• Pragerisms

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

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

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

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

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

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

The Dennis Prager – John Zmirak Hour

There are very few people who can out-talk telling truthful, vital  matter so truthfully as Dennis Prager.   The first listening I ever was exposed  to Dennis was some day in October, 2004, a day or a week before the election of John F. Kerry to the White House…..that first class phony, that frump from Massachusetts.

Kerry was slightly ahead in the polls….and Dennis began exposing this “Empty Suit for president”  with facts and figures, increasing his wrath with endless more evidence to tackle  the thought of a Kerry presidency with every syllable spent.

NOT AN ASSAULT UPON KERRY WAS UNTRUE, FALSE!!!  It sang like an aria from La Boheme!  …….oh, the power of beautiful melody married to libretto!!!

I had never heard such a dressing down so honestly, correctly, appropriately…..and emotionally  presented on radio!   I’ve been attached to Dennis ever since…..except when he spent so much energy smashing, avoiding Donald J. Trump during the Republican primaries of 2016.   THAT WAS A VERY LOW PERIOD, for Dennis was flawed by the  prejudice of  habit, a rarity for him .

I, too, had Dennis-mind about Donald.  I had read about the New Yorker guy for decades, countless times through the press.   (A fat cat New Yorker…..what does one expect?”

I became Donald-cleansed a lot earlier than Dennis.  It began that night, August 6, 2015,  when the Republican candidates were presented  at Fox;   when Megyn Kelly sought stardom by sneaking up on Trump with her question about his issues with women (publicized  by the press),  attacking him for allegedly calling  them “pigs” and such…..and ‘slyly’ asked the candidate, “Is that the way you feel  about all women?’    Fox GOP Trump haters thought, no doubt, his day for the Presidency was over!

“No!  Only Rosie O’Donnell!”  Donald J. Trump answered in two seconds.  About two-thirds of the anti-Trump audience exploded with laughter, as did I  watching it all on tv at home!

John Kerry was a relatively lonely frump among Democrats at that time, 2004.  Their today’s fascists hadn’t shown their organization for  evil yet!

Generally  CNN, CBS, NBC, PBS, ABC, MSNBC,  the New York Times and Washington Post weren’t  the anti-American authoritarians then as they are today.   The nation needed anti-American president, Barack Hussein Obama for that evil development!

Dennis introduced a John Zmirak, a devoted and concerned American Roman Catholic democrat,   to his radio audience today.  He   had co-written a book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration”.

Dennis would lead the duet of Truth-telling , making it very evident he wanted his listeners to become acquainted with the evils of today’s Leftist and other haters of President Donald J. Trump.

They both sang without flaw, the true evils of today’s American Left, both the evils of the standard fascistic Democrat Left and Big Business GOPers.  …..the deceit, the money, the overwhelming  political power over the Democrat Party with GOP alliances, such as  the Paul Ryan clans of Big Business!

Dennis became a Trump man the moment Our Donald won the Republican nomination….(From the hundreds of hours of following Dennis on radio, I knew he would come to love the Donald  as I do!   After the  Trump victory over  Fox’s  effort to dump Trump with Kelly’s  feminist dagger,  I spent several hours researching  pieces of Donald J. Trump’s life.   I was aware of his closeness to his first wife whom he highly valued both within the family and business, and that they had 3 kids…..all very bright and highly disciplined.  I knew   that the  Presidential candidate  didn’t drink booze of any kind.   His older brother to whom he was close,  had died from alcoholism….perhaps even committed suicide.

I read also that Our Donald was a skilled athlete in college, and offered a baseball contract by the New York Yankees when he graduated.

He chose to work for his dad, instead……building sky scrapers and such.

What I collected from my Trump reading collection was what I WANTED to collect….that most of all, he was deeply concerned about the degrading direction the country had been taking for the last quarter century.

Donald Trump was/is  very bright, and above all,  loves his country and is GOD-FEARING.  AND HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN…….!

“Dear God!  Could we Americans be so lucky?”………and it came to be….WE WERE!

Dennis and John Zmirak presented a show of learning, truth, and reality  to behold during today’s Dennis Prager radio presentation.   You might  want to pick up the  book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration.”

I know I will!    Thank you Dennis!

Could Not Have Happened to a Better Bunch of Guys!

The Minnesota Vikings are a team most disliked by the National Football League.   The league is an eastern state Turkey Fest based upon money making.   Money is where the NFC East exists…..New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Dallas Cowboys,  and Washington Redskins are all the most favored….

But a second group of favored DOES exist……the AFC East where the New England Patriots, Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills, and the New York Jets…..again heavily favored at National Football League Headquarters.

Both of these  National Football League groups are overwhelmingly favored by the league’s money  gurus to be advertised and displayed on game day television and review of games played thereafter.    Reffing at post season games tends to favor both the big money maker urban community teams as well.    Take a look at the reffing ruffing up of Vikings quarterback, Brett Favre in the NFC playoff in 2010.  New Orleans needed a heartbeat and certainly is a far richer source for $$$ than Minneapolis…..and the NFL obliged with a terribly foul officiated game.

Game officials apparently missed their opportunity to secure a Saint win,  although there was a very foul foul called by the game’s  head ref chief when the Vikings were on a drive to regain a two touchdown lead late in the game.

Even the referees failed to expect the following Minnesota Miracle:

Increasing Revenues in the Trump Era

Why It Is Good for Trump To Challenge the International Trade Establishment

by E. Jeffrey Ludwig  at  American Thinker:

“Since the election of Pres. Trump, commentators have been asking repeatedly why he seems so cordial or complimentary of leaders of countries many consider to be “enemy countries” – especially the People’s Republics of China and Russia – while being irritated with our neighbors and friends, especially on the economic front.  Early on in his presidency, he indicted NATO members for not paying 2% of GDP for support of NATO.  And in fact, only five of the 28 members are meeting that benchmark.

Then, in a memorable speech from the Rose Garden on June 1, 2017, Trump withdrew the USA from the Paris Climate Accord.  Students of the accord will understand that it is part of the globalist agenda thrusting toward a one-world government.  In addition to presenting a host of specific reasons for leaving based on a lack of equity in the accord, he also stated, “And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability.”

Most recently, he left the G7 meeting in Canada early and refused to sign the final communiqué that was issued, citing offense at the comments made by Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, which were publicly deemed to be a verbal stab in the back.  The president announced increased tariffs on aluminum and steel from Canada and that there would be a variety of tariff hikes on G7 exports to the U.S.

He also has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was renamed and signed by eleven countries – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam – in March of this year.  None of these is considered an enemy by our leaders.

Despite these tensions with friendly nations, the USA is still a signatory to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and a member of the World Trade Organization.  We still are a major contributor to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which were created, along with the United Nations, at the end of World War II.  Negotiations about NAFTA continue, but we are still in that trade agreement.

We can best understand this pushback by Pres. Trump in light of the world economic picture that has emerged since the end of WWII.   International trade in our world, unlike during the period prior to WWII, is governed by a vast network of rules and regulations, and the products covered from every country are described by a variety of documents in mind-boggling detail as they move in and out of the world’s ports of entry.  Trade is no longer just a buyer finding a seller and vice versa; rather, it entails navigating a maze of rules that permits or denies entry into various ports, guides enforcement of health and safety requirements, requires differences in tariffs that depend on relatively small differences in the products’ descriptions, and allows financing of that trade by daily trading in various currencies.  International trade is a multilateral ship titanic with complex strategies for resolving disputes, assuring payments in different currencies, and evaluating quality.  The rules and regulations for assuring the health and well-being and exchange of goods and services of all peoples defies the understanding of any single individual.

In this vast matrix, Pres. Trump is faced with a real dilemma: how to survive in this elaborate matrix while at the same time regaining some of the U.S. hegemony in world markets that was lost while this matrix evolved during the past 73 years (1945-2018)?  Manufacturers and providers of services, as well as the buyers and sellers of those goods and services, find themselves under incredibly complex constraints.  Unlike the original free-market models of Adam Smith, these free markets have been micro-managed into existence by the post-WWII multilateral agreements.  There is an appearance of freedom, but the free markets so-called have been brought into existence by the regional and world players, both governmental and corporate.  So the key question now is, how free are free markets?  President Trump is trying to restore freedom where there is now too great an overlay of constraints, and this writer believes that Trump perceives that enhanced freedom is profoundly connected with greater U.S. hegemony in world markets.  America’s freedom and economic initiative were the bases for its becoming the world’s strongest economy.

Yet the post-WWII thrust has been to implement the world economic model based on David Ricardo’s Theory of Comparative Advantage, first published in 1817, which can be characterized as an economic version of the utilitarian principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number.”  Briefly, the idea is that every country has some unique efficiencies, which means that certain products will be produced more efficiently there than elsewhere.  Thus, let’s say certain goods and services can be produced more cheaply in other countries.  Then the price of those goods and services will come down; consumers in the U.S. will be able to buy more of those goods and services; and the flow of cash to those countries will generate more worldwide demand for goods and services that we are producing, thereby creating more wealth here.  Under this model, all boats are lifted by the rising (economic) sea.

One can see that as the apparatus of this matrix becomes more complex, as it assumes an international scale, or even a regional scale, managing the day-to-day working of said matrix becomes a herculean task beyond the scope of any national government.  Thus, vast mechanisms have been created to administer this economic panorama.  For example, the European Union is administered by a vast unelected bureaucracy that has its headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, and the World Trade Organization has a vast headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

While the U.S. is still at the top of the list of wealthiest countries, hegemony or control in trade has shifted toward these two above-mentioned bureaucracies and other bureaucracies, and away from the U.S.  And all business models must now find a way to function within the regional and world trade matrices.  Individual and corporate initiative is thereby diminished.  Sectors of one’s national economy – think of the coal industry or offshore drilling – become increasingly marginalized or defunct based on decisions of the masters of the matrices, not on our business or political leaders.  Or we find that we rebuilt Japan’s steel industry after WWII and find that in many areas, we became weaker in steel production than Japan.  Self-interest and sovereignty then require that we take steps to resist the matrices that have developed.  That is the underlying reason why Trump is giving some of our friends a so-called hard time, and why it is justified…”



The Ideal Family Begins with a Mom and a Dad!

Why Moms and Dads Both Matter in Marriage


by Jenet Erickson  at the Public Discourse        (Article sent by Mark Waldeland)


Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable—they both add distinct benefits to the development of children. Courts and legislatures can change legal definitions, but they cannot alter biology or psychology.

As the Supreme Court considers whether to redefine marriage in genderless terms, scholars supporting gender-diverse parenting filed an amicus briefurging the Court not to eviscerate this fundamental norm of marriage given its crucial benefits to the development of children. If same-sex marriage is constitutionalized, the message the law will send is that the gender of parents becomes valueless, since any two adults will do.

Gender Diversity Is in Our Genes

In the late 1970s, Azim Surani tried to create new life using two sets of genes from only a mother, or a father. Everything then known about genetics suggested that with the right number of chromosomes, life would develop normally, even if all of its genetic material came only from a female or a male. But the eggs with only the mother’s genes could not survive. A similar fate met the eggs implanted with two sets of father’s genes.

As science reporter Paul Raeburn describes, Surani discovered that mothers and fathers each contributed something in their genes that was critical to sustaining life. These “paternal” and “maternal” genes appeared completely indistinguishable in every way, yet expressed themselves differently depending on whether they came from the mother or the father. And both were essential to the survival of the egg.

The essential need for both a mother and a father to provide genetic material for survival parallels what social science tells us about the importance of mothers and fathers in children’s development. Fathers and mothers bring similar, even indistinguishable, capacities that enable healthy child development. But like the complementarity of the left and right halves of the brain, they also bring distinct capacities that provide complementary, irreplaceable contributions to children’s healthy development.

Coo and Cuddle vs. Tickle and Toss

Consider what social science research reveals about how mothers and fathers distinctively influence children’s social and emotional development. Mothers are biologically primed to provide nurturing oriented toward creating a strong attachment relationship. Dramatic increases in oxytocin and oxytocin receptors during the process of giving birth and caring for infants act like a switch in mothers, turning on maternal behaviors. New moms find themselves expressing positive feelings, affectionately touching and gazing at their infants, and engaging in “motherese” vocalizations. Infants’ levels of oxytocin parallel their mothers’, producing feelings of calm and well-being that similarly bond mother and offspring.

Fathers also experience significant physiological changes that “prime” them for bonding. But the same hormones elicit different types of responses. Instead of inviting “security-inducing” behaviors, fathers’ levels of oxytocin are associated with “stimulatory” behaviors, like tickling and bouncing. This suggests a biological foundation for what we observe all around us. While mothers are more likely to “coo and cuddle” their infants, fathers are more likely to “tickle and toss.” These differences foreshadow more extensive complementary patterns exhibited across children’s development.

Identity and Emotional Capacity vs. Social and Relational Capacity

A mother’s capacities are uniquely oriented toward identity formation and emotional security. Her ability to detect, interpret and respond in positive, non-intrusive ways to her infant’s needs has been identified as the strongest and most consistent predictor of a child’s social, emotional, and cognitive development. Neuropsychological studies indicate that mothers have a uniquely sensitive ability to modify the stimulation they give to their infants, matching their infants’ inner state and providing the optimal “chunked bits” of positive interaction needed for development. In the process, children experience positive effects on memory, cognition, stress tolerance, and emotional and behavioral regulation, as well as cardiovascular, metabolic, and immune function.

In this secure attachment relationship, children develop their own sense of identity while learning to appreciate, understand, and empathize with the feelings of others. From infancy on, children are more likely to seek out their mothers for comfort in times of stress. And mothers are much more likely to identify, ask about, listen to, and discuss emotions with children. A mother’s unique orientation toward identifying, expressing, regulating, understanding, and processing emotions is not only important for self-awareness and emotional well-being; it also lays a foundation for moral awareness, including a sense of moral conscience with the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong.

Fathers demonstrate a complementary influence. While mothers are uniquely important in developing secure identity and emotional understanding, fathers are uniquely important in developing social and relational capacity. Interestingly, this complementarity is reflected in the way mothers and fathers hold their infants. While a mother is likely to hold her infant to enable maximum contact with her face and body, a father is most likely to hold the infant in a way that gives the baby the same view of the world as the father has. This “football hold” orients the infant’s face outward, toward others.

It is fathers’ involvement with their children that consistently predicts how they relate to others. Father closeness during a child’s adolescence has been identified as the key predictor of empathy in adulthood, as well as marital relationship quality and extra-marital relationship quality in adulthood. In contrast, lack of father involvement has repeatedly been associated with delinquent and criminal behaviors, even into adulthood. For boys, the mere presence of a father in the home predicts less delinquent behavior.

Some of this may be due, in part to the discipline style of fathers. Fathers intervene to discipline less often than mothers, but when they do, they exhibit more firmness and predictability. In contrast, mothers use more reasoning and flexibility in carrying out consequences. Children, in turn, are more likely to comply with their father’s requests and demands than with their mother’s.

More significantly, fathers influence children’s social and relational capacity through their play. Compared to mothers, fathers are much more likely to interact through play. And that play is strongly predictive of the quality of children’s peer relationships. In repeated studies, fathers who spent more time in positive play with their children had children with the highest peer ratings. When fathers were more responsive, patient, playful and less coercive in their play, children showed less aggressiveness and more peer competence, and they were better liked.

As one report noted, “Rough-housing with dad” appears to “teach children how to deal with aggressive impulses and physical contact without losing control of their emotions.” Through play, fathers help children learn how to temper and channel emotions in a positive, interactive way and gain confidence in their ability to do so. As children age, fathers focus less on physical play and engage in more peer-like verbal play in the form of sarcasm and humor. Peer-like verbal play allows a father to tease and joke with a child, within the safety of the father-child relationship, thus strengthening children’s sense of identity and social confidence. While mothers consistently build self-understanding, fathers consistently build social-relational understanding.

Learning Foundation vs. Orientation and Achievement

This same type of complementarity is exhibited in the mothers’ and fathers’ influence on children’s cognitive development and educational achievement. Indeed, mothers seem to be biologically and psychologically primed to provide just the right kind of emotionally sensitive, cognitively stimulating interactions.  Mothers are also are more likely to focus on teaching children in their interactions. For example, while fathers may use a toy to engage with a child, mothers will focus their child on the toy, describe it, and teach about it.  This verbally rich, teaching orientation has important implications for cognitive development, including memory, problem-solving, and language advancement.

Fathers complement the foundational contributions mothers make to children’s cognitive development and build upon it. When fathers are “involved, nurturing, and playful,” children exhibit higher IQs, language development, and cognitive skills. One explanation for this is that children with involved fathers show a social-emotional readiness for learning, including being better able to handle the stresses and frustrations associated with schooling. Fathers also uniquely influence children’s expressive language development, because they are more likely to use a broader vocabulary. Mothers, by contrast, often simplify their language to ensure understanding.

Fathers also play a central role in academic achievement. Children with involved fathers were 43 percent more likely to earn “A” grades, 33 percent less likely to repeat a grade, and 98 percent more likely to graduate from college. Part of this is due to the fact that involved fathers are likely to help with homework and provide financial support for college. But involved fathers also monitor and guide children’s behaviors, helping them avoid behaviors that might negatively impact school achievement. Indeed, they seem to be uniquely able to foster a learning environment with just the right mix of “engagement, affection, and supervision.”

Most significantly, fathers build children’s learning capacity by orienting children toward learning in critical ways. First, compared to mothers, fathers’ interactions are characterized by arousal, excitement, and unpredictability in a way that stimulates openness to the world, with an eagerness to explore and discover. Second, fathers have a unique ability to encourage risk-taking while ensuring safety and security, thus inviting children to pursue opportunities that translate into educational and occupational success. Third, involved fathers consistently focus on helping children learn to do things independently and to find solutions to their own problems, building both capacity and confidence. Finally, fathers tend to be more “cognitively demanding” of their children, pushing them to deepen and demonstrate their understanding. Where mothers are more likely to reach in and help children solve a problem, fathers hold back while still offering support, again building capacity and confidence. This area again demonstrates a complementarity between mothers and fathers that is critical, each being irreplaceable by the other.

Gender Identity and Sexual Development

The importance of mothers’ and fathers’ complementarity becomes particularly obvious as a child attempts to make sense of his or her gender. During this period (beginning around eighteen months), both the “same-sex-as-me parent” and the “opposite-sex-from-me-parent” play vital roles. In the words of famed anthropologist Margaret Mead, “One of the most important learnings for every human child is how to be a full member of its own sex and at the same time fully relate to the opposite sex.  This is not an easy learning; it requires the continuing presence of a father and a mother.”

The continuing presence of fathers emerges as particularly important in the sexual identity of girls. Girls who are not reared by their biological fathers are much more likely to engage in sexual relations at an early age and to become pregnant as teenagers. Father absence has been identified as the single greatest risk factor in teen pregnancy for girls. In fact, the presence and emotional closeness of fathers seems to “set the reproductive strategy” girls use throughout their lives. Perhaps, as Professor Bradford Wilcox concludes, this is because “Girls raised in homes with their fathers are more likely to receive the attention, affection, and modeling that they need . . . to rebuff young men who do not have their best interests at heart.”

For boys, the effects on sexual development are just as significant but manifest themselves differently. Without the closeness and modeling of a father, boys engage in what David Popenoe calls “compensatory masculinity,” exhibited in rejecting and denigrating anything feminine while seeking to prove masculinity through violent and aggressive domination. In contrast, boys raised in homes with fathers are more likely to “acquire the sense of self-worth and self-control that allows them to steer clear of delinquent peers and trouble with the law,” including in their sexual behaviors.

The Precision of Parental Complementarity

In each of these developmental areas, the natural complementarity between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting strengths is surprisingly precise. Whereas mothers are biologically prepared to nurture, teach, and provide care that is especially important for foundational development, fathers are predisposed to take a facilitative approach to parenting, fostering self-reliance, achievement, and healthy peer relationships in ways that are particularly important especially as children begin to transition to adult life. Both mothers and fathers are needed to create life, and both are needed to best facilitate the nurturing of that life. Mothers do not father, and fathers do not mother. Each emerges as a unique source of distinct and critical nurturing in the development of children. Indeed, evidence of these distinct contributions confirms a long assumed proposition: namely, that the direct, continual involvement of both a mother and a father in the home is ideal for the child’s development.

Thus, mandating that gender diversity be legally removed from marriage destroys one of the most fundamental and scientifically documented norms of marriage, which plays a crucial role in a child’s social, physical, emotional, and intellectual development.

Without gender complementarity in marriage, children will be worse off—and society will suffer the consequences.


President Trump Stars in Quebec


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

President Trump’s participation in the G7 conference in Canada focused on trade. Once again, he made it clear that he wants our trading partners’ tariffs and other barriers to U.S. imports to come down. This gave the American press the vapors, but why? Our president certainly should try to reduce obstacles to sales of American goods.

President Trump gave a press conference this morning in which he expressed his belief in free trade:

Q Mr. President, you said that this was a positive meeting, but from the outside, it seemed quite contentious. Did you get any indication from your interlocutors that they were going to make any concessions to you? And I believe that you raised the idea of a tariff-free G7. Is that —

THE PRESIDENT: I did. Oh, I did. That’s the way it should be. No tariffs, no barriers. That’s the way it should be.

Q How did it go down?

THE PRESIDENT: And no subsidies. I even said no tariffs. In other words, let’s say Canada — where we have tremendous tariffs — the United States pays tremendous tariffs on dairy. As an example, 270 percent. Nobody knows that. We pay nothing. …

We have to — ultimately, that’s what you want. You want a tariff-free, you want no barriers, and you want no subsidies, because you have some cases where countries are subsidizing industries, and that’s not fair. So you go tariff-free, you go barrier-free, you go subsidy-free. That’s the way you learned at the Wharton School of Finance. I mean, that would be the ultimate thing. Now, whether or not that works — but I did suggest it, and people were — I guess, they got to go back to the drawing and check it out, right?

But we can’t have — an example — where we’re paying — the United States is paying 270 percent. Just can’t have it. And when they send things into us, you don’t have that.

Trump is right that most countries protect their agricultural industries with tariff and non-tariff barriers. (The EU’s ban on GMO crops is an example of a non-tariff barrier that is rational only as an act of protectionism.) The U.S. has the most efficient agricultural sector in the world, and since most countries can’t compete with our farmers, they erect trade barriers. How is this any different from our imposing tariffs on steel or automobiles? It isn’t.

Does Canada actually impose a 270% tariff on American dairy products, as Trump keeps saying? Yes, it does, according to the Canadian Broadcasting Company:

Canada levies a tariff of 270 per cent on milk, 245 per cent on cheese and 298 per cent on butter in an effort to keep imports out and tightly control supply.

So Trump is right. A world without tariffs is a desirable goal, but a world in which the U.S. has no tariffs, but other countries erect barriers to our products, is not.

After President Trump departed for Singapore, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave a press conference in which he responded negatively to Trump’s call for reduced tariffs all around. It isn’t clear to me exactly what set Trump off, but he tweeted this: 

“Based on Justin’s false statements at his news conference, and the fact that Canada is charging massive Tariffs to our U.S. farmers, workers and companies, I have instructed our U.S. Reps not to endorse the Communique as we look at Tariffs on automobiles flooding the U.S. Market!”

“PM Justin Trudeau of Canada acted so meek and mild during our @G7 meetings only to give a news conference after I left saying that, “US Tariffs were kind of insulting” and he “will not be pushed around.” Very dishonest & weak. Our Tariffs are in response to his of 270% on dairy!”

We will see where this leads, but my guess is that the president will ultimately succeed in bargaining for reduced trade barriers. The question is one of degree.

Finally, there were a couple of other highlights in Trump’s press conference. Here, he responded to a hostile question:

Q As you were heading into these G7 talks, there was a sense that America’s closest allies were frustrated with you and angry with you, and that you were angry with them and that you were leaving here early to go meet for more friendlier talks with Kim Jong Un in Singapore. And I’m wondering if you —

THE PRESIDENT: It’s well put, I think.

Q — if you view it the same way. And do you view the U.S. alliance system shifting under your presidency, away —

THE PRESIDENT: Who are you with, out of curiosity?


THE PRESIDENT: I figured. Fake News CNN. The worst. But I could tell by the question. I had no idea you were CNN. After the question, I was just curious as to who you were with. You were CNN.

And Scott had to especially appreciate this moment:

Okay, how about a couple of more? Go ahead in the back.

Q Thanks, Mr. President. Eliana Johnson with Politico.

It was a good day all the way around.


It’s the Economy, Folks!


by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

On top of yesterday’s jobs report–so good that it had Nancy Pelosi mumbling that “strong employment numbers mean little”–the Atlanta Fed now estimates 2nd quarter GDP growth at an annualized rate of 4.8%. This is based in part on private fixed investment growth rising at a 5.4% rate.

As CNBC notes, “the biggest job gainers have been groups that have historically suffered from stubbornly high levels of unemployment, including younger workers, black workers and so-called marginally attached workers.” On Fox News earlier today, Candace Owens said it’s a great time to be a black American:



Global Fanatics Make Tommy Robinson Disappear


by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

“I wrote here about the strange case of Tommy Robinson, and Scott followed up here. The case is strange indeed: Robinson was live-streaming on Facebook from the street in front of a courthouse in Leeds where a number of defendants were on trial for rape. Reportedly, he was reading the names of the defendants and the crimes with which they were charged.

That was enough to bring out the paddy wagon. Police officers descended on Robinson, arrested him on “suspicion of breaching the peace,” and hauled him off to court. Within a matter of hours he had been imprisoned for contempt of court. Not only that, the court issued an order barring all UK press outlets from reporting on Robinson’s arrest and imprisonment.

If that doesn’t bother you, your civil libertarian instincts have atrophied. Yet it appears that only conservatives are troubled by Robinson’s incarceration; the world’s establishment has closed ranks against him. This is what you see if you enter “Tommy Robinson” in Google News. Click to enlarge:

Apparently only the “alt-right,” “U.S. Rightwingers” and “the right-wing outrage machine” care about the blatant suppression of free speech and normal criminal process that characterize the Robinson case. I was curious about Time’s article, headlined: “Why Tommy Robinson Was Jailed, and Why U.S. Rightwingers Care.” Time writes:

The right-wing campaigner was arrested and jailed on Friday outside a controversial trial in northern England.

No explanation of why the trial was “controversial,” even though news outlets were forbidden to report on it.

He is active in the global far-right, writing and broadcasting for Canadian far-right channel Rebel Media

You can never say “far right” too often. That means he is skeptical of the wisdom of mass Muslim immigration to Great Britain.

…and his arrest on Friday on suspicion of breaching the peace outside a court in the U.K. attracted tweets of protest by right-wing activists and commentators around the world.

The link on “right wing commentators” goes to my Power Line post.

Time explains that Robinson broke the law by reporting on “details of the trial,” although this claim seems doubtful based on other reports:

By filming defendants and discussing details of the trial while broadcasting via a livestream, Robinson was breaking the court-ordered restriction on media. As he was already serving a suspended sentence for filming outside another trial in May last year, he was jailed for 13 months.

In the U.S., reporting on ongoing trials is usually protected by the First Amendment.

No kidding!

A local paper, the Hull Daily Mail, has an up-to-date report:

A court order is currently in place temporarily banning any reporting on the trial, including its status as ongoing, so the press will not be able to reveal details until later this year.

So British newspapers aren’t supposed to report that the rape trial is taking place.

At the time of the Facebook Live, jurors were in the process of considering verdicts after hearing six weeks’ of evidence.
And a court order had also been in place temporarily banning any reporting on Robinson’s arrest and sentencing hearing, but Hull Live can now reveal the details.

A court order temporarily banned any mention of Robinson’s court proceedings but our colleagues at LeedsLive challenged the order and today (Tuesday) the judge agreed to lift the reporting restriction in regards to Robinson’s case.
Eventually, the 35-year-old was arrested on suspicion of a breach of the peace and was held in the court cells before being taken up to the courtroom to face the trial judge.

In a rare move, he was arrested, charged and sentenced within five hours.

Emphasis added. Is it really true that British news media can’t report anything about a trial in progress, even, as Robinson reportedly was doing, naming the defendants and itemizing the charges against them? I haven’t had time to research this in depth–although I think I have seen any number of news reports on British trials–but this is the BBC’s account:

Once proceedings are ‘active’, anything which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in these proceedings will be seriously prejudiced or impeded will be a contempt of court.

In most criminal cases, proceedings become ‘active’:

* On the arrest of a suspect

* When an arrest warrant is issued

* On the issue of a summons (in Scotland a complaint) or indictment. This may be well before a person in charged

* When a person in charged.

Obviously, the Leeds criminal case was active. So the question is whether Robinson’s live-streaming from outside the courthouse “creates a substantial risk that the course of justice…will be seriously prejudiced or impeded.” It is hard to see why this standard would be met.

So in the U.K., an unpopular activist who stands outside a courthouse talking about the fact that a criminal trial is taking place, and naming the defendants and the charges against them, is subject to arrest for contempt of court, and can be hustled off to jail in a matter of hours with no meaningful fact-finding or opportunity to defend. And newspapers can be barred, and have been barred, from reporting on the activist’s arrest and incarceration.

This is obviously not the American way, and I seriously doubt whether it is the British way in any case that doesn’t involve Islam. But evidently, as is so often the case when it comes to free speech, no one cares except us “right wingers.