recklessness and colonial racism. CO2, a trace gas measured in parts per million, is the primary culprit of a semi-apocalyptic global warming crisis that can only be averted through an all-wise cadre of Democratic green lawyers. That such utopianism, political legalism, and apocalypticism is presented as hard science demonstrates the general madness of the present time that is largely rooted in the Social Darwinian scientism of the 1800s, wherein German zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was peddling a racist political biology together with strong ecological values that he characterized as Monism — which speaks of a monistic oneness or holism with nature along totalitarian lines that modern science was supposedly offering the constituents of the Second Reich. While Haeckel coined the term “ecology” in 1866, he mixed racial eugenics with his environmentalism. Today, environmentalism proffers anti-humanism, population control, ecological totalitarianism, and indigenous multicultural tribal racism that “The New Green Deal” is chock full of.

Austrian Nazi forester Guenther Schwab (1904-2006) was one of the most successful original popularizers of apocalyptic environmentalism in the 1950s and 60s, which included the CO2 global warming scare. Thanks to the great success of Schwab’s writings, real green Nazis like Werner Haverbeck, August Haussleiter, and Werner Vogel, among others, helped him lay the foundations for the German Green Party in the late 1970s. Yet, it was German researcher Hermann Flohn (1912-97) who took the global warming theory that had been bandied around by earlier European researchers and gave it teeth to increasingly bite its way into the main storyline of the West as the 20th century drew to a close. Flohn is considered to be one of the most critically important climate scientists of the 20th century, whose research merited a number of prestigious awards.

Flohn’s very German odyssey actually began in 1941, when he published an article on global warming titled, “The Activity of Man as a Climate Factor” during the dizzying heights of Nazi rule. The Dust Bowl years of the 1930s on the American plains was an exceptionally warm period that prompted environmental discussion among many Nazis at the time, who deemed such an ecological disaster as a symptom of diseased industrial capitalism which had ruined the soil. While Flohn was not a Nazi Party member, he received his doctorate in 1934 and began work for the German Meteorological Service at a time when National Socialism was attempting to bring into line German universities within its ideological purview. Later, Flohn became the Luftwaffe’s chief meteorologist under green Nazi Hermann Goering’s watch. The great irony is that the global warming of the 1930s came to an abrupt halt (which lasted until 1975) just in time for the 1941 invasion of Russia when the Wehrmacht essentially froze to death just outside the gates of Moscow.

During the war, it stands to good reason that Flohn’s high atmospheric weather research would have not only placed him in close proximity with high-altitude Nazi human experiments, but probably also would have put him in regular contact with Werner von Braun and his SS rocket boys. After the war, Flohn continued to ratchet up the CO2 global warming scare as more dangerous than even nuclear energy. Such connections seem to suggest that the global warming apocalypse may have been originally introduced in a targeted way into American research labs through Operation Paperclip, when SS Nazi and German scientists were imported into the United States to help Uncle Sam build rockets to compete in the Cold War. The SS was the greenest arm of the swastika.

Even as early as 1935, Nazi Germany was the greenest regime on the planet. Their ecological projects worked hand in hand with their wild Social Darwinian biological programs connected to eugenics and scientific racial hygiene. Cleaning up the blood also included cleaning up the environment. Indeed, Nazi biologist Ernst Lehman defined fascism accordingly, “We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole… This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”

Out of such a Nazi holistic nature-based worldview came a number of environmental laws that preceded their more overt racial laws. In 1933, the Nazis passed a strict animal rights law. In 1934 they passed a hunting law.  Along similar lines, the Nazis also introduced sustainable forestry practices, and essentially became the very originators of what is today called sustainable development that included a great concern for recycling. Even the Four-Year Nazi war plan was to be guided by sustainable development concerns. In 1935, the Nazis passed the totalitarian Reich Nature Protection Act which opened the door to ecological regulation over private property.

That same year, American deep ecologist Aldo Leopold visited Nazi Germany to witness their strong emphasis upon green programs they had just put in place. While Leopold had some criticism of the Nazi efforts, he was very complimentary as he said they were not just talking about environmental problems, but actually doing something. Leopold also dragged home the “Never cry wolf” cult to America as Nazi Germany was the first country in the world to protect wolves. In other words, the western bridge between postmodern socialism/fascism and environmentalism originally rooted in the early German green movement of the 1800s was built by National Socialism in the 1930s, long before Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.

With no small irony, the present strong relationship that currently exists between modern environmentalism and left-wing labor unions was essentially born in Nazi Germany. In June of 1933, green Nazis Rudolf Hess and Walther Schoenichen absorbed many of the environmental groups of the Weimar Republic under Werner Haverbeck’sFolk-Race National Character and Landscape Bund that was a subdivision of the German Labor Front. The German Labor Front thus adopted the greens into their political organization. Nazi architect Albert Speer was proud of his environmental accomplishments as the green builder of the Third Reich who was also another leader of the German Labor Front.

After the war, while biding his time in Spandau prison, Hess often discussed the problems of the free market economy with Speer. Speer had worked under Hess as they were both essentially in charge of Nazi public works projects. Speer noted that Hess loved to critique American capitalism which he called liberal democracy as a form of sickness, “Again and again he comes to me with examples of overconsumption in the United States. He happily notes reports of misguided investments in the market economy, collects examples of land speculation, criminality, bad posture in children and health damage caused by canned foods.”

Hess even came up with a cockamamie sustainable development plan he shared with his fellow Nazi prisoners in 1951. Since highway lamps were being placed above roadways, Hess thought it would be unnecessary for cars to turn their headlights on at the same time. Energy could thus be saved by turning off the headlights when highway lamps were burning. Speer remarked, “This would save current he maintains, and the erection and maintenance of the floodlights could easily be financed out of the money thus saved. I object that the car’s generators would be running anyhow, to supply the current to the spark plugs. He dismisses that; the generator could shut off automatically as soon as the battery was charged. Thus, energy would be stored, fuel saved, and this saving could be spent on financing the illumination of highways.” Such a madness certainly presages the anti-car renewable energy sentiments that have become one of the trademarks of the modern green movement — that is also playing no small role in the Green New Deal as well. In short, to characterize the Green New Deal as fascist is no metaphor.

Mark Musser is a part-time missionary, pastor, author, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington in the summers but spends most of his time on the mission field in the former Soviet Union. He is currently a doctoral candidate at Corban University in Salem, Oregon, and is a contributing Writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Ecology provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the Holocaust.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/the_new_green_fascist_deal.html

Note:   Today’s American  Dem feminazi feminists don’t give a damn about freedom.  FREE MEN DO!  These  Fems, especially those who refuse children, by their Nature without God,   love mouth over brain to make them feel good and make noise.  Enter the ditsy Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez crowd.    They   demand blab, comfort, and security over TRUTH and FREEDOM.   They don’t invent, protect,  problem solve, seek or care about Truth.   Richer fems like Hillary  want maids, demand maids of all sexes shapes and sizes to handle her affairs, fair and foul.

 

Twit ANTI-AMERICAN McCabe, LEAD TRAITOR AT THE OBAMA FBI HOUSE!?!

 

Editor’s Note: Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI, was named acting director of the bureau after President Donald Trump fired his boss, Director James Comey, on May 9, 2017. McCabe would himself be fired less than a year later. In an exclusive adaptation from his book, The Threat, to be published next week by St. Martin’s Press, McCabe describes his encounters with President Trump and the steps taken to protect the FBI’s investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections—and into the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russian actors.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017, my first full day on the job as acting director of the FBI, I sat down with senior staff involved in the Russia case—the investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. As the meeting began, my secretary relayed a message that the White House was calling. The president himself was on the line. I had spoken with him the night before, in the Oval Office, when he told me he had fired James Comey.

A call like this was highly unusual. Presidents do not, typically, call FBI directors. There should be no direct contact between the president and the director, except for national-security purposes. The reason is simple. Investigations and prosecutions need to be pursued without a hint of suspicion that someone who wields power has put a thumb on the scale.The Russia team was in my office. I took the call on an unclassified line. That was another strange thing—the president was calling on a phone that was not secure. The voice on the other end said, It’s Don Trump calling. I said, Hello, Mr. President, how are you? Apart from my surprise that he was calling at all, I was surprised that he referred to himself as “Don.”The president said, I’m good. You know—boy, it’s incredible, it’s such a great thing, people are really happy about the fact that the director’s gone, and it’s just remarkable what people are saying. Have you seen that? Are you seeing that, too?

He went on: I received hundreds of messages from FBI people—how happy they are that I fired him. There are people saying things on the media, have you seen that? What’s it like there in the building.This is what it was like: You could go to any floor and you would see small groups gathering in hallways, some people even crying. The overwhelming majority liked and admired Director Comey—his personal style, the integrity of his conduct. Now we were laboring under the same dank, gray shadow that had been creeping over Washington during the few months Donald Trump had been in office.

I didn’t feel like I could say any of that to the president on the phone. I’m not sure I would have wanted to say it to him in person, either—or that he would have cared. I told him that people here were very surprised, but that we were trying to get back to work.

The president said he thought most people in the FBI voted for him—he thought 80 percent. He asked me again, as he had in his office, if I knew that Comey had told him three times that he was not under investigation. Then he got to the reason for his call. He said, I really want to come over there. I want to come to the FBI. I want to show all my FBI people how much I love them, so I think maybe it would be good for me to come over and speak to everybody, like tomorrow or the next day.

That sounded to me like one of the worst possible things that could happen. He was the boss, and had every right to come, but I hoped the idea would dissipate on its own. He said, Why don’t you come down here and talk to me about that later?

After we agreed on a time to meet, the president began to talk about how upset he was that Comey had flown home on his government plane from Los Angeles—Comey had been giving a speech there when he learned he was fired. The president wanted to know how that had happened.

I told him that bureau lawyers had assured me there was no legal issue with Comey coming home on the plane. I decided that he should do so. The existing threat assessment indicated he was still at risk, so he needed a protection detail. Since the members of the protection detail would all be coming home, it made sense to bring everybody back on the same plane they had used to fly out there. It was coming back anyway. The president flew off the handle: That’s not right! I don’t approve of that! That’s wrong! He reiterated his point five or seven times.

I said, I’m sorry that you disagree, sir. But it was my decision, and that’s how I decided. The president said, I want you to look into that! I thought to myself: What am I going to look into? I just told you I made that decision.

The ranting against Comey spiraled. I waited until he had talked himself out.

Toward the end of the conversation, the president brought up the subject of my wife. Jill had run unsuccessfully for the Virginia state Senate back in 2015, and the president had said false and malicious things about her during his campaign in order to tarnish the FBI. He said, How is your wife? I said, She’s fine. He said, When she lost her election, that must have been very tough to lose. How did she handle losing? Is it tough to lose?

I replied, I guess it’s tough to lose anything. But she’s rededicated herself to her career and her job and taking care of kids in the emergency room. That’s what she does.

He replied in a tone that sounded like a sneer. He said, “Yeah, that must’ve been really tough. To lose. To be a loser.”

I wrote a memo about this conversation that very day. I wrote memos about my interactions with President Trump for the same reason that Comey did: to have a contemporaneous record of conversations with a person who cannot be trusted.

People do not appreciate how far we have fallen from normal standards of presidential accountability. Today we have a president who is willing not only to comment prejudicially on criminal prosecutions but to comment on ones that potentially affect him. He does both of these things almost daily. He is not just sounding a dog whistle. He is lobbying for a result. The president has stepped over bright ethical and moral lines wherever he has encountered them. Every day brings a new low, with the president exposing himself as a deliberate liar who will say whatever he pleases to get whatever he wants. If he were “on the box” at Quantico, he would break the machine.


After Comey’s firing, the core of my concern had to do with what might happen to the Russia case if I were to be removed. I convened a series of meetings about that investigation—including the one interrupted by the call from the president—in which I directed an overall review of every aspect. Was the work on solid ground? Were there individuals on whom we should consider opening new cases? I wanted to protect the Russia investigation in such a way that whoever came after me could not just make it go away.

As requested, I went back to the White House that afternoon. The scene was almost identical to the one I had walked into the previous night. Trump was behind the Resolute desk. He lifted one arm and jutted it out, fingers splayed, directing me to take a seat in one of the little wooden chairs in front of him. Reince Priebus, then the chief of staff, and Don McGahn, then the White House counsel, were in the other chairs.

The president launched back into his speech about what a great decision it was to fire Jim Comey, how wonderful it was that the director was gone, because so many people did not like Comey, even hated him—the president actually used the word hate.

Eventually he changed the subject. He said that he wanted to come to FBI headquarters to see people and excite them and show them how much he loves the FBI. He pressed me to answer whether I thought it was a good idea. I said it was always a good idea to visit. I was trying to take some of the immediacy out of his proposal—to communicate that the door was always open, so that he wouldn’t feel he had to crash through it right away. I knew what a disaster it could turn out to be if he came to the Hoover Building in the near future. He pressed further, asking specifically, Do you think it would be a good idea for me to come down now? I said, Sure.

Fascism Arising with the Ditsy Dems

MSNBC Host Slapped Down For Saying Conservative Criticism Over Ocasio-Cortez’s New Green Deal Is A Right-Wing Obsession

by Matt Vespa at Townhall:

Perhaps the host just didn’t have enough coffee that day. Who knows? But last week Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Corte (D-NY) unveiled her Green New Deal. A far left economic prescription that will certainly end in the economic death of the U.S. It’s a massive government takeover of not just the economy, but also a gross intrusion into our private lives. It calls for the elimination of fossil fuels within a decade, the upgrading of all buildings to be more eco-friendly, and the destruction of cattle over their methane farts. No, that’s not a joke. It also called for job security for people who are unwilling or unable to work. Yeah, lazy people get subsided. This is la la land policy. It’s not realistic, but the ethos is progressivism after decades of maturation; George Will noted this in the past. All aspects of social life must be organized around the government.  And yes, the Ocasio-Cortez camp tried to say the job security for the lazy portion was a conservative lie. It wasn’t. Plenty of people took screenshots of her offices’ FAQ page before it was shut down (via Free Beacon):

The office of democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has deleted a supplemental document explaining how to implement her “Green New Deal” that called for a jobs guarantee even for those “unwilling to work” and the elimination of “farting cows” and airplanes.

Robert Hockett, a Cornell law professor and adviser to Ocasio-Cortez, appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News on Friday and claimed Republicans doctored official documents that came directly from the congresswoman’s office.

Ocasio-Cortez’s 14-page resolution calls for the “economic transformation” of the United States through a “Green New Deal mobilization” that would phase the country off fossil fuels and nuclear energy in 10 years. Renewable energy accounts for just 17 percent of current electricity generation.

The deleted supplemental document explained the Green New Deal further, saying that the plan would “create economic prosperity” by planting “lots of trees.” But Ocasio-Cortez’s office was honest about the plans limitations to “fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes” in 10 years.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/11/msnbc-host-slapped-down-for-saying-conservative-criticism-over-ocasio-cortezs-ne-n2541050

DITSY Ocasio-Cortez’s Love and Dream to Build the Union of Soviet Socialist America

THE ASH HEAP OF HISTORY

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Thirty years ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed, I never imagined that a generation later socialism would be a threat to the United States. But bad ideas are, apparently, hard to kill–even when those bad ideas kill hundreds of millions.

Roger Simon says we should take socialism seriously, and I believe he is right. Roger locates the socialist virus in our educational system, and I think he is right about that, too. I would go farther and finger the teachers’ unions as the number one force for evil in this regard (and others).

Socialism is said to be popular among the young, which is consistent with the fact that history is pretty much untaught these days, and the most salient events of modern history seem to have gone down the media memory hole. The truth is that the ash heap of history is littered with socialist disasters. Some, like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and who knows how many other Democrats, want to lead us down that failed path. Michael Ramirez comments eloquently. Click to enlarge:

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/02/the-ash-heap-of-history.php