• 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

Leftist Der Spiegel Trump Haters Play Political Nazi along with Pelosi’s Dems

TRUMP HATRED–OR IS IT AMERICA HATRED?–GERMAN STYLE

by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

We wrote here about how Der Spiegel, Europe’s largest news magazine, made a fool of itself by publishing an entirely fictional article about Fergus Falls, Minnesota, and the “Trump voters” who live there. While the extent to which that article was fiction may have been unintended, its anti-Trump–and anti-American–tenor was not. Now, Der Spiegel has published a hit piece on Richard Grenell, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany. Like the residents of Fergus Falls, Grenell is collateral damage. The real enemy is…well, you be the judge.

Der Spiegel begins rather bizarrely with a denunciation of Tucker Carlson:

Tucker Carlson’s worldview doesn’t come across as particularly complex. It can be summed up in three words: Foreigners threaten America. That’s all that’s needed for good ratings.

His show on the right-wing Fox News channel is among the most successful political shows on American cable TV. The mouthpiece of the American neo-Nazis, the Daily Stormer, has described him as “literally our greatest ally.” His most prominent viewer is Donald Trump.

Got that? Trump is a Nazi! It’s an authoritative characterization, coming from the land of the actual Nazis.

Ambassador Grenell appeared on Carlson’s show and talked about the German government’s refugee policy:

The ambassador made it clear in just a few sentences how little he thought of the chancellor’s refugee policy. “There was no plan in place,” he said, “so the policy really fell apart.” He claimed that anyone calling for secure borders in Germany today faces an “overreaction.” The discourse, he said, is largely being controlled by “elites in Berlin” and he argued that anyone who speaks openly about the issue runs the risk of being portrayed as being part of the “radical far-right” by the German media.

All of that is more or less indisputably true. What’s the point?

Grenell’s TV interview was a thinly veiled call for a change of government in Berlin.

Oh, please. But appearing on Carlson’s show is only the beginning. Now we get to Grenell’s conduct as ambassador:

Many previous U.S. ambassadors were major political and social figures in the capital, enjoying excellent connections to the Chancellery and federal ministries, and playing host to the most powerful and influential personalities in Germany.

… Grenell has taken a different path. On the day he took up his post, he tweeted that “German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.” Martin Schulz, the former head of the center-left Social Democratic Party, compared his behavior to that of “a right-wing extremist colonial officer.”

Huh? That is wacky even by the debased standards of American political discourse.

Four weeks later in Breitbart, the main organ of the pro-Trump, right-wing “alt-right” movement, Grenell essentially called for regime change. “I absolutely want to empower other conservatives throughout Europe,” he said.

Which, obviously, is not a “call for regime change.”

Now we get to what may be Der Spiegel’s principal grievance:

In the week before Christmas, Grenell wrote a letter to DER SPIEGEL about the Relotius case, in which longtime DER SPIEGEL journalist Claas Relotius was revealed to have invented reporting for several of his stories, including about the United States. Grenell was justifiably angry, but he didn’t stop there. He accused DER SPIEGEL of anti-Americanism, writing that the United States was clearly “targeted by institutional bias.”

This was the Fergus Falls, Minnesota story, and Grenell’s characterization of it is entirely fair. See my linked post above.

DER SPIEGEL editors and reporters, he argued, had regularly published reports “which could have been proven untrue if they had checked the facts with the Embassy first.” He also wrote that “unfortunately, it is common practice for Spiegel reporters to not even call us before writing.”

To which the magazine responds by complaining that Grenell declined to be interviewed for the article at hand. It is easy to understand why, but this is entertaining:

On Thursday, the embassy answered a list of questions with a written statement: “All seven of your questions are based on fabricated stories that are not true. Every one of the questions assumes something that is false. Konstantin von Hammerstein uses the same tactics as Claas Relotius by pushing a false narrative with anonymous sources.”

Heh. It would be fun to see the questions! The magazine was undeterred, of course, and published its article based on interviews with enemies of Grenell, President Trump, and, perhaps, the U.S.:

Almost all of these [anonymous] sources paint an unflattering portrait of the ambassador, one remarkably similar to Donald Trump, the man who sent him to Berlin. A majority of them describe Grenell as a vain, narcissistic person who dishes out aggressively, but can barely handle criticism. His brash demeanor, some claim, hides a deep insecurity, and they say he thirsts for the approval of others. After one of his appearances, we were told, he asked almost shyly how he had done.

Got that? Grenell is just like Trump! (Other than the gay part, of course.) He is vain, narcissistic and brash–so much so that after a speech, he asks “shyly,” how did I do? How brash can you get?

Der Spiegel tells us that all the best Germans can’t stand Grenell:

Anyone who doesn’t absolutely need to meet Grenell avoids it. “I have no interest in people who are going through Europe with a wrecking ball,” says former Green Party co-chair Cem Özdemir. He is one of several prominent politicians who keep their contact to the American ambassador to a minimum.

Nothing like going to a former head of the Green Party for an objective view of a Republican ambassador. There is much, much more, including an unfavorable contrast between Grenell and his predecessor, Barack Obama’s ambassador Philip Murphy–now the Governor of New Jersey–who, according to Der Spiegel, was beloved by German politicians and bureaucrats. It is easy to understand why. The ambassador of a president who has no intention of advancing his country’s interests can only be popular.

Der Spiegel concludes by denouncing Grenell for being photographed with members of the Alternative For Germany, a new, immigration-skeptic party that won 94 seats in Germany’s most recent election. That is, I suppose, the acid test: those who want border enforcement favor national sovereignty, an inconvenient obstacle to the ambitions of the international New Class. The real target of Der Spiegel’s ire, I think, is anyone who stands in the way of the rapacious New Class, of which its editors and reporters are members. American voters–especially those whom Der Spiegel libeled in its Fergus Falls fantasy–are high on the enemies list.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/trump-hatred-or-is-it-america-hatred-german-style.php

When FBI Bigshots Went Fascist in 2017

NYT REVEALS FBI RETALIATED AGAINST TRUMP FOR COMEY FIRING
by Mollie Hemingway  at the Federalist:
A Friday expose from the New York Times reveals that the FBI investigation of Trump for alleged treason was little more than retaliation against the president for lawfully firing an incompetent and ethically challenged FBI director.

In a Friday night news dump, the New York Times revealed the FBI’s surprisingly flimsy justification for launching a retaliatory investigation into President Donald Trump, their chief adversary during their recent troubled era.

Admitting there is no actual evidence for their probe into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” FBI officials instead cited their foreign policy differences with him, his lawful firing of bungling FBI Director James Comey, and alarm that he accurately revealed to the American public that he was told he wasn’t under investigation by the FBI, when they preferred to hide that fact.

The news was treated as a bombshell, and it was, but not for the reasons many thought. It wasn’t news that the FBI had launched the investigation. Just last month, CNN reported that top FBI officials opened an investigation into Trump after the lawful firing of Comey because Trump “needed to be reined in,” a shocking admission of abuse of power by our nation’s top law enforcement agency.

The Washington Post reported Mueller was looking into whether Trump obstructed the Russia investigation by insisting he was innocent of the outlandish charges selectively leaked by government officials to compliant media. Perhaps because such an obstruction investigation was immediately condemned as scandalous political overreach, that aspect was downplayed while Mueller engaged in a limitless “Russia” probe that has rung up countless Trump affiliates for process crimes unrelated to treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and spun off various investigations having nothing to do with Russia in any way.

The latest Times report does provide more detail than these earlier reports, however, and none of it makes the FBI look good. In fact, it provides evidence of a usurpation of constitutional authority to determine foreign policy that belongs not with a politically unaccountable FBI but with the citizens’ elected president. More on that in a bit.

Criminalizing Foreign Policy Differences

Using leaked information and testimony from various former governmental officials, we learn that the FBI opened its aggressive, norm-breaking, and unconstitutionalinvestigation, supposedly into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” after he fired Comey and revealed how the agency was playing games with their spurious “Russia” probe.

The Saturday New York Times article appeared on page one, above the fold, with the almost laughable headline “F.B.I. Investigated if Trump Worked for the Russians.” The online version of the story was headlined “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia.” Nine paragraphs into the story, the reporters admit that there is and was literally “no evidence” to support the idea Trump worked for Russia.

The top of the article, however, immediately presented the FBI-friendly interpretation of the agency’s motivations as fact — without evidence and despite strong evidence to the contrary — saying the FBI began its investigation because they were “so concerned by the president’s behavior” rather than saying it was because they were “so concerned he’d continue to expose their behavior” or “so concerned he’d hold them accountable for their political investigations.”

The article accepts FBI spin that arguing for better relations with the nuclear-armed Russia “constituted a possible threat to national security” that could only be explained if Trump was “knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.” Because FBI officials personally opposed Trump’s foreign policy, and that of the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him, the FBI was “suspicious” of him, we’re told. The reporters admit the reckless decision by FBI officials was “an aggressive move” that disturbs many former law enforcement officials.

The FBI never had a good reason to investigate Trump, according to information in the article, but even the justifications they use are erroneous. For example, all three items mentioned here are inaccurately framed and presented:

Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.

First, Trump never called on Russia to hack Clinton, despite repeated media claims to the contrary. Clinton had already destroyed her server, along with 30,000 emails she claimed were about yoga, while she was under investigation for mishandling classified information. Trump was highlighting that tons of hackers could have already accessed her insecure server when it still existed and, if they had, those emails should be released so that Americans would know what foreign governments undoubtedly already did. It was a way to highlight her reckless handling of classified information and the global security concerns of that.

Second, having a foreign policy different from those who seek conflict with Russia is neither a problem nor any of the FBI’s business. In fact, it’s a big part of why the American people voted for Trump. The American people get to determine who sets foreign policy, and they do so through elections. The FBI does not get to set foreign policy by running criminal and counterintelligence investigations to punish those who step outside their preferred approach. They have no constitutional authority to do that.

Third, even if the Republican Party had changed its convention platform regarding Ukraine, which it had not, that is also neither a problem nor any of the FBI’s business. It’s shocking and scandalous that the FBI thinks it should criminalize foreign policy disputes.

The FBI argues, without evidence, that the president needed to be investigated as a threat to national security. Keep in mind that the FBI did not act this way during the previous administration, when many of Barack Obama’s detractors argued his foreign policy was a threat to national security. They didn’t investigate collusion with Iran, or the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to the regime. Neither did they do such things with any previous president.

It’s good that they didn’t, because Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the authority to determine foreign policy to the president, not the director or acting director of the FBI. Harvard law professor and former Comey deputy Jack Goldsmith expands on this:

One danger in the what the FBI apparently did is that it implies that the unelected domestic intelligence bureaucracy holds itself as the ultimate arbiter—over and above the elected president who is the constitutional face of U.S. intelligence and national security authority—about what actions do and don’t serve the national security interests of the United States.

Criminalizing Lawful Hiring And Firing Decisions

The article says that the FBI was, unbelievably, discussing whether they could go after Trump because he asked if Comey was loyal. It does not mention that Comey promised his loyalty or the context of Trump’s question, which was rampant leaking by the FBI, Comey’s blackmail attempt before Trump was inaugurated, and obvious game-playing against him and his administration with the Russia probe.

The FBI ultimately decided to act when Trump told the truth and revealed some of their game-playing with the Russia probe. He wanted to send a letter to Comey in which he thanked Comey for telling him he was not a subject of the Russia investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wanted him to hide that fact.

Rosenstein, it’s worth remembering, wrote the memo explaining why Comey was so bad at his job, a view that was completely confirmed by the inspector general’s report on the Clinton email probe. When Trump fired Comey, in part for his incompetent handling of political investigations such as those mentioned in Rosenstein’s memo, Rosenstein used that as the predicate to launch what became the special counsel investigation against Trump.

In any case, Trump told Rosenstein to tell the truth even if he wanted to keep it hidden. Rosenstein refused, irritating Trump, according to the New York Times. Trump told the truth to the American public — which Comey was later forced to admit under oath — that Comey had told him three times he was not under investigation.

According to the New York Times, by not going along with the FBI’s game — privately admitting to Trump that he wasn’t under investigation while publicly suggesting otherwise or leaking numerous snippets of information, selectively curated and framed to suggest he was — the FBI grew concerned that he was a Russian agent. Readers would be forgiven for thinking that makes no sense whatsoever and that it’s more plausible they were concerned their behavior against Trump would be exposed.

Their other justification for targeting their political foe was that Trump publicly flat-out said he didn’t like the game Comey was playing with the Russia investigation. They decided, we’re told, to interpret, or pretend to interpret, this as obstruction.

‘I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it,’ he said. ‘And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’

Mr. Trump’s aides have said that a fuller examination of his comments demonstrates that he did not fire Mr. Comey to end the Russia inquiry. ‘I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people,’ Mr. Trump added. ‘He’s the wrong man for that position.’

Angered by Trump’s critique of Comey’s double-dealing regarding the Russia probe, the FBI retaliated with an investigation.

While it’s not mentioned in the article, hours after Comey was fired, top FBI officials and paramours Lisa Page and Peter Strzok texted about the need to open a “case” against Trump they’d already been discussing in a “formal, chargeable way” and that it had to be done “while Andy is acting.” The texts also mention “Bill”–believed to be FBI counterintelligence head Bill Priestap–being in on the plot.

“Andy” is then-deputy director Andrew McCabe, who took over the bureau until Christopher Wray was confirmed as director in August 2017. McCabe was later fired for repeatedly lying under oath about just one of many of his rampant leaks to friendly reporters and is reportedly under criminal investigation by a federal grand jury. Strzok was also fired for his behavior, Page resigned, and Priestap announced his retirement last month. It is unclear which officials in the Department of Justice authorized the unconstitutional investigation into the president as a national security threat because he didn’t share their foreign policy views.

It was important for this group to launch the official investigation into Trump while McCabe was acting director because they reasonably understood it wouldn’t happen if an FBI director outside their control took over the agency. The opening of an investigation followed a pattern of shocking behavior by the FBI, including Comey telling Trump that there was information floating around about an alleged videotape showing prostitutes urinating on a bed while he watched (there is zero evidence that such a videotape exists or that the alleged event it memorialized ever took place).

Government officials leaked the fact of that briefing to CNN almost immediately, one of the key moments that got the outlandish Russia conspiracy story started. Even Comey admitted that his behavior looked a lot like a blackmail or extortion attempt, which he strenuously denied it was. The move backfired because Trump immediately realized the FBI was playing games. McCabe also launched an investigation of former attorney general Jeff Sessions, before Sessions recused himself from holding the FBI accountable for their handling of the Russia probe.

In sum, the framing of this New York Times article is either poorly conceived or outright disingenuous at every turn. Using the completely lawful and constitutional firing of the bumbling Comey as pretext for opening a criminal investigation into the president is a grand abuse of power by the FBI. Attempting to overtake the authority to determine U.S. foreign policy from the lawfully determined president of the United States is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

For one of the nation’s largest newspapers to suggest that this makes the president — and not the FBI — look bad actually validates two of Trump’s biggest complaints: the media are hopelessly biased, and there really is a “deep state” out to to overturn the 2016 election.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/14/nyt-reveals-fbi-retaliated-against-trump-for-comey-firing/#.XDyD0qdFYeU.twitter

Ditsy Pelosi Grabs the House Gavel!

President Trump Promises to Veto Democrat Shutdown Bill That Funds Planned Parenthood

 

(Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

Nancy Pelosi took the gavel today as Speaker for the 116th Congress and her and her priority agenda to dismantle the pro-life policies of the Trump Administration take center stage. Pelosi’s first priority as the next Speaker is to attempt to force Americans to pay for abortions and to funnel taxpayer dollars to the nation’s biggest abortion business. She wants Americans to be forced to fund Planned Parenthood and its International group’s efforts to promote and perform abortions in other countries.

The House of Representatives will vote today on her bill to do just that.

But, in a Statement of Administrative Position for President Trump, the White House said the president will veto the bill.

“If either H.R. 21 or H.J. Res. 1 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he veto the bill,” it said.

The statement mentioned the pro-life concerns about the bill:

The Administration opposes passage of H.R. 21, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, providing appropriations for the fiscal year (FY) ending September 30, 2019, for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Justice, Interior, State, Transportation, Treasury, and for other purposes. The Administration also opposes passage of H.J.

efforts to promote and perform abortions in other countries.

The House of Representatives will vote today on her bill to do just that.

But, in a Statement of Administrative Position for President Turmp, the White House said the president will veto the bill.

“If either H.R. 21 or H.J. Res. 1 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he veto the bill,” it said.

The statement mentioned the pro-life concerns about the bill:

The Administration opposes passage of H.R. 21, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, providing appropriations for the fiscal year (FY) ending September 30, 2019, for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Justice, Interior, State, Transportation, Treasury, and for other purposes. The Administration also opposes passage of H.J. Res. 1, providing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through February 8, 2019, and for other purposes.

It includes $700 million more than requested for the United Nations, including restoring funding for the United Nations Population Fund. The bill would also undermine the President’s Mexico City Policy (Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2017), which prohibits the funding of foreign nongovernmental organizations that promote or perform abortions.

The Democrats’ bill doesn’t just force Americans to fund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood:

The bill also would increase funding by $5 million for the United Nations Population Fund, to $37.5 million. Anti-abortion organizations oppose the program because they say it participates in coercive abortions and involuntary sterilizations.

Democrats plan to vote on two separate bills Thursday to fund the federal government, one of which will focus on homeland security as they refuse to meet Trump’s demands for $5 billion to fund a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

The bills face dim prospects in the GOP-controlled Senate. The federal government has faced a partial government shutdown for 12 days and Democratic leaders announced Wednesday that they still had not been able to reach an agreement with Trump.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation performed more than 1 million abortions in 2016, an increase of 13.5 percent over 2015, and received more than $27 million in U.S. government grants in 2015-2016 under pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

The new Trump administration policy did not cut any international funding either, meaning more funds are available to groups that provide true medical care to struggling communities across the globe.

The policy only hurt the abortion industry. It has affected just four groups out of more than 700 that receive international aid, according to a report by the U.S. Department of State. IPPF and Marie Stopes International, a British-based abortion chain, are two of the four that refused to comply.

In May, Reuters reported IPPF shut down 22 programs in sub-Saharan Africa as a result of the policy. Marie Stopes International also shut down several of its programs in Africa.

The two pro-abortion groups received millions of American tax dollars under Obama to push abortions in Africa. Most African countries prohibit the killing of unborn babies in abortions.

Marie Stopes has been accused of doing hundreds of illegal, unsafe abortions in Africa. And late last year, parents and community leaders in Kitui, Kenya were outraged after learning that Marie Stopes workers allegedly came into their children’s school and implanted long-lasting contraceptive devices into girls as young as 14 without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

The Mexico City Policy was in place during the entirety of the Bush administration, but President Barack Obama rescinded it during his first week in office. Named for a 1984 population conference where President Ronald Reagan initially announced it, the policy made it so family planning funds could only go to groups that would agree to not do abortions or lobby foreign nations to overturn their pro-life laws.

 

https://www.lifenews.com/2019/01/03/president-trump-promises-to-veto-democrat-shutdown-bill-that-funds-planned-parenthood/

And Then There Is Pocahontas

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/trump-trolls-the-democrats-2.php

TRUMP TROLLS THE DEMOCRATS

Early in his term, I was concerned about whether President Trump could stand up under the pressure. No one in our history, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, had been subjected to such vicious abuse. I wondered whether any human being could tolerate it for four years.

I don’t worry about that any longer. The irrepressible Donald Trump keeps on giving the Democrats at least as good as he gets, and seems to enjoy doing it. Today Trump took to social media to troll his political opponents. First it was 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren–Pocahontas–on Twitter:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Trump was just getting warmed up. Next came this brief but effective video on the Southern border and the wall. The timing is apt, given that earlier today Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi walked out on a border security briefing by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen:

Embedded video

Finally, this. As far as I can see Trump didn’t tweet it, but posted it on Instagram. Note the Game of Thrones references:

Like many, I thought Donald Trump was a joke when he announced his presidential campaign. Through most of the primaries, I was surprised that his campaign didn’t collapse. I voted for him enthusiastically, given the alternative, but had only moderate hopes for his administration. As it has turned out, Trump is fighting for the good, in a way we have rarely seen modern Republicans fight, 90% of the time, while the Democrats are fighting for evil in about the same proportion. So call me a convert.

And oh, by the way–freshman Senator Mitt Romney, to whose losing campaign I donated, should sit down and shut up.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/trump-trolls-the-democrats-2.php

Fascism at the New York Times

Former Editor: You’d Better Believe The NYT Is “Unmistakably Anti-Trump”

You’d better believe that most of us already know that about the New York Times, but it’s good to get confirmation from its previous executive editor. In her new tell-all book Merchants of Truth, Jill Abramson dishes on her past experience at the Gray Lady but also on what has happened since her abrupt departure in 2014. Abramson accuses her successor Dean Baquet — who won a power battle to take over her job — of following a financial incentive to allow opinion to leach into news coverage at the Paper of Record:

“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” Abramson writes, adding that she believes the same is true of the Washington Post. “Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.”

What’s more, she says, citing legendary 20th century publisher Adolph Ochs, “the more anti-Trump the Times was perceived to be, the more it was mistrusted for being biased. Ochs’s vow to cover the news without fear or favor sounded like an impossible promise in such a polarized environment.”

It’s not all a personal vendetta, according to this report from Fox’s Howard Kurtz; Abramson points the finger at the Washington Post, too. (Kurtz makes no mention of what Abramson thinks of Fox News, natch.) Her point goes broader than either or both platforms, however. It’s not just the financial incentive, Abramson argues, but also a generation gap. The younger whippersnappers don’t understand straight news reporting, or at least don’t prioritize it over their political activism:

RECOMMENDED

Abramson describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. “The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,” she writes.

Abramson’s undoubtedly correct about the generational issue, but … isn’t that why newspapers employ editors? Aren’t they the “gatekeepers” whose layers provide the assurance of sobriety and credibility to newspapers and other media outlets? The reporters might well believe that the “dangers” of the given moment might “obviate the old standards,” but that can only impact the NYT’s news product if the editors agree with them and allow those old standards to be obviated, as it were.

It doesn’t take much consideration of the Post’s drama-queen sloganeering of “Democracy dies in darkness” to see Abramson’s point. Not only are these media outlets “obviating the old standards,” it’s becoming increasingly clear that those standards were entirely flexible all along. Bernie Goldberg exposed that reality almost two full decades ago in his seminal book Bias, which should be required reading for journalists and the consumers who read them. I had the honor of writing an introduction to the latest published edition of the book, but read any edition of it to understand that Abramson’s complaints aren’t new. The problem isn’t really the latest generation of journalists, but the previous two or three generations who are now in editorial control at major media outlets. Bernie warned about that very problem in 2001, and Abramson was a part of that too. Or should we recap the coverage of John McCain in the 2008 campaign, when Abramson was the managing editor of the news division at the NYT?

That’s how the gatekeepers turned out to be cheerleaders for the Left, and why we see the insipid and self-congratulatory motto at the top of every Washington Post page. At this point, the New York Times’ “All the News That’s Fit to Print” is almost as bad in terms of intellectual honesty, but at least that preceded Trump.

Besides, just how much of Abramson’s book will be dedicated to the intellectual honesty of arguing that major media outlets are undeniably biased and even activist? The blurb for Merchants of Truth at Amazon suggest that at least part of the book defends the establishment media against their younger competition:

The new digital reality nearly kills two venerable newspapers with an aging readership while creating two media behemoths with a ballooning and fickle audience of millennials. We get to know the defenders of the legacy presses as well as the outsized characters who are creating the new speed-driven media competitors. The players include Jeff Bezos and Marty Baron (The Washington Post), Arthur Sulzberger and Dean Baquet (The New York Times), Jonah Peretti (BuzzFeed), and Shane Smith (VICE) as well as their reporters and anxious readers.

Merchants of Truth raises crucial questions that concern the well-being of our society. We are facing a crisis in trust that threatens the free press. Abramson’s book points us to the future.

If that comparison serves to declare a need to return to straight news reporting and an end to media activism, great. If it’s to defend the status quo ante Internet, however, I’ll stick with Bernie and Bias.

 

 

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/01/02/former-editor-youd-better-believe-nyt-unmistakably-anti-trump/

Crime of Climate Change Politics

Climate Change: The Poetry of Dreams and the Prose of Reality

by Alexander G. Markovsky at American Thinker:

 

George Bernard Shaw so aptly wrote, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.”

There couldn’t be a better description of a newly released climate-change report compiled by 13 federal agencies. The report blames human activities and emission of CO2 for the rise in   temperature and warns that it will hurt the U.S. economy and lead to thousands of deaths. Apparently, “Apocalypse Now” is threatening a host of calamities, and we should blow trillions of dollars to save the planet. Haven’t we heard this song before?

To make the argument more convincing, the proponents of climate change insist that the majority of the scientific community — they call it “scientific consensus” — supports global warming. This is a fallacious argument that the Romans called argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people) or argumentum ad numerum (appeal to the number).  Furthermore, the “majority argument” is totally irrelevant because scientific disputes are not settled by majority consent. The majority once believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth; the atom could not be cracked and so on, and has been proven wrong throughout history.

In the mid-1970s, the majority supported global cooling with the same vigor and urgency as they support global warming today. The cover of the April 28, 1975, issue of Newsweek proclaimed “The Coming Ice Age.” In the article “The Cooling World,” the magazine suggested the disasters similar to those predicted in the government report. In the June 24, 1974, issue of Time magazine, the article “Another Ice Age” painted a bleak picture for the future of our planet: “When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing (emphasis mine).

There was also the “scientific” theory of “acid rain” propagated during the 1970s and 1980s that was supposed to be destroying the forests and poisoning our lakes and rivers unless we closed down coal-fired power plants. Acid rain was also blamed on CO2. Sounds familiar? Aren’t we happy that President Reagan was wise enough not to take that nonsense seriously?

However, what “the majority” of the climate scientists so authoritatively predicted and the media so loudly blared in the 1970s 1980s never came to pass and proved to be a hoax.

Never mind; if not cooling, there must be warming. As long as there is a climate, there is a change; as long as there is a change, there must be a crisis. Not to let a crisis “go to waste,” the same scientists and publications that have been so demonstrably wrong in the past now advocate global warming.

Since Galileo’s time, ideology has been trying to overtake science and it often has. It may just be human nature to want to acquire wisdom from prophets rather than bother with facts and scientific analysis — however satisfying — is a poetry of dreams.

Here is the prose of reality; there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the source of climate change is man-made. There are other persuasive causes such as the Sun’s activity and the Earth’s reflectivity, could affect temperatures on this planet.

As the argument goes, if the United States would replace internal combustion engines with batteries and shut down oil refineries and coal-fired power plants, we would save the planet. There is a reason they keep emphasizing the United States. Other countries, especially the major polluters such as Russia, China, and Eastern Europe, have no intention of following this destructive path. Every single week of the year, China brings into service a new, large coal-fired plant that has practically no environmental controls and subsequently contributes to 30 percent of the air pollution in Los Angeles. By taking this position, the supporters of global warming have demonstrated that they selectively collect, analyze, and utilize scientific data to support their ideological position.  Otherwise, they might have found that the theory of global warming is full of holes.

It has been well documented that the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia around 2200 B.C. was brought about by a catastrophic rise in temperatures and subsequent droughts. At the same time, the European continent was being subjected to a prolonged ice age. The supporters of Global Warming might also be surprised to learn that the Romans grew grapes in northern England. Hence, temperatures on this planet were a lot higher then. Given the level of erudition of the advocates of global warming and some of our elected officials, we should wonder whether they are aware that neither the Bronze Age civilizations nor the Romans had cars, oil refineries, or coal-fired power plants.

Recent fires in Southern California demonstrated that Mother Nature can produce in several days more greenhouse gases than all the cars in the region in a whole year. California’s yearly fires have been known since the Spanish conquistadors first visited it in 1542. If we add volcanoes spitting into the air millions of tons of COevery year for millions of years, then according to the proponents’ theory, we should already be living on small islands surrounded by an ocean of melted Arctic ice.

Moreover, the supporters might be amazed to learn that only 0.04 percent of Earth’s atmosphere is carbon dioxide, which is part of the air we breathe. Plants make themselves from it and, as every sixth-grader in China or Russia knows, by way of photosynthesis they produce oxygen. Therefore, if not for CO2 there would not be O2 and subsequently no life on Earth.

There is no solid evidence CO2 is having an impact on the Earth’s temperature one way or the other and no amount of scientific falsehood can make it so.

The inconvenient truth is that the climate change movement has nothing to do with climate and everything with making money, ideology, and degrading America’s industrial capabilities.

Climate change, whether warming or cooling, justifies the unlimited expenditure, strangles oil and gas production and coal mining, and places power generation under tight government control. It also makes charlatans like Al Gore very rich through exchanges of greenhouse gas emissions. Like medieval priests, modern swindlers sell indulgences that forgive carbon sins making money literally out of thin air, by underwriting the sale of “carbon credits” that industries, utilities, and other entities must purchase for the “right” to operate facilities that produce industrial emissions.

If the climate change alarmists were really concerned about CO2 emissions they would be advocating planting more trees.  President Trump, just as Ronald Reagan, should not take the current hysteria seriously.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/climate_change_the_poetry_of_dreams_and_the_prose_of_reality.html

Progressives Are Becoming Fascists!

PROGRESSIVES ARE CRAZY

by John  Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

That is a proposition for which we see overwhelming evidence on a daily basis. For today, consider these two videos of progressives gone mad.

The first features, to all appearances, a man with long hair. But he goes insane in a game store when he considers himself to be “misgendered.” My favorite moment is when he threatens to “tell the entire LGBTQ community” about the horror he has experienced. PJMedia posted the Facebook video with a headline referring to ‘roid rage, which seems right. But do men take anabolic steroids when they transition? Not that I know of. The video has been viewed more than 9 million times so far:

 

Video Player

The second video is another instance of progressive rage, although in this case the lefty doesn’t look like a steroid user. A guy goes into a vape shop wearing a MAGA hat, and the progressive clerk refuses to serve him. The customer gets out his phone and starts filming, which sends the clerk into a liberal rage against President Trump and free enterprise:

It would be a mistake, of course, to draw conclusions from just two data points. Nevertheless, I will hazard this observation: progressives are crazy.

(Please click below if the sound tracks above don’t project sound.)