• 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

Seedy Bob Mueller’s Letter to Barr!

Andrew McCarthy: Mueller’s letter to Barr – A neat trick by the Washington Post before hearings begin

“Mueller complained to Barr about memo on key findings.” That’s the banner headline at the top of the Washington Post’s website Wednesday. But when you click your way to the actual story, it turns out that the headline is not true. Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the “key findings.” It’s about the narrative.

Mueller’s complaint is that Barr “did not fully capture the context” of Mueller’s magnum opus – the “nature and substance” of the report.

This complaint was set forth in Mueller’s own letter, dated March 27. The letter is a microcosm of Mueller’s collusion probe: sound and fury, signifying nothing; an investigative process predicated on no criminal conduct, which generated crimes rather than solving one.


Parsed carefully (which you have to do with the special counsel’s Jesuitical work), Mueller is precisely not saying that Barr misrepresented his key findings. He is saying that he and the Clinton/Obama minions he recruited to staff the case wrote the report with a certain mood music in mind. To their chagrin, Barr gave us just the no-crime bottom line. Mueller would have preferred for us to feel all the ooze of un-presidential escapades he couldn’t indict but wouldn’t, from his lofty perch, “exonerate.”

The purportedly private letter to Barr, like Mueller’s purportedly confidential report, was patently meant for public consumption, and thus leaked to the Post late yesterday. The timing is transparently strategic: the leak drops a bomb as Barr was preparing for two days of what promises to be combative congressional hearings, starting this morning; it gives maximum media exposure to Mueller’s diva routine and its Democratic chorus, while the attorney general gets minimal time to respond to asinine cries of that he should be charged with perjury, held in contempt, and – of course – impeached.

The Post’s reporters say they were permitted to “review” the letter yesterday. This phrasing implies that they were not permitted to keep a copy – i.e., no fingerprints on this leak of a close-hold document. Keep that in mind next time you read one of those hagiographies about ramrod straight Bob Mueller who never plays these Washington games, no siree.

The Democrats’ perjury/contempt/impeachment slander against Barr is based on the fact that, in prior congressional testimony, Barr was asked whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusions about the report, including that there was insufficient evidence to charge obstruction. Barr replied that he did not know whether Mueller agreed. Democrats now contend that Barr must have known Mueller disagreed because he had Mueller’s letter. But Mueller’s letter doesn’t say he disagreed with Barr’s conclusion – it says he was unhappy with how his work was being perceived by the public.

Barr and Mueller spoke by phone the day after Mueller sent his letter. If you wade through the first 13 paragraphs of the Post’s story, you finally find the bottom line:

“When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.”

So even Mueller conceded, through gritted teeth, that Barr’s letter was accurate. The diva was just worried about the media coverage.

No surprise there. Barr’s letter conveyed that Mueller had failed to render a prosecutorial judgment on the only question a special counsel was arguably needed to decide: Was there enough evidence to charge President Trump with obstruction, or should prosecution be declined?

On collusion, Mueller’s report had conveyed what everyone already knew from the indictments Mueller had previously filed, and what Mueller himself must have known very soon after taking over the probe in May 2017: There was no case.

Plainly, this was an obstruction investigation: Mueller was appointed just days after (a) the president’s dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, and (b) the FBI’s opening of an obstruction investigation against the president based on acting Director Andrew McCabe’s harebrained theory that the chief executive’s firing of a subordinate can constitute obstruction of justice – under circumstances where (1) the president had the power to halt the Russia investigation but never did; (2) the Russia investigation was a counterintelligence matter, which is done for the president, not for prosecution in the justice system (hence, justice cannot be obstructed); and (3) McCabe testified after Comey’s firing that no one had attempted to obstruct the investigation.

Under the circumstances, Mueller’s main job was to answer the obstruction question. He abdicated. Barr’s letter made that obvious. The press coverage elucidated it. This made Mueller very unhappy. So he wrote a letter whining about “context.”

Of course, context is not a prosecutor’s job. That is the stuff of political narratives.

Mueller was not effectively supervised. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein allowed him to get into the political narrative business – just as he allowed the special counsel to persist in the collusion investigation for over a year after it was clear that there was no collusion case.

Without supervision, Mueller’s staff continued weaving a tale rather than acknowledging that they had not found a crime. For example, the allegation against George Papadopoulos – namely, that he lied about the date of a meeting – could have been charged in a single paragraph. Instead, the charge is accompanied by Mueller’s 14-page “statement of the offense,” which is not a statement of the false-statement offense at all – it is a lot of huffing and puffing about almost-but-not-really collusion.

The Michael Flynn false-statements charge similarly comes with a script about unremarkable discussions between an incoming national security advisor and Russian counterpart that are portrayed as almost-not-quite-collusion.

The Roger Stone indictment for still more process crimes – i.e., crimes the investigation caused rather than examined – is a 20-page epic of “something around here sure smells like collusion.”

No collusion charges, no espionage conspiracy evidence … just enough intrigue to keep a soap opera rolling along.

It is not a prosecutor’s job, under the pretext of “context,” to taint people by publicizing non-criminal conduct. If the investigative subject has committed no offense, the public is customarily told nothing. If a defendant is charged with a relatively minor offense, the indictment is supposed to reflect that.

You are supposed to see the crime for what it is, not view it through the prism of the prosecutor’s big ambitions. If all George Papadopoulos did was fib about when a meeting happened, the function of an indictment is to put him on notice of that charge; it is not to weave a heroic tale of how hard the prosecutor tried to find collusion with a hostile foreign power.

Mueller was annoyed because Barr’s report showed Mueller didn’t do the job he was retained to do, and omitted all the narrative-writing that Mueller preferred to do.


Before Attorney General Barr issued his letter outlining the special counsel’s conclusions, Mueller was invited to review it for accuracy. Mueller declined. After Barr explained that Mueller had not decided the obstruction question, the press reported on this dereliction. Mueller is miffed about the press coverage … but he can’t say Barr misrepresented his findings.

Like the Mueller investigation, this episode is designed to fuel a political narrative. But we don’t need a narrative – we don’t even need anyone to explain the report plainly. That’s because we now have the report. We can read it for ourselves. The rest is noise.



Veteran Hero Challenged the Enemy U.S. Post Office and WON BACK HIS HONOR!

Post Office Terminated Veteran Who Was Fighting In The War On Terror

This is a story that’s been far too long in the making and will likely enrage you. Fortunately (spoiler alert) it has a somewhat happy ending. It deals with a postal carrier from Maine named John Patrie. John was a member of the Maine National Guard when the attacks of September 11, 2001, took place. He was called up for active duty almost immediately, going on to serve multiple tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan until 2015.

SEE ALSO: Mueller objected to AG Barr’s description of his conclusions

All during his military service, Patrie sent copies of his orders to his USPS supervisors as required, informing them of his various assignments. He kept up with all the responsibilities of someone who is off fighting for their country but expects to return to work once their service is over. But after his discharge from the service, he was informed by the Post Office that he couldn’t come back to work and had been terminated because he “abandoned his civilian post.”

John filed a complaint with the US Labor Department, where it was determined that the Post Office had violated the veterans protection law. Still, the USPS refused to reinstate him. The Labor Department kicked the case to the Office of Special Counsel. They sent it to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Finally, they investigated and ruled in Patrie’s favor. (Government Executive)

“Patrie did everything he could under the law, and he had no idea how long he would be away,” OSC attorney Patrick Boulay told Government Executive. The veteran even kept his locker and union membership. “The whole idea of USERRA is to maintain the employment as an ‘unburned bridge.’ It is the service member’s choice whether to cross that bridge, but the Postal Service decided at the last moment to burn the bridge.”

The Postal Service, Boulay added, has been applying its own standards in such cases similarly for years, and is the only agency that doesn’t follow the exceptions to the law’s five-year limit on employment eligibility.

“We are very pleased to have won this victory not just for Mr. Patrie but for service members everywhere,” said Special Counsel Henry Kerner. “Our country must honor its commitments to those who serve in uniform and defend our freedoms.”

So Mr. Patrie has his job at the Post Office back. In addition, the USPS was ordered to reinstate John retroactive to January 2016 and provide back pay and benefits. That’s as it should be, but he never should have been put through all of this to begin with. While it’s true that there’s a five year limit to federal employment eligibility when you can’t work for an extended period of time, there are specific exceptions to that law and one of them covers reservists who are called to active duty. The Post Office hasn’t been honoring those exceptions and that needs to change.

As a side note, you’ll notice that this matter wound up being adjudicated by the MSPB. I know that I’ve taken issue with that board here on many occasions. (Okay… that’s putting it very mildly. The MSPB is a disaster that too often allows delinquent or even criminal government employees to keep their jobs forever.) But in this case, they managed to use their power for something good, rather than protecting people who were found to be watching porn all day, selling drugs out of their offices or even driving getaway vehicles at crime scenes. (Yes, all of those things happened.)

So here’s a rare tip of my hat to the Merit Systems Protection Board. John Patrie has earned far more than just our thanks and a job at the Post Office for the sacrifices he made in service of his country. Thank you for setting this situation to rights.


Post Office terminated veteran who was fighting in the war on terror

But, What about that John McCain, the First Class Jerk?

Media Obituaries Didn’t Give Us ‘The Full McCain’

by John Fund at National Review:

The sugary praise, often from former critics, does his memory no favors.

The past week has featured so much extravagant praise of John McCain that Jill Abramson, the former editor of the New York Times, had to admit “McCain would cringe over some of the glowing tributes pouring in.”

Take this example from The New Yorker:

In death, McCain had finally become one with the country that was the object of his deepest faith, and any praise lavished on him, during the funeral proceedings or at any point afterward, would redound to the greater glory of America.

Yes, of course, John McCain was an American hero. But his sudden elevation to superhero status demonstrates one reason so many Americans view the media and the political establishment with skepticism. Many must have wondered whether they were getting the “real McCain” story or being fed a thinly veiled political message. As Joe Concha of The Hill newspaper asked,

If the senator had gotten along with Trump, perhaps voted for the “skinny repeal” of Obamacare that he so famously shot down with one vote change at the 11th hour, hadn’t publicly called Trump “disgraceful,” would we see this level of reverence?

Many commenters rightly criticized President Trump’s churlishness toward John McCain. But when it was revealed that Sarah Palin, his 2008 vice-presidential running mate — who has never said a negative word about McCain and indeed expressed only gratitude toward him — was being excluded from his funeral and memorial services, the same pundits were silent. Noticing the public rebuke of Palin would have interrupted the narrative of John McCain as an example of what’s best and noble in our politics.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post led the parade of puffery earlier this year when he declared McCain “the single greatest political leader of our time.” He followed up this week by declaring that McCain “never forgot that political opponents are not his enemies, and that there are things more important than winning elections.”

Even those who view McCain in iconic terms would find that statement preposterous. The media loved McCain’s being accessible at their beck and call, his willingness to leak about his Senate colleagues, and his apostasy on key GOP positions ranging from campaign-finance reform to global warming and Obamacare. His failings were forgiven by the media during his 2000 presidential campaign, during which political columnist Joe Klein described him as “a man on a white horse attempting to traverse a muddy field.”

During the 2000 Republican presidential convention in Philadelphia, I went to a tony restaurant to attend a reception. By accident, I stumbled into a room chock-full of top-shelf media types: Dan Rather of CBS, the late Peter Jennings of ABC, Tom Brokaw of NBC, Arthur Sulzberger of the New York Times. After a few minutes, I realized I was at the wrong event. It was a birthday party for John McCain. I recall telling Peter Jennings that it was a strange party for a politician to have. As far as I could tell, there were no family members present, no donors, no party officials. In a deadpan tone, Jennings told me: “Well, this is really the first meeting of John McCain’s next precinct-organizing committee.”

But when McCain ran a more conventionally conservative campaign in 2008, competing with the media’s new heartthrob, Barack Obama, the pundits turned on him with a vengeance. According to the Pew Research Center, between the Republican National Convention’s close on September 4 and the final presidential debate on October 15, McCain’s media coverage was negative over positive by a 4-to-1 ratio.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd complained that McCain had “turned on his former base, the news media.” He now had feet of clay: “Even some of McCain’s former aides are disturbed by the 73-year-old’s hostile, vindictive, sarcastic persona.”