• 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

Monty Python Time in Loony Lefty Minneapolis


by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:


Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and “American Indian leaders” met yesterday with denizens of the open air drug den cum encampment on Hiawatha Avenue at Cedar just outside downtown Minneapolis. The Star Tribune reports that the meeting was “hastily called in response to complaints of harassment and intimidation of humanitarian aid workers at the large homeless camp in south Minneapolis.” Also in attendance was the harassment/intimidation crew from Natives Against Heroin.

We’ve got trouble right here in river city. The trouble is attributable in part to idiotic municipal authorities and to the culture of lawlessness they have abetted.

In this installment of the saga, we have the mayor begging for good behavior. We have Indian leaders from four reservations sitting at a large round table “with the smell of burnt sage” in the air. At least we think it was sage.

Convicted drug dealer/burglar/thief and American Indian Movement cofounder Clyde Bellecourt was in attendance. The Star Tribune reports that he “shared decades of experience advocating for American Indian rights.” The Star Tribune omits any mention of Bellecourt’s criminal history or his possible role in the murder of American Indian Movement member Anna Mae Aquash in 1975. See Mike Mosedale’s City Pages story “Bury My Heart” (more here).

The meeting did not go down as the mayor must have hoped. The Star Tribune has done its best to put a smily face on the drug den ever since it initiated coverage of the encampment, yet it gives up here: “Discord permeated the gathering and emotions ran high, despite a few positive moments.”

Despite the burning of sage to dispel the negativity. And despite the group of women who “raised their voices in prayer to calm the room” whenever discussions became too “combative,” as the Star Tribune puts it.

The Star Tribune story concludes on a philosophical note:

A point of contention was whether Indians who are homeless should receive priority, being allowed to move into the large heated tents and receive other services before non-Indians.

Some argued that the ethnicity of those getting help wasn’t important.

Others, like White Earth Nation member Dawn LaRoque, said she hoped Indians would receive aid first. LaRoque also brought up safety at the navigation center, including whether people will still be able to use drugs there.

Frey said residents wouldn’t be tested for drugs upon admittance, but that they couldn’t do drugs on site.

A new idea emerged from discussions: creating a space where people could share disagreements in front of a neutral third party. Frey said it was an excellent idea.

Sam Strong, tribal secretary of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa, said the camp had already spurred change simply by forcing officials to address homelessness head-on.

“There’s hope in that facility that we have over there,” Strong said. “When has anybody ever done anything for homeless people?”

In this installment of the saga we have elements of comedy begging for satire. Sam Strong’s concluding question awaits its Monty Python moment.



Our Democracy’s Grim Reaper Mueller Fraud in Action!


by Paul Mirengoff  at  PowerLine:

“Prosecutors’ Narrative Is Clear: Trump Defrauded Voters.” So declares the first part of the headline of a New York Times article by Peter Baker and Nicholas Fandos. The rest of the headline asks “But What Does It Mean?”

Good question. It may mean that the prosecutors haven’t found a crime, but are still pissed off that Trump won the election.

I find odd the notion that Trump defrauded voters. No candidate in my lifetime ever painted a clearer, more vivid picture of himself for voters. For better or for worse, we knew what we were getting (and no, it wasn’t a Putin stooge).

Indeed, it’s difficult for me to treat Mueller’s theory seriously. I hope readers will forgive the (at times) flippant nature of what follows.

How does Mueller’s team say Trump defrauded voters? In two ways, apparently. First, he paid money to hide the fact that he had sex with a porn star. The Times explains:

The prosecutors made clear in their memo that they viewed efforts by Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, to squelch the stories as nothing less than a perversion of a democratic election — and by extension they effectively accused the president of defrauding voters, questioning the legitimacy of his victory.

When did it become the role of prosecutors to question the legitimacy of an electoral victory? This must be a recent development. The legitimacy of Barack Obama’s election went unchallenged by the law even though he wrote a fake autobiography and, before his second win, secretly (he thought) promised Russia to be more flexible once those reactionary American voters reelected him.

In 1992, Bill Clinton tasked a team of Arkansas operatives to cover-up his sexual indiscretions. John Kennedy conspired with the media to keep his quiet. Franklin Roosevelt covered up, as best he could, the fact that he couldn’t walk. Kennedy too concealed his medical problems.

The second way Trump “defrauded” voters, according to the Times’ version of Mueller’s theory, was by “continuing to do business with Russia deep into his presidential campaign even as Russian agents made efforts to influence him.” The Times goes on to note that Trump’s operation was pursuing a proposed Trump Tower in Moscow until June 2016, whereas the campaign’s line was that the deal had collapsed in January.

Who were the “victims” of this “fraud”? Not the general electorate. There has been no indication that Trump was still trying to business with Russia when it voted in November 2016. And by then, surely it was a matter of indifference which month the attempts ended.

Republican primary voters? It’s heart-warming that Mueller’s team of lefty Democrats is so solicitous of our interests. Yet, I doubt many Republicans feel aggrieved. Few were worrying about whether Trump was trying to make a business deal with Russia.

I was one of the few, but Mueller need not go after Trump on my behalf. Assuming that Trump, as opposed to Cohen, said his business dealings in Russia ceased in January, this misrepresentation ranks far down in the annals of false campaign statements.

The Times acknowledges that its rendition of Mueller’s theory gives rise to a case for impeachment, not for indicting the president. But for House Democrats to assert such a theory — “we wuz robbed” — in an impeachment proceeding would only confirm that the whole business is simply an effort to relitigate an election the Democrats lost.

The Democrats might be better advised to reject the “we wuz robbed” refrain in favor of “wait til next year.”




Robert Mueller: So Evil, so Ugly, so Repulsive, so Nazi in His Office, so “Handsome is as Handsome Does!”

—The Perversion of the American Federal Judicial System—by Cjack

1) It is time for the nation to be reminded of Robert “Muleface” Mueller’s prosecution of four innocent men in Boston, MA. The evil Mueller fabricated a criminal case against four innocent men, based on the lies of one of his own crooked FBI agents working with Mueller’s informant Whitey Bolger—a murdering Boston crime boss recently assassinated in prison after evading justice for over sixteen years. Two of the four innocent men prosecuted by Mueller died in prison before they were all exonerated. The accused men successfully sued the government and were awarded a substantial judgement but not their release.

2) Mueller and Comey wrongfully accused Steven Hatfill for the anthrax attacks that killed five people in Washington in 2001. Mueller developed his case against Hatfill based on drug-sniffing dogs who took a liking to Hatfill’s petting. Mueller and Comey wrecked the man’s life that was later found innocent and was awarded a $5.2 million legal settlement.

3) Previously In 1996 Mueller had wrongfully accused Richard Jewel, a security guard, of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Hasty to secure a conviction, “Muleface” Mueller and his elongated ‘Inspector Clouseau’—the egotistic, lying, dufus—exFBI man James Comey, affirmed to the press that Mr. Jewel was the bomber. Yikes!

4) And now, after two years, the flopping “Muleface” Mueller and, again, his crooked ex-FBI director— (the American “Pink Panther”) —James Comey, have fabricated a colossal lie to unseat our duly elected President, Mr. Donald J Trump; an American patriot!…“Muleface” Mueller is really the hitman in charge of the conspiracy to overthrow the President on the bogus charge of colluding with Russia to deny the crooked Hillary Clinton the White House. In reality Mueller is as crooked as Hillary who has committed flagrant criminal acts against the laws of our nation. So to extricate himself and his partners in crime, “Muleface” Mueller cleverly enlisted a gang of unethical lawyers led by the infamous Andrew Weissmann of Enron fame; all to cover up the bad deeds committed by Mueller, Obama, James Comey, James Brennan, James Clapper, and other high government officials of Obama’s administration.

Note: To the list of the aforementioned miscreants we must add the un-American George Soros, who has been pulling Obama’s strings behind the curtains. Soros is not wanted in Russia, Hungary, Albania and other European countries for criminally interfering in their political affairs, the same reason we should revoke his naturalized American citizenship and deport from our country.

Mueller is the hitman, appointed by the perverse Deputy Attorney General of the US Rod Rosenstein, to overthrow the government of the United States. These damned fools have gone too far. And, we, the American people, must hang ’em high!

Cjack…Sentinel on the Gulf…December 9, 2018.

Zuckerberg Is Abusing You, America!?!

Facebook is the villain and we all finally know it

by Liberty Vittert  at Fox News:

Facebook is the villain and finally people know it.

About 250 pages of highly confidential documents and company emails that shed light on Facebook’s attitude towards its customers, were released by a British lawmaker this week. But before we dive into that, let’s take a step back and remember Facebook’s first big public scandal.

Last March, the New York Times, along with the Guardian and the Observer in London, uncovered documents proving that the political data firm Cambridge Analytica had improperly acquired data from Facebook. Aleksandr Kogan, a data scientist, had developed an app and given the user data information to Cambridge Analytica. Facebook allowed this app to not only collect data from the app users, but also their friends, resulting in Cambridge Analytica acquiring data from millions of different Facebook users.

The Trump campaign employed Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and it therefore has been painted as some dark ops firm that stole Americans’ privacy for the benefit of the highest paying conservative candidate, who then used it to steal victory from Hillary Clinton through manipulation, fraud, hacking and mystery.


While the people running Cambridge Analytica did seem on the shady side, and I certainly wouldn’t put my trust in them, they have been used as a scapegoat for Facebook’s unethical, hostile and underhanded behavior.

Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of app developers were using the features that Facebook itself created, to do precisely the same thing that Cambridge Analytica was doing. To be clear, there was no “hack” of Facebook. This kind of work is not rocket science, and in my opinion, everyone gave Cambridge Analytica way too much credit. They weren’t magicians. I promise.

If Cambridge Analytica had been a company that sold people refrigerators, or did anything unrelated to Donald Trump for that matter, no one would have cared about its data consumption. But Cambridge Analytica was hailed as the election usurper – Trump’s secret weapon in his battle for the White House.

Again, please.

Yes, Trump won. But he won against the most unpopular Democratic candidate in modern history, who was vying for a third Democratic term – something which has not been achieved since the 1940s. Furthermore, he won by a very slim margin and actually lost the popular vote. If Cambridge Analytica was really a bunch of election-rigging wizards, practicing their dark art of black box data mining, wouldn’t you have expected a more crushing defeat?

The government has had at least 10 years to get on top of big tech companies’ exploding growth and power, but so far they’ve been allowed to act with free rein.

What we really should have taken away from the Cambridge Analytica scandal last spring is that Facebook is the villain and we need to know more. And this week we’re learning yet again that we the public are in big trouble with not just Facebook, but all the other big companies that have troves of data on practically each and every one of us.

Despite repeatedly denying that Facebook sells its users’ data, the company emails released this week show that in fact it effectively did – that it leveraged our data to reward developers who spent a lot of money on the platform, and ice out its competitors, all the while making sure we, the users, never found out.

And let’s not kid ourselves that it’s just Facebook doing this. Five of the most valuable companies in the world today – Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Google’s parent company Alphabet – have all commodified our data and used it to take over their respective sectors.

What’s equally unsettling is our government’s response. The questions that senators asked Zuckerberg during his April hearing clearly showed how little they understand about the basic workings of his company. The government has had at least 10 years to get on top of big tech companies’ exploding growth and power, but so far they’ve been allowed to act with free rein.

Sure, we the consumers bear some of the responsibility. I certainly have freely given up my data to various apps, companies and websites. And boy do I love Amazon’s suggestions – it always seem to know just what I need! Advertising isn’t coercive. I know what I’m choosing to buy, just like I know what candidate I’m choosing to vote for. I’m not being tricked in either case.

But at the same time, these companies have been allowed to run amuck, and the laws haven’t been keeping up. For the entire Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook was fined a little over $600,000. Facebook makes that in less than 8 minutes.

I’m not so worried about Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t scare me. What terrifies me is the next villain, who has more nefarious end goals. If the government doesn’t get its act together and start creating and enforcing laws to regulate these powerful companies, we are in real trouble.

The leaked documents this week shouldn’t be a surprise, but they should be a wake-up call. We have become complacent with our personal privacy, myself included.

What’s scary isn’t the data violation, it’s who’s doing it. There will always be a Bond villain, but if James Bond doesn’t have Q giving him the technology that keeps him a few steps ahead of the villain, he may not escape alive one day.


Ten Important Questions for James Comey “Trial”

Byron York: Ten questions for James Comey’s Upcoming “Trial”

by Byron York  at Washington Examiner:

Members of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees will question former FBI Director James Comey Friday morning. After much wrangling, the interview will take place behind closed doors. Comey wanted it to be public, but lawmakers, unwilling to cut up their questioning into five-minute slices for a public setting, insisted on a private session. The House won. But both sides agreed that a transcript of the interview will be released quickly, perhaps as quickly as 24 hours after the meeting.

Republicans were divided about whether to interview Comey at all. He has testified many times, written a book, and publicly discussed his tenure in office at great length. Some Republicans preferred to bring in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has been resisting an appearance on Capitol Hill. “It’s been nine weeks since the press reported that Rod Rosenstein was contemplating wearing a wire to record the president and invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told me recently, “and we’re spending time bringing in Comey for the 15th time?”

Nevertheless, Comey is coming in. Some Republicans want to ask him more about the Hillary Clinton case, but even some of them acknowledge that the case is over and done with. Others want to focus on the Trump-Russia affair. That includes a lot of material. There will, for example, undoubtedly be some questions about the Trump dossier, the origins of which Republicans have done extensive work to expose.

But one particularly useful area of questioning would be the case of Michael Flynn, the short-term Trump national security adviser who pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI and who this week received a no-jail sentencing recommendation from Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller. Comey spoke privately to Congress about the Flynn case on a few occasions in 2017. But so far, all the public knows about those statements are a few snippets of testimony included in a House Intelligence Committee report and a few others from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. If Comey were questioned about it in some detail Friday, and if the transcript of that conversation were released, then the pblic might finally learn more about the case. With that in mind, here are ten questions for Comey on the subject of Michael Flynn:

1. Did you read the wiretap transcripts of conversations between Flynn and then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak? If not, were they described to you or synopsized for you by other government officials?

2. Did you read the so-called 302 report written by the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017? If not, was it described to you or synopsized for you by other government officials?

3. Did you ever discuss the Flynn interview with the agents? In any event, what, precisely, did the agents report on the question of whether or not Flynn was truthful in the interview?

4. Did the agents believe Flynn tried to deceive them?

5. If the agents did not believe Flynn was lying, how did they — or you — reconcile the differences between what Flynn said in the FBI interview and what he said in the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations?

6. Did Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency with a deep knowledge of surveillance practices, at any time in the interview acknowledge or refer to the fact that his conversations with Kislyak were recorded by U.S. intelligence? Did he ever acknowledge that the transcripts of his conversations were available to FBI officials?

7. What other evidence did the FBI have that Flynn lied to the agents?

8. Did you believe, a week after the interview, that Flynn would be indicted for lying to the FBI? Did you believe, by early May 2017, before you were fired, that Flynn would be indicted for lying to the FBI?

9. When did you learn that Flynn would be charged and had pleaded guilty? What was your reaction?

10. Other than the Flynn-Kislyak conversations, are you aware of any other instances in which Flynn took part in any activities as part of a conspiracy with Russia to fix the 2016 election? If so, what were they?



Will GOP EVER Expose Crooked Hillary’s Russian Plot and Obama’s FBI & DOJ Crimes?

House Republicans Ask Trump to Declassify ‘Damning’ Obama DOJ Emails


A long classified email chain from October 2016 reveals that a large group of Obama Justice Department officials — including James Comey — was aware that there was highly misleading information in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign, John Solomon of The Hill reported Wednesday.

According to Solomon’s sources, the documents “may provide the most damning evidence to date” of potential FISA abuses.

The emails show that some in the intelligence community — possibly the NSA — had problems with the quality of the intelligence in the Steele dossier, which was used to obtain the surveillance warrant.

The emails also reveal that the officials knew that British spy Christopher Steele had talked to Yahoo News about his findings, as some on the email chain had expressed concerns about that.

Steele was hired by opposition research firm Fusion GPS (funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC) to put together a (now discredited) dossier on candidate Donald Trump.

In January 2018, Senator Charles Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, referred Steele to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation after he and Senator Lindsey Graham identified potential false statements Steele had made to the FBI.

According to the senators, the evidence suggested that either “Steele lied to the FBI about his contacts with the media (a violation of 18 USC 1001) — or the FBI misrepresented Steele’s statements.”

To secure the FISA warrant, the FBI used the Yahoo News story (based on Steele’s sketchy dossier) as independent corroboration for the dossier. It was a classic case of circular intelligence reporting, a fraudulent method of “confirming intelligence.”

“If the FBI knew of his media contacts and the concerns about the reliability of his dossier before seeking the warrant, it would constitute a serious breach of FISA regulations and the trust that the FISA court places in the FBI,” said Solomon.

“That’s because the FBI has an obligation to certify to the court before it approves FISA warrants that its evidence is verified, and to alert the judges to any flaws in its evidence or information that suggest the target might be innocent,” he explained.

The FBI fired Steele on Nov. 1, 2016, because of his unauthorized contacts with the news media, but only after they’d used his dirty dossier to secure the warrant.

… the FBI withheld from the American public and Congress, until months later, that Steele had been paid to find his dirt on Trump by a firm doing political opposition research for the Democratic Party and for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and that Steele himself harbored hatred for Trump.

Right before Thanksgiving, House Republicans quietly added the damning email chain to the list of documents they’d like President Trump to declassify. According to The Hill, the DOJ kept the information from the majority of members of Congress for more than two years.


Climate Change Artist, Bern Sanders’ Love for One Private Jet at a Time

Feel The After-Bern: Sanders Saving The Climate, One Private Jet At A Time

Two days ago, Bernie Sanders “stake[d] out [a] forceful climate stance,” according to a glowing report from the HuffPost. In the weeks prior to that, though, the erstwhile 2016 presidential hopeful embarked on a more forceful air campaign to lift fellow progressives demanding action on climate change. The Sanders campaign spent almost $300,000 on private jets as Election Day approached, the Washington Free Beacon discovered by going through FEC reports.

That was totes necessary, Sanders’ campaign claimed:

“This expense was for transportation for the senator’s nine-day, nine-state tour to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot ahead of Election Day,” campaign spokesman Arianna Jones told VTDigger.org, which was first to identify the spending. “This cost covered the entirety of the tour from Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, California, and back to Vermont.”

The Sanders campaign made a $297,685.50 payment on October 10 to Apollo Jets, a New York-based private jet service used by stars such as Derek Jeter and Shaquille O’Neill, according to its website. The company’s featured jet is a Falcon 8X, it says.

His campaign made a much smaller payment of $37,567.53 to Apollo Jets in July 2017, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

As Brent Scher points out, there are few methods of travel that produce more greenhouse-gas emissions than air travel. It might be impossible to exceed the per-person emissions of both pollution and greenhouse gases than in private jet travel.  In the summer of 2017, the New York Times lectured its readers on their reliance on commercial air travel:

If you are like many people, flying may be a large portion of your carbon footprint. Over all, the aviation industry accounts for 11 percent of all transportation-related emissions in the United States.

According to some estimates, about 20,000 planes are in use around the world, serving three billion passengers annually. By 2040, more than 50,000 planes could be in service, and they are expected to fly more often.

If you’re flying, you’re adding a significant amount of planet-warming gases to the atmosphere — there’s no way around it. … The most effective way to reduce your carbon footprint is to fly less often. If everyone took fewer flights, airline companies wouldn’t burn as much jet fuel.

According to the World Bank, the average American generated about 16.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2013; according to some calculations, a round-trip flight from New York to San Francisco emits about 0.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person.

Again, that’s for a commercial flight, which might have anywhere between 70 to 200 people on board. A similar flight for just oneprincipal would emit 200 metric tons of CO2 (depending on the aircraft) — while the scheduled commercial flight flies the same route at the same time. Those who truly care about CO2 emissions would never choose to travel in this manner except in only the most dire emergencies … for which electioneering to increase one’s influence absolutely does not qualify. The question for Sanders is why he didn’t fly commercial rather than duplicate the carbon emissions by repeatedly using private jets, a luxury that seems a lot more oligarchical than populist to boot.

So what did Sanders say when he staked out a supposedly impressive stance on climate change? The HuffPost’s quotes from Sanders at the event hardly seem impressive, let alone substantive:

“Tonight we are dealing with what the scientific community tells us is the great crisis facing our planet and facing humanity,” Sanders said in his opening statement. “That is climate change.” …

“Unlike commercial television, this event is not sponsored by Exxon Mobil,” Sanders said. “Nor is it paid or sponsored by the Koch brothers, who made most of their fortune in the fossil fuel industry.”

It doesn’t take much to impress HuffPost, apparently. Actions speak louder than words, but especially so when the words are nothing more that a couple of slogans married up to demonization. Maybe someone can ask Sanders whether his private-jet flights used fuel from ExxonMobil. In the meantime, as Glenn Reynolds often says, I’ll believe it’s a crisis when alarmists like Sanders act like it is.