• 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

Are Democrat Judges Aware They Are Not Legislators? Or Have They All Become Fascists?

JUDGE BATES’ POWER GRAB

by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

Scott has embedded the opinion of Judge John Bates in NAACP v. Donald J. Trump. Judge Bates ordered the administration to restart the DACA program within 20 days because, in essence, he doesn’t think much of the administration’s policy reasons for ending the program.

I have plowed through the opinion. It reminds me of the scene in “Duck Soup” where Groucho Marx (Rufus T. Firefly) refuses to hear a matter because it’s “new business.” Then, when it’s time to consider new business, he rules that the matter can’t be heard because it’s “old business already.”

It’s a funny scene when Groucho plays it in “Fredonia.” When a federal judge plays it in real life, it’s neither amusing nor pleasant reading.

I will probably have more to say about Judge Bates’ decision, but not for a while. I’m not willing to spoil a weekend by diving back into this arrogant, legalistic shell-game of an opinion.

Instead, I’ll offer a few observation about Judge Bates.

First, he illustrates two phenomena: (1) the inability of past Republican administrations to avoid nominating judges who embrace the role of “robed master” and (2) the bipartisancontempt in which the Washington, D.C. legal community holds this administration — contempt that Bates makes little effort to conceal in his opinion.

Second, Bates worked with Brett Kavanaugh on Ken Starr’s team during the investigations of President Clinton. Let’s hope Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed quickly enough to take his place on the Supreme Court in time to hear the DACA case. And let’s hope he sees through and rejects the judicial power grab in which his former colleague has indulged.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/08/judge-bates-power-grab.php

Democrat Party’s CBS Claims Trump’s Down to Two Finalists

CBS: Trump’s Down To Two Finalists For SCOTUS Picks

by Ed Morrissey  at HotAir:

Will the nomination to replace Anthony Kennedy come sooner than expected? According to CBS News, Donald Trump has narrowed down his short list to two finalists. It’s between a longtime conservative favorite and … a more recent conservative favorite:

CBS News has learned that D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Chicago Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett are currently Mr. Trump’s leading contenders for the appointment to the nation’s highest court.

Kavanaugh and Barrett both appear on Mr. Trump’s list of 25 possible nominees and he’s said he plans to interview about half a dozen potential candidates before announcing his selection. …

Over the weekend, Mr. Trump was in Bedminster, New Jersey. Although the president hinted last week that he might meet with potential nominees there, CBS News has confirmed that no candidates were present on the weekend trip.

How seriously can we take this? There isn’t any reporting other than CBS to back up the idea that Trump has already narrowed his consideration to Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Furthermore as Blair Guild notes in the follow-up, Nancy Cordes also reports that none of the contenders met with Trump over the weekend, so the interviews haven’t even yet begun. It seems unlikely that Trump would have narrowed down his list without conducting any interviews at all on a nomination that will be key to his presidential legacy. On the other hand, Ramesh Ponnuru apparently hears the same thing.

Perhaps Kavanaugh and Barrett are the “top contenders” going into the narrowing process because they’re archetypes of the two strategies Trump has open to him. Kavanaugh has extensive experience in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, is well known to conservative activists, and will be reliably conservative at the Supreme Court. That’s the recipe for the low-key strategy, or at least as low-key as this can get. Barrett exemplifies the in-your-face strategy — small amount of experience, solid conservative track record, and the ability to make this into a high-tension fight with Democrats, as her confirmation last year to the appellate court amply demonstrated. Trump’s long list has potential nominees that fit into either or both slots, but none personify the two tracks as well as these do.

One dark horse could be Raymond Kethledge in the Kavanaugh track. Despite his recent reversal in Carpenter (or perhaps in addition to it), conservatives have started to take note of his originalist bent and the potential sharp departure from Kennedy that it might take on the Supreme Court. Ed Whelan points out Kethledge’s textual approach to the separation of powers, but his hostility to Chevron might put him on the Barrett track with Senate Democrats:

Judge Kethledge’s views on Chevron originate with the text of the Constitution. As he has explained, “Article III of the Constitution vests in Article III courts ‘[t]he judicial Power of the United States’—which means not some of it, but all of it.” Raymond M. Kethledge, Ambiguities and Agency Cases: Reflections After (Almost) Ten Years on the Bench, 70 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 315, 323 (2017). The Framers agreed: “Hamilton said in Federalist No. 78 that ‘[t]he interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts,’” and “Chief Justice Marshall said almost verbatim the same thing in Marbury v. Madison, with all but an exclamation point at the end.” Id. Under Chevron, however, the interpretation of an ambiguous statute “becomes the province of an executive agency.” Id. “One may fairly ask, therefore, whether the doctrine allocates core judicial power to the executive—or perhaps simply blocks the exercise of judicial power in cases where the doctrine applies.” Ambiguities and Agency Cases at 323. …

Some have tried to sidestep the conflict between Chevron and Article III by arguing that agencies are not really “interpreting” ambiguous statutes; they are making policy judgments that have the force of law. To be sure, this way of thinking has one advantage—it better describes how agencies often go about their business. As Judge Kethledge has recognized, agencies that ask for deference often are “not trying to answer the same question that [courts] are.” Ambiguities and Agency Cases at 323. When courts interpret statutes, they look (or should look) for the “best objective interpretation” of the text: in other words, “the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved.” Ambiguities and Agency Cases at 316, 323. When agencies “interpret” statutes, however, they are often looking for a “colorable interpretation that will support the policy result that [they] want[] to reach.” Id. at 323.

Although this approach better describes reality, it simply trades one separation-of-powers problem for another. When judges read their policy preferences into a statute, Judge Kethledge explains, “we call it judicial activism”—something that “most observers condemn … as an arrogation of legislative power to the judiciary.” Id. And it is unclear “why the result is any better when the arrogation is done by the executive.” Id. at 323–24. This way of understanding Chevron may “escape the jaws of Article III’s Vesting Clause,” therefore, but “it runs headlong into the teeth of Article I’s.” Michigan, 135 S. Ct. at 2713 (Thomas, J., concurring); see alsoGutierrez-Brizuela, 834 F.3d at 1152–55 (Gorsuch, J., concurring).

As a judge on the court of appeals, Judge Kethledge remains bound by Chevron. But Chevron is not an inflexible doctrine, and it can properly be applied in ways that minimize its harm to the separation of powers. Judge Kethledge has done so in two ways: first, he works hard to find the objective meaning of the statutory text before declaring it ambiguous, and second, he refuses to defer to agencies that fail to justify their interpretations.

Be sure to read both all the way through. Kethledge ended up on Trump’s list for a reason, and the new reading of Chevron might make for a nuanced redirection of the court to oppose regulatory overreach and demand more clarity from Congress. However, it seems a lot more likely that Trump would choose bombast over nuance and try to stick a finger in Chuck Schumer’s eye by nominating Barrett.

 

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/02/cbs-trumps-two-finalists-scotus-picks/

While Obama’s Racists Terrorize, Ben Shapiro Preaches Knowledge and Civility at Yale

 

 

Why Isn’t Obstructionist, Rod Rosenstein, Sent to Siberia?

Rosenstein threatened to ‘subpoena’ GOP-led committee in ‘chilling’ clash over records, emails show

by Catherine Herridge  at Fox:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to “subpoena” emails, phone records and other documents from lawmakers and staff on a Republican-led House committee during a tense meeting earlier this year, according to emails reviewed by Fox News documenting the encounter and reflecting what aides described as a “personal attack.”

The emails memorialized a January 2018 closed-door meeting involving senior FBI and Justice Department officials as well as members of the House Intelligence Committee. The account claimed Rosenstein threatened to turn the tables on the committee’s inquiries regarding the Russia probe.

“The DAG [Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] criticized the Committee for sending our requests in writing and was further critical of the Committee’s request to have DOJ/FBI do the same when responding,” the committee’s then-senior counsel for counterterrorism Kash Patel wrote to the House Office of General Counsel. “Going so far as to say that if the Committee likes being litigators, then ‘we [DOJ] too [are] litigators, and we will subpoena your records and your emails,’ referring to HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and Congress overall.”

A second House committee staffer at the meeting backed up Patel’s account, writing: “Let me just add that watching the Deputy Attorney General launch a sustained personal attack against a congressional staffer in retaliation for vigorous oversight was astonishing and disheartening. … Also, having the nation’s #1 (for these matters) law enforcement officer threaten to ‘subpoena your calls and emails’ was downright chilling.”

The committee staffer noted that Rosenstein’s comment could be interpreted as meaning the department would “vigorously defend a contempt action” — which might be expected. But the staffer continued, “I also read it as a not-so-veiled threat to unleash the full prosecutorial power of the state against us.”

Representatives with both the DOJ and FBI disputed the account in the emails.

“The FBI disagrees with a number of characterizations of the meeting as described in the excerpts of a staffer’s emails provided to us by Fox News,” the FBI said in a statement.

A DOJ official told Fox News that Rosenstein “never threatened anyone in the room with a criminal investigation.” The official said the department and bureau officials in the room “are all quite clear that the characterization of events laid out here is false,” adding that Rosenstein was responding to a threat of contempt.

‘[H]aving the nation’s #1 … law enforcement officer threaten to ‘subpoena your calls and emails’ was downright chilling.’

– House Intelligence Committee staffer, describing clash with Rod Rosenstein

“The Deputy Attorney General was making the point—after being threatened with contempt — that as an American citizen charged with the offense of contempt of Congress, he would have the right to defend himself, including requesting production of relevant emails and text messages and calling them as witnesses to demonstrate that their allegations are false,” the official said. “That is why he put them on notice to retain relevant emails and text messages, and he hopes they did so. (We have no process to obtain such records without congressional approval.)”

Further, the official said that when Rosenstein returns to the United States from a work trip, “he will request that the House General counsel conduct an internal investigation of these Congressional staffers’ conduct.”

Details of the January 2018 meeting first trickled out in the immediate aftermath. Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett tweeted in February on the purported subpoena threat.

But the emails, reviewed by Fox News, provide additional details about that encounter. A former Justice Department official said the account may help explain how the relationship between the DOJ and the Republican-led House committee has broken down in the months since.

“This is much worse than a deteriorating relationship – this is a massive breakdown in the system. A deputy attorney general does not make subpoena threats lightly. This is not the norm to say the least,” Tom Dupree, the former principal deputy assistant attorney general under the George W. Bush administration, told Fox News. “It’s hard to tell whether [Rosenstein] was sending a message to back off, or whether he was just trying to illustrate how invasive he considered the demands from Congress. But either way, it is a clear signal that the relationship is fractured, and it’s not clear how things will get repaired.”

The tense session over the boundaries of congressional oversight – and the Justice Department’s concern for protecting sources and methods – appears to have set the tone for a sustained records dispute as well as the latest confrontation over Chairman Devin Nunes’ request for information related to an alleged FBI confidential human source who was in contact with the Trump campaign.

A senior Justice Department official said Rosenstein and others have offered to meet Thursday with a group of House leaders known as the Gang of Eight. In a letter, Nunes, R-Calif. – whose staffers documented the Jan. 10 meeting – made clear he wants the records made available to all intelligence committee members and select staff two days earlier.

The Jan. 10 meeting came amid government surveillance abuse allegations, outstanding House subpoenas for Russia probe records and the looming threat of contempt. The Capitol Hill session pertained to a request for a sensitive document, according to the emails – and included Rosenstein, Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Stephen Boyd, then-FBI Assistant Director Greg Brower and FBI Director Christopher Wray, as well as Nunes and three committee staffers.

The emails reviewed by Fox News show at least two committee staffers memorialized their concerns about the deputy attorney general’s alleged statements, at the request of the Office of General Counsel.

“I know I’ve relayed the following to you over the phone, and per your suggestion reducing it to writing so there is at least some record of the event,” wrote Patel, who is now the committee’s national security adviser.

The two staffers were pressed on whether Rosenstein could justify the comments as “merely referring to how DOJ would vigorously defend any litigation that the committee might initiate?” — an apparent reference to Nunes’ threat to hold Rosenstein and Wray in contempt for not providing records.

“I took … it as the DAG’s clearly articulated course of action should the committee continue its investigation in the current manner, which he found unacceptable and improper. It was not in response to how they would defend litigation (ie contempt or the like),” Patel responded. “It was about leaks, source contact, and other alleged disclosures by the committee.”

Asked about the January meeting, Nunes provided a statement to Fox News noting they referred the incident to House Speaker Paul Ryan’s office: “The Intelligence Committee considers staff concerns at the most serious level, especially those involving interactions with the executive branch. Based on the justified concerns expressed by our lead staff investigators, we referred this matter to the Speaker’s Office.”

Fox News provided extensive quotes from the emails and offered an opportunity to respond to all parties. The House Office of General Counsel declined to comment. A source close to the speaker said they “encouraged the Committee to work through the non-partisan DOJ Inspector General’s Office.”

A committee source said “going to DOJ IG is one of several steps under consideration.”

The DOJ official later said in an email that “no formal complaint was ever filed [with] the GC or IG.” The official also said that Rosenstein and Nunes “went to dinner with a mutual friend the night of this meeting and the chairman didn’t raise any concerns about the conversation at that dinner.”

Dupree, though, said the tensions between Congress and the Justice Department go well beyond the traditional oversight negotiations.

“Rarely, if ever, has it deterioriated to this point where you have what appears to be threats going back and forth between the two sides,” he said.

Fox News’ Pamela K. Browne and Cyd Upson contributed to this report. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/12/rosenstein-threatened-to-subpoena-gop-led-committee-in-chilling-clash-over-records-emails-show.html

Protests Lift Fascist Brit Gag Order on British Media and Jailed Robinson for Speaking Truth!

Tommy Robinson case gag order on British media lifted in the face of worldwide protest

by Thomas Lifson  at  American Thinker:

When Tommy Robinson was arrested for live-streaming a report outside the Leeds courthouse where members of an alleged Muslim grooming gang who allegedly forced young British girls into prostitution, and the court quickly imposed a gag order on U.K. media reporting it, outrage (and an overseas legal defense fund) quickly followed.  (See my writing about it herehere, and here.)

In the words of Washington Post writer Avi Selk:

The gag order backfired, turning English Defense League founder Tommy Robinson into a sort of free-speech martyr to conservatives such as Donald Trump Jr. and Roseanne Barr before the gag order was lifted Tuesday.

Selk’s report, incidentally, drips with contempt toward Robinson, calling him “[o]ne of Britain’s most notorious anti-Muslim campaigners” (emphasis added).

Robinson wants to halt Muslim immigration and focuses on the crime statistics and the violent jihad activity that have resulted from large scale Muslim immigration.

Selk presents the rationale for gagging reporting:

It’s illegal in Britain to report the details of some trials before they conclude – a long-standing law designed to prevent the news from biasing juries and causing prosecutions to collapse, according to Leeds Live.

Oddly enough, even though the Washington Post’s motto, “Democracy Dies in  Darkness,” appears at the top of the web page featuring Selk’s article, he nowhere discusses this concept with regard to the gag order.

Not everyone thinks arresting someone for speaking and then forbidding any media discussion of the arrest is consistent with a free society.  Zerohedge has collected some of the overseas support for Robinson and outrage at the gag order:

Free speech advocates and supporters of Robinson’s movement from Melbourne to Berlin came out by the thousands to protest the Friday arrest outside of Leeds Crown Court while Robinson was reporting on a pedophile grooming trial via Facebook livestream.  Within six hours of his detention, Robinson was slapped with a 13 month prison term for violating a prior suspended sentence for a similar offense. …

Mass protests broke out following Robinson’s arrest – the largest of which was a crowd of thousands in the UK, demonstrating at the gates of Downing Street to demand the release of the conservative activist. …

 

Please click below to feel the power of  the protesters to champion their Tommy Robinson for his arrest and immediate imprisonment for thirteen months by court writ without trial…..and likely a death sentence for the innocent victim who loves the country he was raised in:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/tommy_robinson_case_gag_order_on_british_media_lifted_in_the_face_of_worldwide_protest.html

Is Anyone Honest in the Department of Justice? What Story Will IG Horowitz Tell?

AP: DoJ IG Report To Rip FBI Leadership For Heel-Dragging Hillary Probe

by Ed Morrissey  at HotAir:

With an expanding scope in another probe, Inspector General Michael Horowitz will soon release his report on the Department of Justice’s conduct of the Hillary Clinton probe. According to sources talking to the Associated Press, the IG report will take aim at the FBI and its leadership at the time for a series of curious decisions, including a long delay in seeking a warrant to probe e-mails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Had the FBI acted properly, the report will say, much of the October confusion could have been avoided:

An upcoming report from the Justice Department’s internal watchdog is expected to criticize senior FBI leaders for not moving quickly enough to review a trove of Hillary Clinton emails discovered late in the 2016 campaign, according to people familiar with findings.

The FBI’s timing has been a sore point for Clinton supporters, who say then-director James Comey’s announcement of the review less than two weeks before the Nov. 8, 2016, election contributed to her loss. The agency’s findings affirming their decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton were disclosed two days before the vote — too late, her supporters say, to undo the damage.

Some FBI officials knew in September 2016 of the emails on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop but the bureau did not obtain a warrant to review them until the following month. Clinton supporters say the candidate’s name could have been cleared much faster if the FBI acted on the emails as soon as they knew about them.

The criticism will hit the very top of the ladder at the bureau:

All of this is certainly interesting, but … not all that interesting. Hillary Clinton supporters have long blamed Comey and the FBI for the timing of these actions, and with some justification, apparently. However, the FBI wasn’t the proximate cause of the problem. The proximate cause was Hillary Clinton’s decision to use a private, secret, and unsecured e-mail server for official business in violation of the Federal Records Act and the Espionage Act too, despite Comey’s decision to let Hillary off the hook for it. Had Hillary used the official State Department e-mail system, those e-mails would never have been on Weiner’s laptop in the first place — and it demonstrated just how unsecured the system was.

That also points out how oddly weak of a leak this is ahead of the release of the IG report. Horowitz had much more meaty questions on his Hillary probe plate than just the timing of the Weiner search warrant. What was Loretta Lynch’s role in determining the scope of the investigation and potential action? Why did Comey usurp Lynch’s role in determining outcomes without a formal recusal by Lynch? Did the White House apply undue pressure on the FBI? Why did FBI investigators allow Cheryl Mills — a potential witness — represent Hillary in the interview? Why did the FBI not recommend charges when Mills and Huma Abedin misled investigators?

This leak either indicates that the IG report will take a large pass on these questions, or is intended to distract from the answers it might contain. Unless more leaks about those issues emerge, we won’t find out for another few weeks which it is.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/21/ap-doj-ig-report-rip-fbi-leadership-heel-dragging-hillary-probe/

President Trump Stars at NRA Meeting!

President Trump Addresses National Rifle Association Meeting

 

For the fourth year in a row, President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence deliver remarks at the “National Rifle Association 147th Annual Meeting and Exhibit” in Dallas on Friday. Last year, he became the first sitting president to appear since Reagan, declaring that the “assault” on the Second Amendment had ended.

Asked why Trump was attending, given the current political tensions around gun violence, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said this week that safety was a “big priority.” But, she added, “We also support the Second Amendment, and strongly support it, and don’t see there to be a problem with speaking at the National Rifle Association’s meeting.”

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/05/04/watch_live_president_trump_speaks_at_national_rifle_association_meeting.html