• 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

Odor in the Bloomberg-Ellison Corruption in Gopherland

THE BLOOMBERG-ELLISON CORRUPTION CONNECTION

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine

It came to light last year that a handful of rich left-wing donors led by Michael Bloomberg have collaborated with New York University Law School to recruit, place and pay for lawyers in attorney generals’ offices around the United States. These lawyers, compensated outside the executive structure of state government, are embedded in state governments to pursue lawsuits that fit Bloomberg’s liberal agenda. In particular, they are directed to bring lawsuits against oil companies and others based on “climate change.” Bloomberg’s scheme is corrupt, poses inevitable conflicts of interest, and in some states is flatly illegal. This video by the Clear Energy Alliance presents a good summary of the scandal:

 

A group called Energy Policy Advocates requested documents relating to this scheme from the office of Minnesota’s Attorney General, Keith Ellison. EPA’s requests were made pursuant to Minnesota’s broad Government Data Practices Act. The requests were narrowly tailored to ask for documents relating to 1) correspondence between the AG’s office and a plaintiffs’ law firm, and 2) correspondence between the AG’s Office and a specific individual in another state who was recruiting attorneys general to join Bloomberg’s scheme. The Minnesota Attorney General replied that there are no such documents, or, if there are, they are privileged and will not be produced.

So EPA sued, represented by a brand new public interest law firm called the Upper Midwest Law Center. (Disclosure: I am on the UMLC’s board of directors.) The UMLC’s Complaint is here. That Complaint was filed today, and my friend Doug Seaton of the UMLC gave a press conference this morning, which you can watch here.

I believe a number of news stories about the lawsuit will be forthcoming. The first that I am aware of is in the Star Tribune. The Strib’s story, mediocre at best, is most notable because it flushes out Keith Ellison’s admission that Minnesota is indeed participating in the Bloomberg scam. Ellison didn’t have much choice: there is a Linked In page by a lawyer who wrote:

I am off on a new adventure as a Fellow with the NYU School of Law’s State Impact Center. I will be embedded with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office as an Environmental Litigator and Special Assistant Attorney General.

So much for any claim that there are no documents linking the Minnesota Attorney General to Bloomberg’s corrupt scheme, unless this was all arranged via smoke signals.

In some states, privately funded and agenda-driven “special assistant attorneys general” might only be unethical. Here in Minnesota, they are quite clearly illegal under Minn. Stat. Sec. 8.06, which says:

Except as herein stated, no additional counsel shall be employed and the legal business of the state shall be performed exclusively by the attorney general and the attorney general’s assistants.

Ellison claims his Bloomberg connection is legal based on a theory that we learned of for the first time when he was asked for comment by the Star Tribune. His assertion–that a general statute relating to employee exchanges between government agencies and private industry covers the case–is ridiculous. He has been caught red-handed. Or, as Clear Energy Alliance’s Mark Mathis would say, green-handed.

It is time to shine the light of day on secret, corrupt and in some cases illegal relationships among billionaire Democratic Party donors and elected officials like Keith Ellison.

The Bloomberg-Ellison Corruption Connection

Today’s Dem’s Fascism at Work with Joaquin Castro

Will Joaquin Castro return all those donations he took from the Trump donors he doxxed?

by  Monica Showalter  at  American Thinker:

Congress’s sleaziest unjailed doxxer, Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas, went and “outed” 44 Republican local San Antonio–based donors to President Trump’s re-election campaign.  He got a lot of flak for it, of course.  But instead of apologizing for his obvious effort to incite harassment of his own locals for exercising their constitutional right to participate in political campaigns, he doubled down with this unmitigated dreck:

Joaquin Castro

@JoaquinCastrotx

My post was a lament – that so many people in my overwhelmingly Hispanic hometown would give large money to a President who is using it to target Hispanics as ‘invaders’.

No one was doxxed — no private address or phone were shared. I’ve never engaged in that.@Morning_Joe

Embedded video

Joaquin Castro

@JoaquinCastrotx

No one was targeted or harassed in my post. You know that. All that info is routinely published.

You’re trying to distract from the racism that has overtaken the GOP and the fact that President Trump spends donor money on thousands of ads about Hispanics “invading” America. 1/2 https://twitter.com/kevinomccarthy/status/1158840773435154433 

Kevin McCarthy

@kevinomccarthy

Targeting and harassing Americans because of their political beliefs is shameful and dangerous. What happened to “when they go low, we go high?” Or does that no longer matter when your brother is polling at 1%? Americans deserve better. https://twitter.com/Castro4Congress/status/1158576680182718464 

Anyone who believes that Castro is capable of a “lament” is out to lunch.  His series of tweets were pure malevolence, worsened by a barrage of bald-faced lies trying to make himself look like the good guy.

It all went swimmingly for him, too.  Until Fox News turned up an uncomfortable fact:

EXCLUSIVE: Trump donors whose names and employers were posted in a highly controversial tweet by Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro blasted the Texas congressman on Wednesday for what they described as a “ridiculous” stunt and, in interviews with Fox News, rejected his claim that they are “fueling a campaign of hate” against Hispanics.

One of those Trump donors even revealed he’s also been a supporter of local Democratic lawmakers — including Castro himself.

And the Washington Examiner found out that there were six of them:

In attempting to embarrass constituents who donated to President Trump, Texas congressman Joaquin Castro appears to have overlooked the fact that six of those he named also gave cash to him and his twin brother, 2020 Democrat Julián Castro.

Joaquin Castro on Monday drew a torrent of criticism when the Twitter account operated by his reelection campaign listed 44 residents of San Antonio who donated the maximum amount to President Trump’s campaign for reelection so far this year.

“Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump — the owner of ⁦@BillMillerBarBQ⁩, owner of the ⁦@HistoricPearl, realtor Phyllis Browning, etc⁩.” the Monday tweet said. “Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.'”

So after declaring these donors as people who are “fueling a campaign of hate,” we now learn that quite a few of them also contributed to Castro’s campaign.

GOP chief Ronna McDaniel has the only really good response to this kind of jackassery:

Ronna McDaniel

@GOPChairwoman

If all these Trump supporters are actually as bad as Castro claims, he and his brother should have no problem returning the thousands of dollars they took from them to fund their own campaigns.https://twitter.com/emilyelarsen/status/1159223271994380289 

Emily Larsen

@emilyelarsen

NEW: Six of the Trump donors Joaquin Castro singled out and accused of “fueling a campaign of hate” also donated to either him or his twin brother Julián over the years.

We spoke to five of them, and they are not pleased. w/ @SaysSimonson: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/six-trump-donors-joaquin-castro-tried-to-shame-also-gave-to-him-and-brother-julian 

It’s time to pay up, Joaquin.  Your no-good brother Julián needs to return the cash, too.

It’s tainted, dirty cash by Joaquin’s own reckoning, a cause for doxxing and harassment.  The little creep needs to be told to return it or be politically tainted as a hypocrite forever.  Even the Trump-Castro donors told Fox News they won’t be giving this little weasel who doxxed them any more of it.  So now he needs to shell out, return the cash, because, as he claims, it’s bad cash.  Let this dirty stunt on normal Americans exercising their constitutional rights cost him something.  Shell out, doofus.

Here’s a fine lagniappe from McDaniel, posting a disgusted statement from a Latina voter:

Ronna McDaniel

@GOPChairwoman

You can’t make this up.

Joaquin Castro put out a “target list” accusing @realDonaldTrump‘s supporters of “fueling a campaign of hate” against immigrants.

Included on the list is an immigrant – and she’s blasting Castro for his political stunt. https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/07/retirees-joaquin-castro-trump-donor-list/ 

EXCLUSIVE: Retirees Targeted By Joaquin Castro Speak Out: ‘It’s Disgusting’

Two retirees targeted by Democratic Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro criticized his decision to publish a list of 44 Trump donors in the San Antonio area.

dailycaller.com

If he’s that out of touch with the local sentiment in San Antonio, and has drawn even the contempt of Latino voters for it, maybe it’s time for him to pack up anyway.  Dirty stunts are beautiful things when they blow back into the faces of their malice-minded perpetrators.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/so_will_joaquin_castro_return_all_those_donations_he_took_from_the_trump_donors_he_doxxed.html

Corporate America Going Fascist Left?

CORPORATE AMERICA TILTS LEFT

by  John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

It must be disorienting to be a leftist. After decades of railing against big business, leftists woke up one morning to find that big business is–mostly–on their side.

We wrote yesterday about Nike’s nixing of the American flag. Here are two similar stories from the corporate world.

UnderArmour, a manufactures of sports apparel, has made a commercial featuring soccer player Megan Rapinoe, who has refused to stand for the American flag and has sparred with President Trump. That makes her a hot commodity in the world of advertising. Note that Ad Age, an industry publication for advertising and public relations employees, considers this completely natural:

Megan Rapinoe has made countless headlines during the Women’s World Cup—for scoring big for the U.S. team, but also for taking a stand against President Donald Trump.

Now sports drink BodyArmor has released a new ad starring Rapinoe that will surely get under the skin of the president and his supporters.

The spot, shot in black-and-white, shows Rapinoe staring straight ahead, as this text flies by: “Nothing like a 30-something, purple haired, fiercely independent, goal-scoring, guitar-strumming, outspoken, relentless competitor that stands for all that is beautiful, all that is good, all that is us. Now that’s America. Thanks, Megan. Let’s go USA!”

Now that’s America. Thanks, Megan. Let’s go USA!”

Rapinoe has been hailed by liberals for saying that if the U.S. women’s team wins the World Cup, “I am not going to the fucking White House.” I am so old, I can remember when this would not have made an athlete a hot advertising property. You actually have to read to near the end of the Ad Age piece to understand what the controversy surrounding Rapinoe is all about:

Rapinoe, incidentally, is linked to Kaepernick: As Mother Jones recently reported, she was the “first white or female athlete to take a knee during the national anthem in support of football player Colin Kaepernick’s protest of America’s systemic oppression of people of color.” The liberal magazine also pointed out that “she is not singing the anthem during this year’s World Cup. And she has been outspoken on LGBTQ issues and social change.”

Such views represent endorsement gold in today’s corporate world.

Next: Et tu, Oreo? The Federalist reports:

Oreo cookies, a division of international foods giant Nabisco, announced yesterday a “special” LGBT edition that includes lectures about how to use transgender pronouns.

“We’re proud to celebrate inclusivity for all gender identities and expressions,” the company wrote in its Facebook post announcing the change. “In partnership with NCTE, we’re giving away special edition Pronoun Packs and encouraging everybody to share their pronouns with Pride today and every day.”

NCTE is the National Council of Teachers of English. While it sounds benign, this massive organization that affects millions of teachers all over the country—and helped write Common Core—has been politically far leftist for decades.

These are the LGBT Oreos:

Nabisco’s Oreo initiative isn’t anti-American like UnderArmour’s or Nike’s, but it adopts the pet leftist project of the moment, seemingly to appeal to a small slice of the population.

Countless more examples of corporate America’s left-wing orientation could be adduced. Facebook is an obvious and timely example. The corporate drift to the left is unmistakable; why it is happening is a topic for another day.

 

 

American Boy Troublemaker “Obama” Speaks In Brazil

Obama offers blatant lies about US gun laws in speech given in Brazil

by Thomas Lifson  at American Thinker:

.

Former president Barack Obama reportedly told author Richard Wolffe, “You know, I actually believe my own b——-.”  So it is possible that he actually had no idea what he was talking about when he spread blatant lies about U.S. gun control laws to a large gathering on Brazil.  The BS of the Left could be all he ever bothered to absorb before shooting off his mouth.

Or perhaps he thought he could get away with telling lies because he was overseas and there were no television cameras recording his speech visible on platforms in the back of the auditorium.  He was in São Paulo to address an annual high-tech gathering called VTEX, which claims that 15,000 people a day attend it, but it is not clear how many were in the auditorium for his speech.

This is absolute BS. Nate Madden of The Blaze lays out the extent of the lies:

First off, not everyone can buy a gun in the United States.

Convicted felons and people under indictment for felonies cannot buy guns under federal law. Other “prohibited persons” include fugitives from justice, people convicted of domestic violence, convicted drug users, people adjudicated as a “mental defective,” illegal aliens, people who were dishonorably discharged from the military and people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship.

(snip)

Obama’s machine gun claim is wildly false:

In 1986, the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners protection act made it “unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.” Before that, automatic firearms were required to be registered under the National Firearms Act, which was first passed in 1934.

However, automatics that were already registered under the NFA were grandfathered in under the Hughes Amendment, meaning that “NFA guns” manufactured before 1986 are still legal for private ownership and transfer.

In order to buy one, however, you have to first apply a tax stamp from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives — which costs $200 and requires the notification of a local chief law enforcement officer — and then register with the bureau. That process can take months or longer.

And paying for the tax stamp is only a minor part of the expense of legally acquiring a pre-1986 transferable NFA machine gun. They can also get quite expensive, often costing tens of thousands of dollars or more.

Brazil, where Obama was speaking, has had strict gun control laws, but also has one of the highest murder rates in the world.  Just like Chicago.  However, Jessica Chasmar in the Washington Times notes that Brazil’s new populist president is moving the country in the direction of firearms freedom in order to stem the tide of lawlessness:

Mr. Obama‘s comments come just weeks after Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro signed a decree easing restrictions on gun imports and increasing the amount of ammunition a person can buy. In January, Mr. Bolsonaro signed a decree making it easier for Brazilians to keep weapons at home without first demonstrating that they have a need to own a gun.

Abysmally ignorant or blatant liar?  Either way, Barack Obama is a hideous ex-president.

Former president Barack Obama reportedly told author Richard Wolffe, “You know, I actually believe my own b——-.”  So it is possible that he actually had no idea what he was talking about when he spread blatant lies about U.S. gun control laws to a large gathering on Brazil.  The BS of the Left could be all he ever bothered to absorb before shooting off his mouth.

Or perhaps he thought he could get away with telling lies because he was overseas and there were no television cameras recording his speech visible on platforms in the back of the auditorium.  He was in São Paulo to address an annual high-tech gathering called VTEX, which claims that 15,000 people a day attend it, but it is not clear how many were in the auditorium for his speech.

This is absolute BS. Nate Madden of The Blaze lays out the extent of the lies:

First off, not everyone can buy a gun in the United States.

Convicted felons and people under indictment for felonies cannot buy guns under federal law. Other “prohibited persons” include fugitives from justice, people convicted of domestic violence, convicted drug users, people adjudicated as a “mental defective,” illegal aliens, people who were dishonorably discharged from the military and people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship.

Obama’s machine gun claim is wildly false:

In 1986, the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners protection act made it “unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.” Before that, automatic firearms were required to be registered under the National Firearms Act, which was first passed in 1934.

However, automatics that were already registered under the NFA were grandfathered in under the Hughes Amendment, meaning that “NFA guns” manufactured before 1986 are still legal for private ownership and transfer.

In order to buy one, however, you have to first apply a tax stamp from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives — which costs $200 and requires the notification of a local chief law enforcement officer — and then register with the bureau. That process can take months or longer.

And paying for the tax stamp is only a minor part of the expense of legally acquiring a pre-1986 transferable NFA machine gun. They can also get quite expensive, often costing tens of thousands of dollars or more.

Brazil, where Obama was speaking, has had strict gun control laws, but also has one of the highest murder rates in the world.  Just like Chicago.  However, Jessica Chasmar in the Washington Times notes that Brazil’s new populist president is moving the country in the direction of firearms freedom in order to stem the tide of lawlessness:

Mr. Obama‘s comments come just weeks after Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro signed a decree easing restrictions on gun imports and increasing the amount of ammunition a person can buy. In January, Mr. Bolsonaro signed a decree making it easier for Brazilians to keep weapons at home without first demonstrating that they have a need to own a gun.

Abysmally ignorant or blatant liar?  Either way, Barack Obama is a hideous ex-president.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/obama_offers_blatant_lies_about_us_gun_laws_in_speech_given_in_brazil.html

Fascistics Win Again at Google

GOOGLE SWINGS LEFT AGAIN

by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

Google has done away with its Artificial Intelligence Ethics Board, apparently because leftists at the company objected to inclusion of Heritage Foundation President Kay Coles James on the board:

[E]mployees immediately claimed that James’s position on transgender identity involved advocating violence against them. An employee leaked an internal discussion on the issue, and the comments proved terrifying.
***
Some employees defended James’s addition to the board in the name of including diverse perspectives. Even this suggestion was demonized.

“I think that people have been very clear that the problem with the Heritage Foundation isn’t that they ‘don’t think like I do’ but that they actively and stridently advocate for religiously based anti­LGBTQ+ policies that immiserate my friends, colleagues, and comrades and has a real and damaging impact on their lives,” one employee wrote.

Disagreement is violence! I met Kay James at a dinner a year or so ago, and can assure you that she is not a proponent of violence.

The Heritage Foundation has hosted many events criticizing transgender identity. It has hosted former transgender Walt Heyer, who runs the website SexChangeRegret.com. It has hosted Julia Beck, a lesbian feminist who got kicked off of the Baltimore LGBT Commission for disagreeing with transgender identity.

Beck has warned that embracing transgender identity in civil rights law would allow biological men in women’s bathrooms and changing rooms and in women’s sports.

That seems rather obviously correct. But transgender activism has entered the holy pantheon of leftist ideologies that cannot be debated.

Mike Wacker, a Google employee concerned about animus against conservatives and Christians at the company, warned that conservative employees at Google are terrified of defending Kay Coles James internally, “especially if someone reports them to HR. That fear is justified.”

Corporate human resources departments are among the main sources of evil in today’s world.

Wacker pointed to a survey from the Lincoln Network, in which one conservative tech employee wrote, “Employees will interpret your words in the most offensive way possible, then report you to HR based on that interpretation. It’s one big offendedness sweepstakes. When people get in trouble, it’s often based not on what they said, but on how others interpreted their words, regardless of how unreasonable that interpretation is.”

“I’ve seen someone get reported to HR for sharing a National Review article,” the conservative employee wrote.

There is much more at the link. Bottom line is that Google and other left-wing tech companies should not be ceded control over public discourse in America.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/google-swings-left-again.php

Has Paul Mirengoff Ever Visited Rural Town Minnesota?

CARLSON’S COMPLAINT REVISITED

by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

Steve Hayward’s post about an upcoming event with Tucker Carlson, which Steve will moderate, refocused my attention on Carlson’s controversial monologue in early January. I wrote about it here .

I concluded my post, which praised Carlson for his “insights and plausible, thought-provoking claims” about the problems in rural America, by saying that he avoided the question of “personal responsibility.” I did not elaborate. I want to do so now.

Carlson said that “in many ways, rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.” This may be an exaggeration, but let us assume it to be true.

When conservatives discuss the plight of places like Detroit, we typically mention social pathology, as Carlson did in his monologue. Symptoms include kids leaving school early, girls having babies, fathers assuming little or no responsibility for these babies, youths choosing crime as a way of life, adults preferring welfare to work, and so forth.

Carlson blamed these problems on “big government” and conservatives agree that government policies have contributed to them. But each problem is founded on bad personal choices. Those who make these choices bear some responsibility for the adverse consequences they produce. Thus, conservatives typically insist that the concept of personal responsibility have a place in the discussion.

If we’re going to insist on personal responsibility in the context of Detroit, we should insist on it in the context of “rural America.” Arguably, we should be more insistent, since rural Americans were never subjected to systematic racial discrimination.

But the concept of personal responsibility didn’t make it into Carlson’s rant. Its absence became apparent to me when he complained that males in rural America are lagging behind their female counterparts. Carlson plausibly blamed the demoralization of the rural male population, and its inability to marry, on this phenomenon.

But why are white males lagging behind females? They attend the same schools. They come from the same families. In these families, I assume, parents expect their sons to achieve at least as much as their daughters.

Why aren’t they? Carlson notes that job opportunities in traditionally male jobs are shrinking in rural America, while jobs in traditionally female jobs are holding steady. But is that the entire story? Men are not barred from jobs in schools and hospitals. Nor are they barred from learning skills that will help them land jobs in other flourishing sectors.

Thus, to the extent that young males in rural and rust belt America aren’t doing as well as young females, I think it’s due in part to bad choices they make — e.g., using drugs, not taking school seriously, choosing leisure over work. J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy, a book that highlighted the crisis in parts of rural and rust belt America that Carlson picks up, is populated with folks who made such choices. But it also includes some, and not just Vance himself (a special case), who made better choices and thrived as a result.

Carlson blames the lack of thriving in rural America on market capitalism and greedy elites — mercenaries, he calls them. I believe that, just as with Detroit, some of the blame must reside with the people making choices that are inconsistent with success in life.

Is this point worth making or should we take the bad decisions people make as a given — something we must work around? The answer is that, philosophical concerns to one side, as a matter of policy making we can’t ignore, or work around, the concept of personal responsibility.

In the case of “Detroit,” we must decide how far to go in order to improve, in the short term, the material condition of the population. How much should we spend on welfare? How lenient should we be with criminals? Should there be monetary reparations? Should there be forced integration?

In the case of rural America, the policy questions prompted by Carlson are different. How much trade protection should certain American industries receive? To what extent should we limit legal immigration?

The answer in both cases depends in part on how much weight we place on the concept of personal responsibility. Those who take the concept seriously will be less inclined to transfer vast amounts of money, or to tolerate high risk associated with the early release of criminals, than those who don’t.

They will also be less inclined to think Americans should pay more for consumer goods as a result of trade barriers and restrictions on the number of people who can work in the U.S. They may ask how much more they should pay for cars because males in rural America are making irresponsible personal choices.

The best answer might well be “somewhat more.” Even for conservatives, the concept of personal responsibility isn’t absolute. We are willing to spend a considerable amount of money on welfare even though we know that if recipients made better choices, we would be able to spend considerably less.

Without some sense of empathy and national solidarity — some notion that we are all in this together — America is in big trouble. But we’re also in big trouble if we place the concept of personal responsibility off-limits in our policy discussions.

Dear Mr. Mirengoff ….I presume you cross the border into  Minnesota from time to time.  Or do you fly in to the Twin City airport from your flat on Manhattan or where ever?
Have you ever  been to, through  Ely,  Duluth,  Ada, Hill City,  Grand Rapids,  Willmar, Roseau,  Fulda, and nearly every other  forced learning places where Goopherland  lefty  fascism isn’t dictated  at “schools”?   Have you noticed the steady decay of small town MAIN STREET Minnesota since Billy Clinton sold NAFTA to the Western Hemisphere about 25 years ago?
How many farmsteads have the Soviets disappeared from our  Gopherland since then, Mr. Mirengoff?   How many shops?…..  locally owned restaurants, and garden centers?
Have you found a locally made cup of coffee at Minnesota small town Main Street cafe recently?  Ten years ago?   Twenty years ago?    How many locally owned clothing stores have disappeared during that span?
Capitalism has come to stink when small town folk are crushed when  BIG MONEY INVESTORS and PROFITEERING AMAZONS RULE THE WORLD AND DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT UNCLE SAM’S RURAL MINNESOTAS.
CARSON IS CORRECT with his statement you’ve suggested below…  Where have you been?   Ditsy feminists and feminazis of all sexes, shapes, and sizes “own” our Minnesota schools these days.  Truth is of no matter to these modern  Dems.  FEELINGS, especially the femmy  ones are in vogue these days.
Carlson said that “in many ways, rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.” This may be an exaggeration, but let us assume it to be true.
Wake up Mr. Mirengoff at PowerLine!   The human male is bored when schools are run by morons.   Gals go whereever gals hangout.  Have you ever examined the k through 12th grade curriculum results in Minnesota schools lately ?
Mirengoff wonders:  “But why are white males lagging behind females? They attend the same schools. They come from the same families. In these families, I assume, parents expect their sons to achieve at least as much as their daughters.”
Mirengoff blames people making choices:  “Carlson blames the lack of thriving in rural America on market capitalism and greedy elites — mercenaries, he calls them. I believe that, just as with Detroit, some of the blame must reside with the people making choices that are inconsistent with success in life”.