• Pragerisms

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

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

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

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

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

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

The Disappearance of the Quality American Human Female Animal

During my childhood, Ma Perkins, The Shadow, I Love a Mystery,  Tom Mix, the Lone Ranger, Local WCCO Man Cedric Adams, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, H.V. Kaltenborn, and such, were primary noises rising from our Twin City radio coverage….

We were required to imagine and learn rather than become programmed mindless screaming leftist fascists from the nation’s universities and schools, and  CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, PBS, ABC and even often at  Fox of the television world.

Adults were Churched and married then.   Reno, Nevada was where wealthy females showed up for divorces.  In very modestville St. Paul, Minnesota of late depression 1930s and throughout the War,  all but two of the twenty two  households on our block were fathers and mothers together  raising children  ages between two and fourteen  years old  before the war began.   Grandparents lived in both of the remaining homes.

Mothers were female.  Fathers were male.   “Drugs”, outside of beer and wine, did not exist.   Rumor occasionally mentioned that neighborhood’s  Mr. Joyce, on our side of the block, smelled of liquor once in a while, especially when he would be mowing his lawn.

Mothers were real Mothers then.   They stayed at home.  They taught, cooked, made clothing,  gardened, cleaned and advised.  Most of all, they were Mothers…..and had time to be so.    They caused neighborhood friendship.  They loved their children.  They went to Church with their husbands on Sundays.  No one was noted for swearing in public.

These ladies wore dresses indoors and out, especially if they went downtown to shop.   I never saw an obese human being  until after the war, about 1947,  when my barber, the father of  Charlie Schultz, the  creator of Peanut’s comic strip) had his  shop  picketed almost an entire summer.  He had refused to close his shop on Monday’s…and needed to be punished by the union.    My dad owned the drugstore next to the barbershop where the picketer always ate a double  lunch along with his chocolate soda.   At  40 he measured about 5’5″ in height and 350 lbs. or more in weight.   Guys worked six days a week then.  Gals were still Mothers and ran their households.

My memory tells me that 1947 was the year in St. Paul when  17 year-old Geraldine Mingo was murdered, one of two such victims in the city that year.  Her body was found near a streetcar line two blocks from our block…

I didn’t hear anyone swear in those years beyond “darn” it, or “shoot”.   During my freshman year in high school, 1948, a new boy at our school  whose voice had already changed into “manhood”,  was kicked out of school for a couple of days.    He was in my gymnasium group.   On the way to play soccer outdoors one  sunny October day he had loudly uttered the word “DAMN”  for  something or another.    We all heard it.

I loved my teachers to this day.  They made me love learning the subjects they taught!  …..and I have loved learning knowledge ever since.

Where are we today, however?  Half of the population appears drugged, divorced, fat, ugly, childless, ignorant  and LEFTIST!   Crime seems our daily American habit,  especially at our border with Mexico.  And churches and synagogues appear empty or have disappeared from the nation’s habits of teaching and learning classical decency in a civilized world.

Our America has become  ignorant of the past; ignorant of the nature around them.  Enter the feminazis of today’s university ditsy-trained feminists of all types and sizes, loaded with feelings,  swearings, noises seeking political power rather than knowledge and truth….

When has the human female animal ever been at the center of human problem solving of the species?   When was  she ever born driven to  defend the species, to discover the unknown, to invent, build, explore, to discover and also  be a killer when needed?

Today we know the human is an animal.  We know this human male animal is born with killer instincts  he must learn to use and  control in any civilized Godfearing society.  In today’s lefty-fascist feminized America, it is fashionable  to pretend there is no difference between the  human female and human male animals  in all matters.

I was six feet tall and have weighed 170 lbs  in maturity.   My wife at maturity was five feet two and weighed  115 pounds from age 17 to 84.    She died last year.

Does the human male animal bear genes or a womb to carry a child?  Is the human female animal’s  nature   equal to  her male “mate”, to be the principal protector of the survival of the species?

Why is  leftist America  so excited to deceive, to pretend truths from such deceits now scurrying   throughout the fashions of our current fascistic leftist culture?

Because today’s  moody-by-nature  fascist feminists of all sexes  are in the mood to be, because they are being taught to be.  They  are presently interested in commanding  government without popular democratic or republican interference!  Socialists, that is their lefty fascists, love to force populations   into a world of universal ignorance as masses   so that those masses are totally dependent upon the fascistic state for their level of knowledge, politics and livelihoods.

The human female in truth  is too weak by nature to be relied upon as the American sentinel for our freedoms.     Raising civilized children is her God-given gift.    Comfort, security, peace   are  female drives by dreams and nature when they bear children.

Our human “She” is not born the species  killer-protector  as is our human “He”.  “He” must be civilized to rise above that animal nature of his birth  to protect the species’ drive to survive thanks to his ability to invent, build, and solve problems.

God-fearing, however,  is learned!   It must be taught and worshiped.

The human female animal is also born with a serious  natural handicap…..”She” is born “Ditsy” as an animal.   Two and two do not equal four if the “She” of the human species has  not become sufficiently curious and absorbed in developing a civilized mood and environment  to accept change.   “She” must learn to develop a natural drive to absorb and use  knowledge to problem solve…..and have children to save the species!

Today American lefties are enjoying much of their present popularity and power by controlling  the rise of these new feminazis and other drugged up guys and dolls skilled at making noise to rule America as soon as they can!   CALIFORNIA HERE WE COME!!!?



National Dem Bigotry Against Christianity Is Finally Being Challenged?

These 2 Democrats Are Finally Standing Up to Anti-Christian Bigotry in Their Party

Article sent by Mark Waldeland:
. . . Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii published a searing op-ed on Tuesday chiding her Democratic colleagues in the Senate for questioning Brian C. Buescher, a Trump judicial nominee, over his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest Catholic civic organization.

Back in December, Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, used their questioning time to scrutinize the Knights’ “extreme positions” on same-sex marriage and abortion. (Shock: The Knights of Columbus oppose both, in accordance with the Catholic Church.)

. . . But she wasn’t completely alone. Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, one of the only pro-life Democrats left in the House, voiced his concern on the matter:
I would never, ever have expected that membership in the Knights of Columbus would be something that would be viewed with suspicion and maybe even worse. It’s terrible to see membership in the Knights of Columbus questioned like that, but at the core this gets back to the question of religious freedom, and it’s something that we have to continue to speak out about because we, our country, can’t afford to lose that freedom that we’re guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senators who dismiss the Knights of Columbus as “extreme” show just how little they know about the organization. The Knights mostly focus on charity work for the poor,disabled, and orphaned, while raising money to educate underprivileged students who come from all religious affiliations.

They have also been working to aid persecuted Christians in the Middle East and all over the world.

The Knights of Columbus are, essentially, a Catholic version of the Rotary Club. And the depth of their giving is impressive to say the least.

The Federalist’s Helen Raleigh put it best: “The only thing extreme about [the Knights of Columbus] is their generosity.”  . . .

Usual White Haters at NY Times Disappointed Murderer Was NOT WHITE!!


by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

You probably have heard about the tragic murder of 7-year-old Jazmine Barnes in Houston. She was shot for no apparent reason when she was in a car with her family. The New York Times pumped the story hard–unlike the similar killings of other black children–because of a report that the murderer was white. The Times covered the story on January 1:

The authorities described the gunman as a white man in his 40s with a beard, wearing a red, hooded sweatshirt and driving a red pickup truck.

The image of a white man suddenly firing on a black family raised questions about whether the shooting had been racially motivated.

And on January 2:

The police said Wednesday that they still had not identified the gunman. But the case has drawn the attention of national civil rights activists and fueled speculation that the shooting was racially motivated. The gunman is white, the police said, and Jazmine was black.

The Times ran a more fulsome story on January 5:

Relatives of Jazmine Barnes, the 7-year-old Texas girl who was fatally shot inside a moving car, grieved on Saturday at an emotionally charged rally not far from where the gunman opened fire on a family that was out on a morning coffee run.

Nearly 1,000 people gathered to honor Jazmine and to urge law enforcement to find the man who the police said attacked on Dec. 30 without provocation.

Jazmine, who was black, was in the car with her mother and three sisters when a white man pulled his red pickup truck beside them and began shooting, the police said. A bullet struck Jazmine in the head and she died at the scene, the police said.
In the crowd, a call-and-response chant demanded “Justice for Jazmine.” They embraced one another. A pastor led them in prayer.

Ms. Washington told The Houston Chronicle that she believed the attack was racially motivated, and the case has drawn attention from civil rights activists across the country.
Lee Merritt, a Philadelphia-based lawyer representing Jazmine’s family, said on Saturday he believed the shooting had the markings of a hate crime, in part because of the “randomness and unprovoked nature” of the attack.

United States Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Houston, said the racial dynamics of the case were apparent. “Do not be afraid to call this what it seems to be: a hate crime,” she told the crowd, demanding an investigation by the Justice Department.
“No peace, no justice,” the crowd chanted. Many parents said the shooting put them in fear of their own lives and those of their children.

The Times did quote one voice of sanity:

Sheriff Ed Gonzalez of Harris County, Tex., said at a news conference this week that it was too early for investigators to speculate about the gunman’s motive because he had not yet been identified.

Good point! But it didn’t deter the Times. Unfortunately–from the standpoint of the Times and others who tried to make political hay out of the truly senseless killing of Jazmine Barnes–the police caught the murderer, and he is black. Just one day later, on January 6, the paper had to eat crow: “A Twist in the Jazmine Barnes Case as a Suspect Is Charged With Capital Murder.” It was the usual story. The murderer was a gang member who thought he was retaliating against a hostile gang and shot into the wrong car. How many times have we heard that?

The authorities identified the suspect, Eric Black Jr., 20, and said he admitted to taking part in the Dec. 30 shooting.

Contrary to initial reports that the suspect was white, Mr. Black is black. It was a revelation that swiftly changed the narrative of a case that had drawn the attention of national civil rights activists amid speculation that the shooting was racially motivated.

“Changed the narrative”? Whose narrative?

The same day, the Times had a new spin in its Science section: Jazmine Barnes Case Shows How Trauma Can Affect Memory. Eyewitness testimony relating to a sudden, traumatic incident is unreliable? Who knew?

Lori Brown, a criminologist at Meredith College in Raleigh, N.C., said “eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence you can have” because people try to understand how a traumatic event could have happened by using what they know about the world. “Unfortunately,” she said, “we fill in the gaps.”

In other words: the narrative takes over.

I think we can assume that from now on, the murder of Jazmine Barnes will be relegated to the not-news limbo in which the killings of many other black children by black gang members have long resided. Don’t expect the New York Times to be interested. For more on this theme, see Heather MacDonald’s piece in City Journal.




The Fascist Left’s War Against Trump Continues….

New Documents Suggest The Steele Dossier Was A Deliberate Setup For Trump

After nearly two years since the Steele dossier was published, it remains the cornerstone of the case for collusion. The dossier model has also given rise to similar operations.

A trove of recently released documents sheds further light on the scope and logistics of the information operation designed to sabotage an American election. Players include the press, political operatives from both parties, and law enforcement and intelligence officials. Their instrument was the Steele dossier, first introduced to the American public two years ago.

A collection of reports compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, the dossier is now engraved in contemporary U.S. history. First marketed as bedrock evidence that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, the dossier’s legitimacy took a hit after reports showed the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the work.

The revelation that the dossier was used to secure a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page compromised the integrity of the investigation the FBI had opened on Page and three other Trump associates by the end of July 2016. Nonetheless, that same probe continues today as the special counsel investigation.

The dossier plays a central role in Robert Mueller’s probe. In the unredacted portions of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memo outlining Mueller’s scope are allegations that Trump adviser Paul Manafort colluded with Russian government officials interfering in the 2016 race. That claim is found in no other known document but the dossier. It is unclear whether further dossier allegations are in the redacted portions of the scope memo.

Further, with Mueller in charge, the dossier-won warrant on Page was renewed a third, and final, time in June 2017. It expired in September, when confidential human source Stefan Halper reportedly broke off regular communications with Page.

The Dossier Model Is Being Replicated

Paradoxically, it is the Mueller investigation that has most thoroughly tested the veracity of the dossier’s claims. After the FBI’s monitoring of Page for nearly a year, with access to his electronic communications prior to the warrant, the special counsel has brought no charges against the former Navy officer alleged in the dossier to be at the center of a criminal conspiracy.

Yet the dossier abides. Even as prominent and early collusion theory promoter journalist Michael Isikoff now questions its probity, many still contend that Steele’s reports have not been “disproven.” After nearly two years since the Steele dossier was published, it remains the cornerstone of the case for collusion. Moreover, the dossier model has given rise to similar operations, joining the press, political operatives, and intelligence officials, not all of them American, targeting Trump policies.

The reported murder of Arab intelligence operative and Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi was used as a platform by Turkish intelligence, the government of Qatar, and U.S. operatives to advance a campaign through the press, with the Post playing a leading role, against the administration’s pro-Saudi policies.

Democratic officials teamed with the media to thwart Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, also using an FBI investigation as a political tool. “We were very concerned when Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed for another FBI investigation of Kavanaugh,” said a congressional investigator on the Republican side familiar with the dossier operation. “We didn’t know who would get it at the bureau and who we can trust over there.”

Cyber-security experts hired by the Senate Intelligence Committee to write a report on how Russian social media accounts helped Trump beat Clinton themselves created fake Russian social media accounts to dirty the GOP Senate candidate in last year’s special Alabama election. As the dossier operation targeted Trump, the bot operation created the impression that Roy Moore was supported by the Kremlin.

Pretext for Two Years of Treason Accusations

The dossier operation has not only damaged institutions like the FBI and DOJ, it has also poisoned the public sphere, perhaps irremediably. As a result, it is now accepted journalistic practice to print, and reprint, any garish fantasy so long as it’s layered with Russian intrigue and Trump team treason. Even as the rest of the country sees an institution that has made itself a laughingstock, the press continues to salute itself for its bravery—or the courage and industry required to take leaks from law enforcement and intelligence officials and Democratic operatives in an effort to topple a president it doesn’t like, elected by neighbors it holds in contempt.

How did it come to this? Former FBI director James Comey ushered in the era of the dossier when he briefed Trump on January 6, 2017 on reports that “the Russians allegedly had tapes involving him and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow from about 2013.”

Last week, the Department of Justice released a heavily redacted version of the two-page memo on the dossier with which Comey briefed the president-elect. The “source’s reporting,” reads the memo, referring to Steele, “appears to have been acquired by multiple Western press organizations starting in October.”

As Comey later recorded in a separate memorandum documenting the meeting, he told Trump that “media like CNN had [the reports] and were looking for a news hook.” The briefing provided one.

According to Comey’s recent testimony, James Clapper ordered the briefing. The former director of national intelligence is believed to have then tipped off CNN, which later hired him as a commentator. After the award-winning CNN story posted, BuzzFeed published the document, passed to the news organization by Republican aide David Kramer.

The Frame Game Is Bipartisan

In his testimony, Comey again pushed the fiction that Republicans opposed to Trump first paid for the dossier. Congressional Republicans are right that Comey is trying to muddy the waters—the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded Steele’s work.

None of it would have been possible had the media not linked arms with spies, cops, and lawyers to relay a story first spun by Clinton operatives.

But credit Comey for underscoring, and maybe not accidentally, a larger truth—the operation that sought to defraud the American voter had bipartisan support all along. Court documents released in December show that Steele gave his final report to Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger and House Speaker Paul Ryan’s chief of staff, Jonathan Burks.

How is it possible that so many people knew and said nothing? Everyone knows it’s impossible to sustain a real conspiracy that size. People in the know talk and the press makes it public. But they did talk—all the time. But the conversations, implicit confessions, of FBI agents and other U.S. officials were hidden by colleagues who classified their talk, or deleted it, like FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page’s text messages.

The press didn’t report it because the press is part of the operation, the indispensable part. None of it would have been possible, and it certainly wouldn’t have lasted for two years, had the media not linked arms with spies, cops, and lawyers to relay a story first spun by Clinton operatives.

Starting with a relatively small group consisting of Steele, Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, and senior FBI, DOJ, CIA, and State Department officials, the dossier operation gained momentum and adherents, senior officials across the political spectrum, a large part of the press corps, then the many millions of Americans it wound into a frenzied madness. Thus, much of the dossier operation was improvised.

But the core component appears to be the result of a carefully constructed plan requiring technical and legal know-how. Interviews with current and former U.S. officials provide fresh insight into how Clinton-funded operatives and senior law enforcement figures orchestrated a media campaign and weaponized the dossier to obtain the October 21, 2016 warrant on Page.

Fishing for a FISA Warrant

The claim from the recently released two-page Comey memo that Steele’s “reporting appears to have been acquired by multiple Western press organizations starting in October” is inaccurate. The allegations that were eventually rolled into the Steele dossier first started appearing in the press six months previously. Understanding how the company that produced the dossier operates may clarify matters.

Fusion GPS started briefing the press on dossiers of Trump-Russia material long before BuzzFeed made the aggregate document public.

Fusion GPS calls the two- to three-page handouts that it distributes to its media customers dossiers. The so-called Steele dossier is a collection of 17 Fusion GPS dossiers apparently written over the period of several months in 2016 and published by BuzzFeed in January 2017.

Fusion GPS started briefing the press on dossiers of Trump-Russia material long before BuzzFeed made the aggregate document public. An echo chamber of Trump-Russia stories (New York MagazineSlate, and two in Politico) that appeared in April shows Fusion GPS was coordinating with the media shortly after it was hired by the Clinton campaign in March.

There is also confusion concerning the dossier’s sources. The Comey memo contends that Steele “collects information from a layered network of identified and unidentified subsources.” Presumably some genuine human sources fed the reporting. The dossier, however, was produced not by an intelligence bureaucracy, but by an opposition research firm whose “research,” according to Simpson’s Senate testimony, “is very document focused.”

The handouts Fusion GPS distributes to journalists are typically sourced to news articles, with footnotes and links, often from foreign or lesser-known media outlets. As another Fusion GPS contractor working on the Trump-Russia project explained, the job was to “produce memos based on information that is in the public record that can be given to the feds or shared with journalists.”

The Making of a Memo

Many of the dossier’s sources are taken from media reports or other documents, without the customary footnotes and links. For instance, it appears that the most notorious Steele memo recycled earlier Trump-Russia reports.

Around the same time Fusion GPS was hired, longtime Clinton foot-soldier Cody Shearer was also probing for ties between Trump and Russia. He, too, was speaking to media figures, like former CIA official Robert Baer. Shearer wrote two reports (“Donald Trump—Background Notes—The Compromised Candidate,” and “FSB Interview”), which are likely sources for the dossier report on which Comey briefed Trump.

Both Shearer memos detail Trump’s alleged sexual proclivities. One claims there is film of a woman urinating on him. The other Shearer report alleges that there is video of Trump caught in a sexual tryst in the presidential suite of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton in 2013. According to Shearer’s FSB source, this is how the Russians compromised Trump.

These are nearly identical to the core findings that Steele seems to have shared with the State Department and FBI in June and early July. The chronology of the BuzzFeed document indicates no other memos existed at that point. It’s not known whether Steele shared reporting with U.S. authorities that was not included in the BuzzFeed version.

Seeding the Media with Collusion Claims

DOJ officials claim that Steele’s reports regarding the Republican candidate’s alleged relationship to an adversarial foreign power were shelved for several months. However, action on the media front in early summer shows this is unlikely.

Shortly after Steele met with an FBI agent in London the first week of July, the press was briefed on his subsequent reporting. On July 26, a Wall Street Journal reporter texted Carter Page to ask for comment on allegations that he had met with Igor Sechin, a Russian energy executive and Putin ally, to discuss “energy deals and the possibility of the U.S. government lifting sanctions.”

The reporter’s queries match allegations made in a July 19 Steele memo that Page met with Sechin, who was sanctioned by the United States in 2014, during a Moscow trip earlier that month to discuss “future bilateral energy cooperation and prospects for an associated move to lift Ukraine-related Western sanctions on Russia.” These claims were entered in the original FISA application and all three renewals.

The FBI terminated its arrangement with Steele after discovering that he had briefed the press for a Mother Jones article published October 31. The House Intelligence Committee’s FISA memo argued that
Steele should have been fired for his “undisclosed contacts” with press outlets in September, before the FISA application was submitted to the court. But the exchange between Page and the WSJ reporter shows the press was being briefed on what is said to be Steele’s reporting by the end of July. Page wrote on Twitter recently that Fusion GPS fed the journalist this material.

Page has denied that he knows Sechin, the president of Rosneft (Russia’s major petroleum company), or the Kremlin official named in the memo. He responded to the Journal reporter that the “sanctions lifting point” was “ridiculous.”

The Advantages of Targeting a Normal Person

The former Trump volunteer brecently filed a defamation lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee and the law firm, Perkins Coie, that hired Fusion GPS on Clinton and the DNC’s behalf. “Until then, I was an unknown name,” Page told The Federalist in a recent phone call. “The advantage of smearing a private figure is that you can make up whatever lies you want. If you’re sketching someone on a blank slate, then it’s easy to draw a fictional characterization.”

According to intelligence officials, the fact that Page was relatively unknown made him an attractive target.

Intelligence sources told The Federalist that Page was likely targeted as a means of accessing the Trump team’s communications.

“It can be tougher to make a FISA case on a prominent, government-connected figure,” said former Army intelligence officer Chris Farrell, now director of investigations at Judicial Watch. “But you can spin a tale about a guy who is on the margins. You can make sweeping generalizations, you don’t have to be too detailed. And they’d use the lack of information on Page to explain that’s precisely why they need the warrant—to learn more about him.”

Intelligence sources told The Federalist that Page was likely targeted as a means of accessing the Trump team’s communications.

“It’s not just that it would be hard to convince a judge to let you target Trump,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “There’s an upside to going after a middle or lower-level figure in an organizational structure.”

According to FISA’s two-jump protocol, the FBI can monitor the communications of those in contact with the target and those in contact with them. Law enforcement would look for a target likely to provide the largest aperture into an organization.

“The fact that Page was a peripheral campaign figure meant he was in contact with more people than someone like Trump, whose contacts were likely pretty limited,” said the same source. “Trump’s the top guy, so his contacts within the team are through a funnel, a handful of aides. Targeting Page would give them broader ability to hop. His first order contacts within the campaign team were probably limited, maybe 15 people—who knows? But that would give lots of access to other people on the second hop, maybe 30 or 40 times that.”

Page is the dossier’s protagonist. It is the dossier’s account of his actions that earned the October 21 warrant. A former prosecutor familiar with the case told The Federalist that when he first read the dossier, he recognized immediately that Page was the central figure: “All the other stuff isn’t that important. The other characters appear to be secondary. Page is the leading actor, the centerpiece of the dossier. He’s the one who is alleged to have committed a crime.”

Crossing the Criminal Accusation Threshold

To get a FISA warrant on American citizen, there must be probable cause to believe that the subject has or may be about to commit a crime.

Retired FBI agent Mark Wauck enumerated what is required to get a FISA warrant on a U.S. person. “He must be acting as an agent of a foreign power,” Wauck told The Federalist. “He must be engaged in clandestine intelligence activity, and the clandestine intelligence activity involves or may involve a violation of a criminal statute. No crime alleged, no FISA warrant,”

Title I of the 1978 Foreign Surveillance Act—“Electronic Surveillance within the United States for Foreign Intelligence Purposes”—lays it out. Under the definition of “agent of a foreign power,” there are two categories: “any person other than a United States person,” and “any person.” Since Page is an American citizen, he falls into the second category.

According to Wauck, the relevant parts are two paragraphs in Section 101 (b) (2). To obtain a FISA warrant on a U.S. person, the target either:

(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.

“So to get a FISA on Page,” says Wauck. “They must allege that his clandestine intelligence activities involve or may involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States. No exceptions, no way around it. So, rest assured that somewhere in the application–possibly redacted–there is an allegation regarding a criminal violation.”

Former DOJ official Andrew McCarthy made a similar observation in a September 2018 National Review column analyzing the FISA application, with special attention to the probable cause section. Why, asks McCarthy, do Page’s crimes appear to be redacted? “Is it because the ‘crime’ allegations come from the Steele dossier and the FBI would rather not acknowledge that?”

The timeline and composition of the dossier suggest this is the case. Thus it’s instructive to see the narrative constructed around Page—both the media legend and the dossier memos that were fed into the FISA application—as an instrument built for a specific goal: To secure a warrant to spy on the Trump team, using Page as a point of entry.

Using Page to Get Trump

First, Page, all but unknown in foreign policy circles, had to be portrayed as a key member of the Trump team. This was the goal of the media campaign targeting Page.

The Wall Street Journal reporter appears to have been one of several journalists briefed during the same period on Page’s alleged Russian-related activities. Articles published during July and early August (The AtlanticThe New YorkerThe Weekly StandardWashington Post, and Slate) cite Page’s biography and articles as evidence of Trump’s ties to Russia.

An important target audience was the handful of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges likely to read the application for a warrant on the Trump adviser.

Page’s alleged interactions with Russian officials were represented as part of a larger clandestine network linking the Trump team to the Kremlin.

“By the time it got to the secret court,” said a senior congressional source, “it was supposed to be common knowledge that Page was strangely friendly to Russia.”

Page is first identified in the dossier in an undated memo (Report 095), apparently from the mid-July period, as an intermediary used by Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort to manage the “well-developed conspiracy” between Trump and the Russians.

Among other pieces of evidence cited in the dossier to prove Manafort’s connections to the Kremlin is an August 22 report detailing a “secret” meeting the previous week between Putin and former Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovich, a former Manafort client. In their meeting, according to the dossier, Yanukovich confirmed to Putin that he “authorized the kick-back payments to Manafort, as alleged in western media.”

The memo is likely referring to a New York Times article from the previous week sourced to Ukrainian activists. But the August 15 meeting in Volgograd between Putin and Yanukovich is an invention.

Russian government website shows Putin was in Volgograd on that date, for a one-day trip. Yanukovich, however, didn’t get to Volgograd until August 18, three days after Putin left. It would have been hard to miss Yanukovich’s arrival, since he pulled into port on a triple-decker yacht.

It appears that Steele or another Fusion employee had mistaken the date in published reports, like this one from Meduza, a Russian opposition publication based in Latvia.

Thus Page’s alleged interactions with Russian officials were represented as part of a larger clandestine network linking the Trump team to the Kremlin. Press coverage of Page’s July trip to Moscow, and his speech there, proved he was somehow engaged in Russia-related affairs—while the dossier purported to unveil the real, nefarious purpose of his trip.

Ticking Off the FISA Boxes

The July 19 Steele memo alleging that Page had a “secret meeting” with Sechin checked off an important box for the FISA application process.

“It’s to find out about the target’s clandestine activities on behalf of foreign powers. It doesn’t make sense if it’s a public meeting in Red Square,” said Wauck. “Next you’d want to show that the people he met with clandestinely were part of the criminal activity.”

The memo ties Page’s potentially criminal actions to Trump himself.

However, there is no crime alleged in the July 19 memo. The substance of Page’s supposed meeting is not criminal. Removing sanctions on Russia in exchange for bilateral energy cooperation would be a matter of policy.

The criminal predicate for the FISA warrant is introduced subsequently, in a memo dated almost exactly three months later, October 18. Report 134 is essentially a revision of the July 19 memo. It discusses the same meeting in early July and appears to be described by the same intimate of Sechin’s who reported the meeting to Steele’s intermediary in July. This time, however, Sechin’s “close associate” gives a significantly different account to Steele’s source—he “elaborated on the reported secret [July] meeting.”

According to the October 18 report, instead of offering bilateral energy cooperation in exchange for convincing Trump to relieve sanctions, Sechin tells Page that he will profit personally. According to the memo, Page was offered “the brokerage of up to a 19% (privatised) stake in Rosneft in return.”

That’s bribery. The scheme would have benefited both men, likely removing sanctions on Sechin and making Page a wealthy man. The brokerage fee would have amounted to at least tens of millions of dollars on a percentage worth more than $10 billion.

The Trump adviser, the report continues, “expressed interest and confirmed that were Trump elected US president, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted.” The memo ties Page’s potentially criminal actions to Trump himself. According to Steele’s source, Page was “speaking with the Republican candidate’s authority.”

The Importance of 19 Percent

Newly incoming House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff contended back in March 2017 that the fact Rosneft did eventually sell off a 19 percent stake, to Qatar, proves the veracity of the dossier. However, the number would have been easy to find on the internet. By spring 2016 it was widely reported that Russia, hurting from both sanctions and a drop in energy prices, intended to sell off between 19 and 19.5 percent of Rosneft.

‘It suggests that the scenario may have been directed by the FBI.’

Nevertheless, the 19 percent figure may have won the warrant. “Imagine you’re before a judge,” said Wauck, “and you’re making a case that your suspect was involved in a bribery scheme. If you give a real figure, that’s a lot more persuasive than saying he was handed a suitcase full of cash.”

While the allegations from the July 19 memo regarding the Page-Sechin meeting are included in all four FISA applications, the dossier’s allegations of Page’s crime are apparent in neither the original nor the three renewals. Either the warrants failed for some reason to include sensational allegations of a potential crime in connection with the clandestine intelligence activities of a FISA target, or the allegations are redacted. Perhaps that was to conceal evidence that Steele’s October 18 memo secured the FISA three days later.

The rapid turnaround is not typical, says Judicial Watch’s Farrell. “An act of espionage may not be reportable for years. By its nature, you’re talking about clandestine activity, so you may not find out about it until long after it’s happened. Here the operational activity is identified almost immediately. And then it’s followed by a warrant. It suggests that the scenario may have been directed by the FBI.”



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.



The Rise of the Phony Dem Warrior Hawks


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

I would have said there was no possible way the Democrats could be persuaded to advocate stationing ground troops in the Middle East, but President Trump proved me wrong. When he announced the withdrawal of 2,000 personnel from Syria–honestly, I am not sure I even realized they were there–the Democrats erupted in unanimous condemnation. It is absolutely necessary that the United States have boots on the ground in Syria!

So the Democrats are hawks now, and they apparently love the military, too. Forget about cheering those who won’t stand for the National Anthem, deriding nationalism, and all the rest. What were Democrats offended about yesterday? That President Trump wasn’t visiting troops overseas at Christmas. Twitchy has the whole story; this is a sample:


President Trump becomes first president since 2002 not to visit troops at Christmastime. https://on.msnbc.com/2Czjztm 

Trump becomes first president since 2002 not to visit troops at Christmastime

Though he called military personnel on Tuesday, Trump did not visit a hospital or a military base.

Do you ever get the feeling liberal press outlets coordinate their talking points?

Of course, as Scott has already noted, President and Mrs. Trump did in fact visit the troops in Iraq on Christmas. No word on whether Trump served the soldiers a plastic turkey–fake news from 2003, for those who might not remember.

In an amusing postscript, Alyssa Milano, a left-wing actress or former actress, tweeted condemnation of Trump’s failure to visit the troops after Trump had actually done so, as Brit Hume pointed out:



Despite Dem Leftists, There Still Is A BILL of RIGHTS in Our America!

What the Government Can’t Do to You

Bill of Rights Day was December 15, the anniversary of that addition to our Constitution in 1791.  Those ten amendments set forth our civil liberties.  That is to say, it protects us from our own government, setting forth in the supreme law of the land what our government may not do to us.

An editorial in the Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle makes that point.  And I appreciate how the editorial writer paraphrased each of the ten amendments in vivid, easy-to-understand language:

‒ Congress can’t pass any law about your religion; or keep you from practicing that religion. Congress can’t restrict what you say or publish. If you want the government to change something, citizens can gather peacefully and express their thoughts as a group.

‒ You can own and carry weapons.

‒ Soldiers can’t live in your house, unless Congress approves it during wartime.

‒ You, your house or your possessions can’t be searched unless a judge cites a specific probable cause.

‒ You can’t go on trial for a serious crime unless a jury says there’s enough evidence. If you’re found innocent, the government can’t retry you. You don’t have to say anything during your trial. You can’t be punished unless a jury convicts you. Unless the government compensates you fairly, it can’t take your possessions.

‒ If you’re arrested, either you get a quick public trial or they can’t unfairly detain you. A jury of your peers can help try you, and you get a careful explanation of what you’re accused of [and] who’s accusing you. And the government provides you a lawyer a lawyer.

‒ You have the right to a jury in a civil case, too.

‒ Excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment, are prohibited.

‒ You have other rights, even if they’re not spelled out in the Constitution.

‒ Any power not specifically given to Congress rests with the states or the people.

How do you think we’re doing with these?

“You can’t be punished unless a jury convicts you.”  No “excessive fines.”  What about the fines and other punishments exacted not by a jury but by a federal agency for violating a federal regulation?  “You don’t have to say anything during your trial.”  But don’t prosecutors get around that by manipulative plea bargaining?  Did General Flynn enjoy this protection?  “Unless the government compensates you fairly, it can’t take your possessions.”  How about the practice, which has become commonplace here in Oklahoma, of police confiscating vehicles and other property of people suspected (not convicted) of breaking drug laws?

Note that the second amendment–“You can own and carry weapons”–refers specifically to the right to “keep” arms (that is, to possess them) and to “bear” arms (that is, to carry them).  Note that the full amendment, below, refers not to hunting but to a “militia,” the citizen’s military organizations that were alternatives in the early days of the republic to a standing army.  But the weapons referred to are not being stored in an armory.  Rather, citizens have the right to “keep” and “bear” them.  And wouldn’t the militia context specifically allow for military weapons, at least the portable ones that a citizen could “keep” and “bear”?