powerlineblog--2020-01-23--Roger Scruton Contra Mundum: Who’s the Greatest?

[ Note : This lengthy post is mainly intended for our academic readers and connoisseurs of conservative intellectual history , and if this is not your cup of tea—like Paul ’ s soccer posts—you ’ ll want to move on right away to another item and spare us your TL ; DR complaints .
.
. ]
I had a notion that when I said in my observance of the passing of Sir Roger Scruton that he was “ the greatest conservative thinker of the last generation ” ( a judgment that has a lot of company ) it might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with valid claims to this superlative .
I had one particular person in mind—Harry Jaffa—whose champions— ” one of whom I am which , ” to borrow the fractured syntax I once heard a House member use on C-SPAN—I thought might rush to the battlements , and while it took a little longer than I expected , the hackling commenced over on Facebook .
Most long time Power Line readers are familiar with Prof. Jaffa , but if you ’ re a newbie here , or have been nodding off at the back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fine book I can recommend as an introduction to Jaffa ’ s thought and why it is so important to America ’ s future .
In the meantime , Glenn Ellmers , a longtime friend and classmate who is working on his own book about Jaffa , decided to take up the matter , and agreed to let me post his Facebook note here , after which I offer my pro-Scruton rebuttal .
( Lots of other people piled quickly into the comment thread , but I ’ m omitting all of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may well go into overtime !
Contra Scruton .
I ’ m not sure I agree with some of my close friends that he was the greatest conservative thinker of the last generation .
Jaffa never wrote much about him , but he did object once , in a letter to the Wall Street Journal , to something Scruton wrote about Princess Diana and democracy ( note the nice last line , with an allusion to Shakespeare ) : Roger Scruton , “ British philosopher , ” writing on your Sept. 2 editorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ A Victim of Democracy.
” How democracy can be responsible for someone riding in a car with a drunk driver at an estimated 80 or 90 mph in a 30 mph zone , and without a seat belt , is something he never explains .
He writes that “ It is one of the many false assumptions of democratic culture that people ’ s desires and tastes ought to be satisfied if they do no obvious harm.
” Where in Jefferson or Lincoln does he find such an assumption ?
To blame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address for the base elements in our popular culture is like blaming the Sermon on the Mount for the burning of heretics .
Mr. Scruton complains that “ media induced catastrophes .
.
.
have all but destroyed .
.
.
the very idea of monarchical government.
” Someone should inform Mr. Scruton that the idea of monarchical government was discredited by John Locke and effectively ended in England by the Glorious Revolution of 1689 .
For more than a century the king or queen of England @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .
The Queen ’ s speech from the throne is written by the prime minister .
In fact , the queen and the royal family are the only ones in the United Kingdom who have no right to freedom of speech .
They may not express themselves on political questions .
They are however a reminder of a long history , in which an evolving monarchy played a vital role in the emancipation not only of the British people but of mankind .
In the wise telling of that history , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of popular government , the monarchy may still have a vital role to play .
Okay , against my better judgment , and against the lesson of experience that these kind of arguments never change anyone ’ s position , I ’ ll defend my proposition that Scruton was “ the greatest conservative thinker of the last generation.
” The first standard of judgment I apply is purely empirical ( so yes , I know I ’ ve lost half the audience already . )
Whose books among conservative writers have been translated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll wager on Roger .
Certainly he has one of the largest , if not the largest , international audiences .
I was struck some years ago meeting the leaders of the Swedish and Norwegian conservative parties , who both said Scruton was their favorite conservative writer .
I ’ ll come to a direct comparison to Jaffa in a moment , but how useful do you think Crisis of the House Divided would be to a Swedish conservative ?
I found similar devotion to Roger in some of my visits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well known , and where his work assisting the “ underground university ” in the 1980s was nothing short of heroic .
( By the way , Roger—and eastern European conservatives—have a very different view of George Soros than we do .
I could say a lot about that , having once met with Soros and his foundation board of directors , who are a rogue ’ s gallery of the worst leftists on our shores .
It didn ’ t go well . )
The point is , Scruton reached a broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and issues than just about any other conservative thinker or writer you can name .
That of course is not decisive on the question of the quality or importance of his body of work , which brings me , second , to the qualitative and comparative dimension .
There is a bit of an apples and oranges problem here .
I did not say that Scruton was the greatest political philosopher of our time , and he wouldn ’ t accept that label if you had tried it on him .
I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinker on the most crucial matters about America , and , as America is the most important nation in the world , ergo .
.
.
( Though this is crucial : the point is that Jaffa was more profound on a narrower field of vision .
I ’ ll come back to this . )
To be sure Roger had several blind spots about America , which I tried with limited success to point out to him .
That was not his only defect .
I did once have a long but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting argument with him about Leo Strauss , who to my knowledge he only mentions once in his writing ( aside from a mere name check here and there ) , a snarky and dismissive throwaway comment in his book on wine ( I Drink—Therefore I Am , in the appendix ) .
He was not at all hostile to Strauss as are some conservatives .
He celebrated enthusiastically Strauss ’ s attack on nihilism and social science .
His main point of disagreement was with the methodology of esoteric reading , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case of the metaphysics of many modern thinkers like Kant , Hegel , and Nietzsche .
He thought Strauss and his school overly politicized many philosophers ( though that is our job description ) and rendered much of their thinking too one-dimensional .
As Roger was much more of a metaphysician than a directly political thinker , I ’ m not sure the distance between him and Jaffa would be that large if you sat them down together to talk straight metaphysics .
And , to be sure , Scruton wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Hobbes is a different matter , but for another time . )
I never did ask him much about Locke , but I suspect he may have shared some of Burke ’ s disdain for the Second Treatise .
This is one reason why Jaffa ’ s letter about Scruton is a rare misfire , because Jaffa renders “ democracy ” in service of constructing a straw man .
Scruton clearly didn ’ t mean democratic institutions and first principles as such , but the mass culture that is co-terminous with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and did deplore just as often .
In fact it wouldn ’ t be difficult for me to find parts of Scruton ’ s work that would be entirely congruent with Jaffa ’ s attack on Stephen Douglas ’ s popular sovereignty .
And while I have no use whatsoever for the British monarchy and would see it abolished if it was up to me for just the reasons Jaffa mentions , are we entirely sure that , in the condition Britain is in right now , there would be no ill-effects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monarchy , for all its appalling mediocrity , one of those “ evils that are sufferable ” in the understanding of the Declaration that counsels prudence above all ?
( I think Jaffa implicitly concedes this point at the end of this letter , after which an untutored reader might wonder , “ Just what are they arguing about ?
” ) That would likely be Scruton ’ s rejoinder , if one had taken place , and it seems valid to me .
In any case , it ’ s not our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and while there ’ s nothing wrong with America that the Windsors can fix ( as we may well learn first-hand before long if Megxit settles in LA ! )
, there may not be anything wrong with Britain that the Lincoln-Douglas debates can fix either .
[ Note to readers : Jaffa loved quoting the boxer Joe Louis : “ There ain ’ t nothin ’ wrong with this country that Hitler can fix !
” ] After all , Scruton never said anywhere that America would be or should be better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commonwealth nation .
More so than Burke , Scruton held the American Revolution in high regard .
That ’ s why this passage in Jaffa ’ s letter is simply a grotesque distortion : Scruton didn ’ t get his opinion of democratic culture ( Jaffa conveniently omits this term ) from the Declaration , or Lincoln , of the Gettysburg Address , and I ’ m not aware that Scruton ever wrote anything critical of the Declaration in the vein of Russell Kirk for example .
It wouldn ’ t take much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see that he has in mind the contemporary progressive/nihilist understandings of “ democracy ” that Jaffa decried in equal measure .
In other words , Scruton has exactly the same opinion on the necessity of virtue as expressed in , for example , Jaffa ’ s use of George Washington ’ s Farewell Address and other Founding texts .
At some point I may well undertake to assemble side-by-side the nearly identical aphorisms both men produced ( they had roughly equal skill at crafting the cutting and witty aphorism ) and have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them out correctly—the inverse of the old Al Gore-Unabomber quiz !
So to me this does appear to be a case of Jaffa looking for a fight with someone who is potentially a powerful ally .
Finally , Roger ’ s complete body of work , ranging as widely as it did , simply doesn ’ t find a parallel with anyone .
I have to say that before getting to know him ( and I was deeply skeptical going in ) , I thought maybe he was putting us on .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly impressive grasp of subjects and texts , and like Jaffa he seemed to have a near photographic memory .
I do think that if Jaffa had applied his talents and brilliance as widely as Scruton did , he would not only be better known , but might be an international figure of the same stature and influence .
As it is Jaffa is largely unknown outside America .
( This , by the way , is a major failing of we Claremonsters , but this will need to wait for another occasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to what I call the “ middle period ” Jaffa of the 1960s and 1970s , when he was producing those brilliant essays on Shakespeare , Mark Twain , Dostoevsky , Thoreau , etc , not to mention his occasional sportswriting of the highest quality , one wishes we had at least ten more books from him .
Michael Anton tells me his off-the-cuff remarks on Melville were extraordinary ; we should have taped him a lot more than anyone did , as was done with Strauss .
I wish we had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Aristotle , and perhaps Cicero .
I ’ d have loved to hear him give an extended critique of Seth Bernadete .
And he used to assign Hans Jonas in some classes way back when ( before my time ) ; I ’ d love to have had him commit some thoughts to paper about Jonas .
Also Hannah Arendt .
( I talked long with Scruton about Arendt once too , to my great profit . )
I have no doubt whatever he came up with would be the best thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jaffa ’ s single-mindedness and devotion to the narrow but crucial cause of America is inextricable with his genius and it summoned all of his profundity .
But there was more to be had from him , whereas I used to kid Scruton , “ Stop with all the books—I can ’ t keep up !
, ” which was literally true .
Perhaps to have demanded more from Harry would have been to receive less in a certain way .
Conversely , if Scruton had attempted an extended formal treatise on political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his reach might have exceeded his grasp .
That ’ s a paradox Scruton would have been entirely comfortable with , though I can imagine how Jaffa might react !
You raise many good points , and fair-minded people can certainly disagree about the question of “ the greatest conservative thinker of the last generation.
” ( I set aside the exchange about the British monarchy as a quibble . )
I ’ m not deeply familiar with Sir Roger ’ s work , though I ’ m glad to know about his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Strauss , which actually confirm what I am about to say .
This will sound almost insanely presumptuous , but here goes… What Leo Strauss achieved in the latter half of the 20th century represented a shift in the human comprehension of , and the possibilities for , politics and philosophy—something not achieved in 400 years—which , before Strauss came along , seemed impossible .
To the degree that Jaffa built on this achievement , gave it a concrete political cast and applied it to America ( though in a way not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this : No matter what Roger Scruton or anyone else wrote or did , it is metaphysically impossible for any writer , scholar , or thinker to have done anything more essential , more radical , or more liberating for human thought and human excellence than what Leo Strauss , with Jaffa ’ s key elaborations , accomplished .
What exactly I mean by that bizarre and enigmatic statement… well , you have to wait for the book .
My final word : If the contest came down to Strauss versus Scruton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly agree with this .
But I place Strauss in a generation before Jaffa or Roger .
In any case , I ’ ll look forward to the book !

[Note: This lengthy post is mainly intended for our academic readers and connoisseurs of conservative intellectual history, and if this is not your cup of tea—like Paul’s soccer posts—you’ll want to move on right away to another item and spare us your TL;DR complaints. . .]
I had a notion that when I said in my observance of the passing of Sir Roger Scruton that he was “the greatest conservative thinker of the last generation” (a judgment that has a lot of company) it might raise hackles with devotees of other thinkers with valid claims to this superlative. I had one particular person in mind—Harry Jaffa—whose champions—”one of whom I am which,” to borrow the fractured syntax I once heard a House member use on C-SPAN—I thought might rush to the battlements, and while it took a little longer than I expected, the hackling commenced over on Facebook.
Most long time Power Line readers are familiar with Prof. Jaffa, but if you’re a newbie here, or have been nodding off at the back the classroom, there is a certain fine book I can recommend as an introduction to Jaffa’s thought and why it is so important to America’s future. In the meantime, Glenn Ellmers, a longtime friend and classmate who is working on his own book about Jaffa, decided to take up the matter, and agreed to let me post his Facebook note here, after which I offer my pro-Scruton rebuttal. (Lots of other people piled quickly into the comment thread, but I’m omitting all of that.) And stay tuned, we may well go into overtime!
Glenn opens:
Contra Scruton. I’m not sure I agree with some of my close friends that he was the greatest conservative thinker of the last generation. Jaffa never wrote much about him, but he did object once, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, to something Scruton wrote about Princess Diana and democracy (note the nice last line, with an allusion to Shakespeare):
Roger Scruton, “British philosopher,” writing on your Sept. 2 editorial page, declares that Princess Diana was “A Victim of Democracy.” How democracy can be responsible for someone riding in a car with a drunk driver at an estimated 80 or 90 mph in a 30 mph zone, and without a seat belt, is something he never explains. He writes that “It is one of the many false assumptions of democratic culture that people’s desires and tastes ought to be satisfied if they do no obvious harm.” Where in Jefferson or Lincoln does he find such an assumption? To blame the form of government celebrated in the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address for the base elements in our popular culture is like blaming the Sermon on the Mount for the burning of heretics. Mr. Scruton complains that “media induced catastrophes . . . have all but destroyed . . . the very idea of monarchical government.” Someone should inform Mr. Scruton that the idea of monarchical government was discredited by John Locke and effectively ended in England by the Glorious Revolution of 1689. For more than a century the king or queen of England has had no role in government at all. The Queen’s speech from the throne is written by the prime minister. In fact, the queen and the royal family are the only ones in the United Kingdom who have no right to freedom of speech. They may not express themselves on political questions. They are however a reminder of a long history, in which an evolving monarchy played a vital role in the emancipation not only of the British people but of mankind. In the wise telling of that history, which culminates in the celebration of the virtues of popular government, the monarchy may still have a vital role to play. Harry V. Jaffa
Distinguished Fellow
The Claremont Institute
Claremont, Calif.
My reply:
Okay, against my better judgment, and against the lesson of experience that these kind of arguments never change anyone’s position, I’ll defend my proposition that Scruton was “the greatest conservative thinker of the last generation.”
The first standard of judgment I apply is purely empirical (so yes, I know I’ve lost half the audience already.) Whose books among conservative writers have been translated and published in more foreign languages? I’ll wager on Roger. Certainly he has one of the largest, if not the largest, international audiences. I was struck some years ago meeting the leaders of the Swedish and Norwegian conservative parties, who both said Scruton was their favorite conservative writer. I’ll come to a direct comparison to Jaffa in a moment, but how useful do you think Crisis of the House Divided would be to a Swedish conservative? I found similar devotion to Roger in some of my visits to eastern Europe, where he is well known, and where his work assisting the “underground university” in the 1980s was nothing short of heroic. (By the way, Roger—and eastern European conservatives—have a very different view of George Soros than we do. I could say a lot about that, having once met with Soros and his foundation board of directors, who are a rogue’s gallery of the worst leftists on our shores. It didn’t go well.)
The point is, Scruton reached a broader audience on a broader range of subjects and issues than just about any other conservative thinker or writer you can name.
That of course is not decisive on the question of the quality or importance of his body of work, which brings me, second, to the qualitative and comparative dimension. There is a bit of an apples and oranges problem here. I did not say that Scruton was the greatest political philosopher of our time, and he wouldn’t accept that label if you had tried it on him. I do think that Jaffa is the more profound thinker on the most crucial matters about America, and, as America is the most important nation in the world, ergo. . . (Though this is crucial: the point is that Jaffa was more profound on a narrower field of vision. I’ll come back to this.)
To be sure Roger had several blind spots about America, which I tried with limited success to point out to him. That was not his only defect. I did once have a long but typically friendly, delightful, and hugely interesting argument with him about Leo Strauss, who to my knowledge he only mentions once in his writing (aside from a mere name check here and there), a snarky and dismissive throwaway comment in his book on wine (I Drink—Therefore I Am, in the appendix). He was not at all hostile to Strauss as are some conservatives. He celebrated enthusiastically Strauss’s attack on nihilism and social science. His main point of disagreement was with the methodology of esoteric reading, which he thought unnecessary and arguably perverse in the case of the metaphysics of many modern thinkers like Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche. He thought Strauss and his school overly politicized many philosophers (though that is our job description) and rendered much of their thinking too one-dimensional. As Roger was much more of a metaphysician than a directly political thinker, I’m not sure the distance between him and Jaffa would be that large if you sat them down together to talk straight metaphysics. And, to be sure, Scruton wasn’t much interested in Machiavelli or Locke. (Hobbes is a different matter, but for another time.) I never did ask him much about Locke, but I suspect he may have shared some of Burke’s disdain for the Second Treatise.
This is one reason why Jaffa’s letter about Scruton is a rare misfire, because Jaffa renders “democracy” in service of constructing a straw man. Scruton clearly didn’t mean democratic institutions and first principles as such, but the mass culture that is co-terminous with modern democracy, which culture Jaffa could and did deplore just as often. In fact it wouldn’t be difficult for me to find parts of Scruton’s work that would be entirely congruent with Jaffa’s attack on Stephen Douglas’s popular sovereignty. And while I have no use whatsoever for the British monarchy and would see it abolished if it was up to me for just the reasons Jaffa mentions, are we entirely sure that, in the condition Britain is in right now, there would be no ill-effects of such a change? Is not the monarchy, for all its appalling mediocrity, one of those “evils that are sufferable” in the understanding of the Declaration that counsels prudence above all? (I think Jaffa implicitly concedes this point at the end of this letter, after which an untutored reader might wonder, “Just what are they arguing about?”) That would likely be Scruton’s rejoinder, if one had taken place, and it seems valid to me. In any case, it’s not our country we’re messing with, and while there’s nothing wrong with America that the Windsors can fix (as we may well learn first-hand before long if Megxit settles in LA!), there may not be anything wrong with Britain that the Lincoln-Douglas debates can fix either. [Note to readers: Jaffa loved quoting the boxer Joe Louis: “There ain’t nothin’ wrong with this country that Hitler can fix!”]
After all, Scruton never said anywhere that America would be or should be better off if it was even just a Commonwealth nation. More so than Burke, Scruton held the American Revolution in high regard. That’s why this passage in Jaffa’s letter is simply a grotesque distortion:
[Scruton] writes that “It is one of the many false assumptions of democratic culture that people’s desires and tastes ought to be satisfied if they do no obvious harm.” Where in Jefferson or Lincoln does he find such an assumption? To blame the form of government celebrated in the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address for the base elements in our popular culture is like blaming the Sermon on the Mount for the burning of heretics.
Scruton didn’t get his opinion of democratic culture (Jaffa conveniently omits this term) from the Declaration, or Lincoln, of the Gettysburg Address, and I’m not aware that Scruton ever wrote anything critical of the Declaration in the vein of Russell Kirk for example. It wouldn’t take much heavy lifting in Roger’s work to see that he has in mind the contemporary progressive/nihilist understandings of “democracy” that Jaffa decried in equal measure. In other words, Scruton has exactly the same opinion on the necessity of virtue as expressed in, for example, Jaffa’s use of George Washington’s Farewell Address and other Founding texts. At some point I may well undertake to assemble side-by-side the nearly identical aphorisms both men produced (they had roughly equal skill at crafting the cutting and witty aphorism) and have a contest to see who can sort them out correctly—the inverse of the old Al Gore-Unabomber quiz!
So to me this does appear to be a case of Jaffa looking for a fight with someone who is potentially a powerful ally.
Finally, Roger’s complete body of work, ranging as widely as it did, simply doesn’t find a parallel with anyone. I have to say that before getting to know him (and I was deeply skeptical going in), I thought maybe he was putting us on. It turned out he really does have a truly impressive grasp of subjects and texts, and like Jaffa he seemed to have a near photographic memory. I do think that if Jaffa had applied his talents and brilliance as widely as Scruton did, he would not only be better known, but might be an international figure of the same stature and influence. As it is Jaffa is largely unknown outside America. (This, by the way, is a major failing of we Claremonsters, but this will need to wait for another occasion.)
When I cast my eye back to what I call the “middle period” Jaffa of the 1960s and 1970s, when he was producing those brilliant essays on Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Dostoevsky, Thoreau, etc, not to mention his occasional sportswriting of the highest quality, one wishes we had at least ten more books from him. Michael Anton tells me his off-the-cuff remarks on Melville were extraordinary; we should have taped him a lot more than anyone did, as was done with Strauss. I wish we had a complete book from him on Plato and Aristotle, and perhaps Cicero. I’d have loved to hear him give an extended critique of Seth Bernadete. And he used to assign Hans Jonas in some classes way back when (before my time); I’d love to have had him commit some thoughts to paper about Jonas. Also Hannah Arendt. (I talked long with Scruton about Arendt once too, to my great profit.) I have no doubt whatever he came up with would be the best thing written about all of these figures.
Jaffa’s single-mindedness and devotion to the narrow but crucial cause of America is inextricable with his genius and it summoned all of his profundity. But there was more to be had from him, whereas I used to kid Scruton, “Stop with all the books—I can’t keep up!,” which was literally true. Perhaps to have demanded more from Harry would have been to receive less in a certain way. Conversely, if Scruton had attempted an extended formal treatise on political philosophy along the lines of Strauss, his reach might have exceeded his grasp. That’s a paradox Scruton would have been entirely comfortable with, though I can imagine how Jaffa might react!
Overtime! As promised! Glenn responds:
Hi Steve,
You raise many good points, and fair-minded people can certainly disagree about the question of “the greatest conservative thinker of the last generation.” (I set aside the exchange about the British monarchy as a quibble.) I’m not deeply familiar with Sir Roger’s work, though I’m glad to know about his points of agreement, and disagreement, with Strauss, which actually confirm what I am about to say. This will sound almost insanely presumptuous, but here goes…
What Leo Strauss achieved in the latter half of the 20th century represented a shift in the human comprehension of, and the possibilities for, politics and philosophy—something not achieved in 400 years—which, before Strauss came along, seemed impossible. To the degree that Jaffa built on this achievement, gave it a concrete political cast and applied it to America (though in a way not confined to America) I will claim this: No matter what Roger Scruton or anyone else wrote or did, it is metaphysically impossible for any writer, scholar, or thinker to have done anything more essential, more radical, or more liberating for human thought and human excellence than what Leo Strauss, with Jaffa’s key elaborations, accomplished.
What exactly I mean by that bizarre and enigmatic statement… well, you have to wait for the book.
Glenn Ellmers
My final word: If the contest came down to Strauss versus Scruton, pretty sure I’d agree or mostly agree with this. But I place Strauss in a generation before Jaffa or Roger. In any case, I’ll look forward to the book!


powerlineblog--2020-01-25--The State of Things for Dems: Gloomy & Getting Gloomier

It ’ s still early and things can change fast , but several new polls show Bernie Sanders surging in Iowa and New Hampshire as well as nationally , as Warren continues to stumble , Biden continues to unimpress , and Buttigieg continues to ignore the propeller beanie hat stuck to his head .
If Sanders sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire and surges in South Carolina and Nevada , he could become well nigh unstoppable .
The Democratic establishment , such as it is , will move heaven and earth to stop Sanders , and given the wealth of material @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can expect the mainstream media will start running stories on “ Just Who Is Bernie Sanders Anyway ?
” Sanders is an opposition researcher ’ s dream .
A steady drip-feed of his community access TV shows from the 1980s alone will be enough to sink him , though maybe not in time .
If nothing else , the media adjuncts of the Democratic Party will want to get all the damaging stories about Sanders out first , before the Trump campaign does in the fall .
The problem for Democrats is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose the election because lots of Bernie bros won ’ t vote for Joe Biden or the other powdered milk substitutes .
We know a significant portion of Bernie voters in 2016 ended up voting for Trump in November .
What might happen this year ?
A recent Emerson College poll found that only 53 percent of current Bernie voters said they would definitely support another Democratic nominee .
The NY Times offers this typical anecdote from the campaign trail : We know already that if Trump is re-elected , the left will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win the nomination after all , but the die is already cast .
If Trump defeats Biden ( or Klobuchar or Buttigieg ) , the Democratic Party will lurch even further to the left for 2024 , because its Twitter base will run with the theme that it lost because it didn ’ t embrace Bernie and move far enough left this year .
And guess who will be constitutionally eligible to run for president in 2024 ?
( Hint : Her initials are AOC . )
The long term interests of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a landslide loss for Bernie in November , because as was the case after McGovern ’ s landslide loss in 1972 it will enable the few remaining adults in the party to try to take it back from the reckless “ progressives , ” though it will be an ugly process that will drive up popcorn prices .
Conservatives living in open-primary states ( like New Hampshire ! )
should consider voting for Bernie for just this reason—it guarantees short term victory , and helps the long-term cause of preventing the Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the half-crazy that is their default position .
Meanwhile , impeachment has turned into a total bust .
The Senate spectators ’ gallery has been half empty most of the time .
I guess Democrats overestimated the charisma and animal magnetism of Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler .
And the public has tuned it out on television : Worse for Dems : Quinnipiac , a very reputable polling outfit , now finds a majority of Americans opposed to Trump ’ s impeachment : Even worse news : the latest YouGov “ generic ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had showed a solid Democratic advantage , is now showing only a 1 point Democratic edge over Republicans .
And Trump ’ s approval rating is near its highest level since he took office , along with new survey data showing the satisfaction with the state of the nation at its highest level in 15 years .
The raw number—41 percent—may not seem like much to cheer about , but its the kind of number that gets presidents re-elected .
I just may take the rest of the day off and plant more @ @ @ @ @

It’s still early and things can change fast, but several new polls show Bernie Sanders surging in Iowa and New Hampshire as well as nationally, as Warren continues to stumble, Biden continues to unimpress, and Buttigieg continues to ignore the propeller beanie hat stuck to his head.
If Sanders sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire and surges in South Carolina and Nevada, he could become well nigh unstoppable. The Democratic establishment, such as it is, will move heaven and earth to stop Sanders, and given the wealth of material in Sanders’s history, you can expect the mainstream media will start running stories on “Just Who Is Bernie Sanders Anyway?” Sanders is an opposition researcher’s dream. A steady drip-feed of his community access TV shows from the 1980s alone will be enough to sink him, though maybe not in time. If nothing else, the media adjuncts of the Democratic Party will want to get all the damaging stories about Sanders out first, before the Trump campaign does in the fall.
The problem for Democrats is that taking down Bernie might well ensure they lose the election because lots of Bernie bros won’t vote for Joe Biden or the other powdered milk substitutes. We know a significant portion of Bernie voters in 2016 ended up voting for Trump in November. What might happen this year? A recent Emerson College poll found that only 53 percent of current Bernie voters said they would definitely support another Democratic nominee. The NY Times offers this typical anecdote from the campaign trail:
Elsewhere on the increasingly broad Democratic spectrum, Pete Doyle, who attended a Sanders rally in Manchester, N.H., last weekend, had a ready answer when asked about voting for Mr. Biden: “Never in a million years.” He said that if Mr. Biden won the nomination, he would either vote for a third-party nominee or sit out the general election.
We know already that if Trump is re-elected, the left will lose its mind. Biden may still win the nomination after all, but the die is already cast. If Trump defeats Biden (or Klobuchar or Buttigieg), the Democratic Party will lurch even further to the left for 2024, because its Twitter base will run with the theme that it lost because it didn’t embrace Bernie and move far enough left this year. And guess who will be constitutionally eligible to run for president in 2024? (Hint: Her initials are AOC.)
The long term interests of the Democratic Party would be best served by a landslide loss for Bernie in November, because as was the case after McGovern’s landslide loss in 1972 it will enable the few remaining adults in the party to try to take it back from the reckless “progressives,” though it will be an ugly process that will drive up popcorn prices. Conservatives living in open-primary states (like New Hampshire!) should consider voting for Bernie for just this reason—it guarantees short term victory, and helps the long-term cause of preventing the Democratic Party from becoming completely crazy instead of just the half-crazy that is their default position.
Meanwhile, impeachment has turned into a total bust. The Senate spectators’ gallery has been half empty most of the time. I guess Democrats overestimated the charisma and animal magnetism of Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. And the public has tuned it out on television:
According to TV ratings for the first two days of the trial, the six news networks covering Trump’s impeachment averaged a little over 11 million viewers combined, with Fox News leading the pack with some 2,654,000 on their channel from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Viewership dropped by about 20 percent on Wednesday, with a total of 8,858,000 million watching; MSNBC led day two with 1,793,000 tuning in.
Worse for Dems: Quinnipiac, a very reputable polling outfit, now finds a majority of Americans opposed to Trump’s impeachment:
A majority of Americans now oppose impeaching and removing President Trump from office, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll Tuesday that signals Democrats’ month of hearings to make their case has failed. Quinnipiac found 51% of registered voters surveyed said they don’t want to see the president ousted through impeachment. That’s the first time the number has been above 50% since before Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry in late September.
Even worse news: the latest YouGov “generic ballot” poll for the House, which had showed a solid Democratic advantage, is now showing only a 1 point Democratic edge over Republicans. And Trump’s approval rating is near its highest level since he took office, along with new survey data showing the satisfaction with the state of the nation at its highest level in 15 years. The raw number—41 percent—may not seem like much to cheer about, but its the kind of number that gets presidents re-elected.
I just may take the rest of the day off and plant more popcorn in the field.


powerlineblog--2020-01-26--The China Myth Exposed

The China Myth Exposed

From early in our nation ’ s history , America ’ s intellectuals have mostly looked down on their own country and yearned for it to be like someplace else–someplace more sophisticated , and more in tune with “ modern ” intellectual currents , whatever they might be at the moment .
That is a long history , which I will skip over .
In our own time , American intellectuals have claimed that Soviet Russia , Germany and Japan were harbingers of the future that the U.S. needed to imitate .
In each case , the point was that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and enter the brave new world of central planning under the control–benign , of course !
–of intellectuals and bureaucrats .
Strangely , however , American free enterprise has managed to outlast and surpass all of those supposedly more advanced challengers .
Most recently , China has been the favored nation of the future .
It has the advantage over Germany and Japan of being straightforwardly authoritarian ( if no longer exactly Communist ) , which endeared it to anti-democratic liberals like Tom Friedman .
Thus , liberals have eagerly calculated the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GDP , as dictatorships have always been better at producing statistics than goods and services–would surpass ours .
Given that China has three times our population , that would not seem to be a signal accomplishment .
Nevertheless , liberals looked forward to it .
There was always something a little half-hearted about China adulation , however .
When I was a kid , China was synonymous with poverty .
Mothers really did say : “ Eat your brussels sprouts !
There are lots of starving children in China who would love to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opened itself to foreign investment , and thousands of American companies built factories there over the succeeding decades , drawn mainly by the lure of cheap labor .
Cheap labor , of course , wasn ’ t always effective labor .
One of the major cases of the later stage of my career as a lawyer arose out of the construction of a professional sports facility in the Midwest .
A Japanese company won the contract to fabricate and erect the stadium ’ s roof , and in order to save money , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , in later testimony , was described as “ medieval.
” The result was a disaster .
The quality of the fabrication was so poor that the Japanese company eventually spent more money correcting fabrication errors in the U.S.–for a while , you couldn ’ t find a welder in the Midwestern states who wasn ’ t working on the repair project–than it had paid for the fabrication in the first place .
But there was no recourse , as China essentially did not have a legal system .
Then , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report that it was an incipient paradise .
( Unlike liberals who visited the Soviet Union in the 1930s . )
For one thing , in most of the country there was no such thing as what we call a bathroom .
That made the environment a little hard to romanticize .
Still , China was viewed as a major geopolitical player , and American administrations kowtowed to it .
The Chinese engaged in wholesale theft of American and European intellectual property , without compunction .
The country ’ s trade practices were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing came of it .
Only when Donald Trump became president did our country begin to assert its rights and interests against the Chinese dictatorship .
Which brings us to the current coronavirus outbreak .
Once again , China is the source of a rather bizarre viral illness .
It arose , apparently , in the Chinese city of Wuhan .
The source of the virus is believed to be either bats or snakes that were bought for consumption in the Wuhan market in a “ warm ” state–that is , freshly slaughtered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from bats or snakes to humans .
In China , not only snakes and bats , but also rats and bugs–e.g.
, scorpions–are frequently eaten .
Being no cultural relativist , I assume that no one eats snakes , bats , rats or scorpions if he or she has a better alternative .
In Venezuela , for instance , no one dreamed of hunting rats for food until that country ’ s socialist government destroyed Venezuela ’ s economy and reduced the citizenry to penury .
So China ’ s continuing poverty has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I could be wrong ; it has happened once or twice .
But I suspect that the current public health crisis spells the end of China envy among American intellectuals .
The context , of course , is the Trump administration ’ s standing up to China ’ s dictators .
Like Toto , Trump has pulled back the curtain on the Chinese fraud .
To coin a phrase , one might say that China ’ s economic “ juggernaut ” is in fact a paper tiger .
Someday , China may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy .
Until that day comes , the only lesson we can learn from the Chinese government is what to avoid .

From early in our nation’s history, America’s intellectuals have mostly looked down on their own country and yearned for it to be like someplace else–someplace more sophisticated, and more in tune with “modern” intellectual currents, whatever they might be at the moment. That is a long history, which I will skip over. In our own time, American intellectuals have claimed that Soviet Russia, Germany and Japan were harbingers of the future that the U.S. needed to imitate. In each case, the point was that we had to shed our archaic freedoms and enter the brave new world of central planning under the control–benign, of course!–of intellectuals and bureaucrats. Strangely, however, American free enterprise has managed to outlast and surpass all of those supposedly more advanced challengers.
Most recently, China has been the favored nation of the future. It has the advantage over Germany and Japan of being straightforwardly authoritarian (if no longer exactly Communist), which endeared it to anti-democratic liberals like Tom Friedman. Thus, liberals have eagerly calculated the future time when China’s GDP–or alleged GDP, as dictatorships have always been better at producing statistics than goods and services–would surpass ours. Given that China has three times our population, that would not seem to be a signal accomplishment. Nevertheless, liberals looked forward to it.
There was always something a little half-hearted about China adulation, however. When I was a kid, China was synonymous with poverty. Mothers really did say: “Eat your brussels sprouts! There are lots of starving children in China who would love to have them.” In 1979, China opened itself to foreign investment, and thousands of American companies built factories there over the succeeding decades, drawn mainly by the lure of cheap labor.
Cheap labor, of course, wasn’t always effective labor. One of the major cases of the later stage of my career as a lawyer arose out of the construction of a professional sports facility in the Midwest. A Japanese company won the contract to fabricate and erect the stadium’s roof, and in order to save money, subcontracted the fabrication to a Chinese factory that, in later testimony, was described as “medieval.” The result was a disaster. The quality of the fabrication was so poor that the Japanese company eventually spent more money correcting fabrication errors in the U.S.–for a while, you couldn’t find a welder in the Midwestern states who wasn’t working on the repair project–than it had paid for the fabrication in the first place. But there was no recourse, as China essentially did not have a legal system.
Then, too, Americans who visited China did not report that it was an incipient paradise. (Unlike liberals who visited the Soviet Union in the 1930s.) For one thing, in most of the country there was no such thing as what we call a bathroom. That made the environment a little hard to romanticize.
Still, China was viewed as a major geopolitical player, and American administrations kowtowed to it. The Chinese engaged in wholesale theft of American and European intellectual property, without compunction. The country’s trade practices were denounced as illegal and unfair, but nothing came of it. Only when Donald Trump became president did our country begin to assert its rights and interests against the Chinese dictatorship.
Which brings us to the current coronavirus outbreak. Once again, China is the source of a rather bizarre viral illness. It arose, apparently, in the Chinese city of Wuhan. The source of the virus is believed to be either bats or snakes that were bought for consumption in the Wuhan market in a “warm” state–that is, freshly slaughtered. The virus apparently mutated and jumped from bats or snakes to humans.
In China, not only snakes and bats, but also rats and bugs–e.g., scorpions–are frequently eaten. Being no cultural relativist, I assume that no one eats snakes, bats, rats or scorpions if he or she has a better alternative. In Venezuela, for instance, no one dreamed of hunting rats for food until that country’s socialist government destroyed Venezuela’s economy and reduced the citizenry to penury. So China’s continuing poverty has now created a world-wide public health problem.
I could be wrong; it has happened once or twice. But I suspect that the current public health crisis spells the end of China envy among American intellectuals. The context, of course, is the Trump administration’s standing up to China’s dictators. Like Toto, Trump has pulled back the curtain on the Chinese fraud. To coin a phrase, one might say that China’s economic “juggernaut” is in fact a paper tiger.
Someday, China may be a free country with a free economy. Until that day comes, the only lesson we can learn from the Chinese government is what to avoid.


powerlineblog--2020-01-27--Terroristic threats by Omar’s enforcer

Terroristic threats by Omar’s enforcer

Yesterday afternoon the New York Post published Ebony Bowden story ’ s “ FBI reviewing claims Ilhan Omar married her brother.
” The Daily Mail quickly followed up with Lauren Fruen ’ s “ FBI is looking into claims Ilhan Omar married her brother and ‘ will share their findings with ICE . '
” Both of these stories are based on David Steinberg ’ s Blaze article “ Finally .
The Feds — including ICE — appear to be investigating Rep. Ilhan Omar.
” I noted David ’ s article upon its publication last week in the post “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Bowden ’ s New York Post article was highlighted by Xerta Shekh on Facebook for XS ’ s many Somali readers .
Omar must be feeling the heat .
Beginning at 5:18 a.m. yesterday , Omar ’ s enforcer unleashed a wave of threatening posts on Facebook .
These posts are public , they are vulgar ( “ This fucker thought that I am playing games with him [ , b ] ut surely he will pay , ” for example ) and they are , in my opinion , criminal insofar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific target and others who have seen them .
I originally introduced Omar ’ s enforcer to Power Line readers here this past March .
I posted his Ohio mug shot here this past September .
Every aspect of this story remains a secret from readers who get their news from the Star Tribune and the rest of the Minnesota media .
When it comes to Omar , readers are better served by the UK ” s Daily Mail and the New York Post .
Yesterday evening I was contacted by Somali friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything happens.
” They are of course afraid , as they are meant to be , but Omar should be afraid of them .
They will not be intimidated into silence .

Yesterday afternoon the New York Post published Ebony Bowden story’s “FBI reviewing claims Ilhan Omar married her brother.” The Daily Mail quickly followed up with Lauren Fruen’s “FBI is looking into claims Ilhan Omar married her brother and ‘will share their findings with ICE.'”
Both of these stories are based on David Steinberg’s Blaze article “Finally. The Feds — including ICE — appear to be investigating Rep. Ilhan Omar.” I noted David’s article upon its publication last week in the post “David Steinberg reports: The Omar investigations.”
Bowden’s New York Post article was highlighted by Xerta Shekh on Facebook for XS’s many Somali readers. Omar must be feeling the heat. Beginning at 5:18 a.m. yesterday, Omar’s enforcer unleashed a wave of threatening posts on Facebook. These posts are public, they are vulgar (“This fucker thought that I am playing games with him[, b]ut surely he will pay,” for example) and they are, in my opinion, criminal insofar as they are meant to terrorize their specific target and others who have seen them.
I originally introduced Omar’s enforcer to Power Line readers here this past March. I posted his Ohio mug shot here this past September.
Every aspect of this story remains a secret from readers who get their news from the Star Tribune and the rest of the Minnesota media. When it comes to Omar, readers are better served by the UK”s Daily Mail and the New York Post.
Yesterday evening I was contacted by Somali friends and entrusted with information “in case anything happens.” They are of course afraid, as they are meant to be, but Omar should be afraid of them. They will not be intimidated into silence.
More to come…


powerlineblog--2020-02-14--Global Warming In a Few Charts

Global Warming In a Few Charts

Climate change hysteria has been dialed up to 11 over the last year or two .
Greta Thunberg , the Swedish teenager who knows little or nothing about the subject , apparently will continue being nominated for a Nobel Prize until she wins one .
But , hype aside , what is actually going on with the Earth ’ s climate ?
Anthony Watts offers seven charts that show the effects of the last decade of alleged global warming .
The first one has to do with the beneficial effects of increasing CO2–plant food–in the atmosphere .
This image shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globe from 1982-2015 .
We constantly hear that temperatures are setting new records , but in reality , according to NOAA ’ s United States Climate Reference Network , average temperatures in the U.S. in 2019 were cooler than they had been at the start of the decade .
The two peaks were , as usual , naturally-occurring El Nino years : The alarmists ’ models were created by activists to predict problematic levels of warming .
That was the whole point .
Unfortunately for the alarmists , enough time has now gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that the models are wrong .
They grossly exaggerated any mild warming that has actually occurred .
And a model that produces wrong predictions is worthless .
This , I think , is why the Left shifted its focus to “ extreme weather events.
” Apparently there are people alive today so ill-informed that they are surprised by storms , floods , droughts , fires , etc.
, apparently believing that these are new phenomena .
This chart shows the economic cost of weather losses as a share of global GDP .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing , even though coastal development has increased during the time period covered by the chart : I don ’ t think economic losses are the best measure for the reason stated above , so here is a chart , from NOAA , that shows that major hurricane activity in the U.S. has been declining over a 100 year-plus period : Finally , what about the “ green revolution ” that supposedly is bringing about a brave new world of “ clean ” wind and solar energy ?
First of all , wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Environmentally , it is debatable whether they are superior to coal , and they are plainly inferior to natural gas and nuclear power from an environmental perspective .
But , putting that aside , is it true that alleged “ renewables ” are beginning to dominate energy markets ?
If it weren ’ t for federal subsidies and state mandates , so-called “ renewables ” wouldn ’ t be on the list at all .
If you want to know more about the inherent futility of these energy sources , this is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes a United Nations poll showing that internationally , global warming ranks last among respondents ’ concerns .
Polls on this topic vary widely , but I think centuries of experience lead most people to believe that those who shriek hysterically , do so because they don ’ t have a good case .
That , I think , is where the global warming movement is today .

Climate change hysteria has been dialed up to 11 over the last year or two. Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who knows little or nothing about the subject, apparently will continue being nominated for a Nobel Prize until she wins one. But, hype aside, what is actually going on with the Earth’s climate?
Anthony Watts offers seven charts that show the effects of the last decade of alleged global warming. The first one has to do with the beneficial effects of increasing CO2–plant food–in the atmosphere.
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25 2016.
***
The greening over the past 33 years reported in this study is equivalent to adding a green continent about two times the size of mainland USA (18 million km2)…
This image shows the change in leaf area across the globe from 1982-2015.
We constantly hear that temperatures are setting new records, but in reality, according to NOAA’s United States Climate Reference Network, average temperatures in the U.S. in 2019 were cooler than they had been at the start of the decade. The two peaks were, as usual, naturally-occurring El Nino years:
The alarmists’ models were created by activists to predict problematic levels of warming. That was the whole point. Unfortunately for the alarmists, enough time has now gone by that we can say, definitively, that the models are wrong. They grossly exaggerated any mild warming that has actually occurred. And a model that produces wrong predictions is worthless.
This, I think, is why the Left shifted its focus to “extreme weather events.” Apparently there are people alive today so ill-informed that they are surprised by storms, floods, droughts, fires, etc., apparently believing that these are new phenomena. This chart shows the economic cost of weather losses as a share of global GDP. Such losses have been declining, not increasing, even though coastal development has increased during the time period covered by the chart:
I don’t think economic losses are the best measure for the reason stated above, so here is a chart, from NOAA, that shows that major hurricane activity in the U.S. has been declining over a 100 year-plus period:
Finally, what about the “green revolution” that supposedly is bringing about a brave new world of “clean” wind and solar energy? First of all, wind and solar are anything but clean. Environmentally, it is debatable whether they are superior to coal, and they are plainly inferior to natural gas and nuclear power from an environmental perspective. But, putting that aside, is it true that alleged “renewables” are beginning to dominate energy markets?
Not really:
If it weren’t for federal subsidies and state mandates, so-called “renewables” wouldn’t be on the list at all. If you want to know more about the inherent futility of these energy sources, this is a good place to start.
Anthony Watts includes a United Nations poll showing that internationally, global warming ranks last among respondents’ concerns. Polls on this topic vary widely, but I think centuries of experience lead most people to believe that those who shriek hysterically, do so because they don’t have a good case. That, I think, is where the global warming movement is today.


Donald Does Daytona

In what many deem a stroke of political genius , President Trump served today as Grand Marshal of the Daytona @ @ @ @ @ vowed to take a lap in the armored presidential limousine serving as a pace car @ @ @ @ @ are two short videos that show some of the action : As you would expect @ @ @ @ @ enthusiastic reception from the crowd of up to 200,000 .
NASCAR is famously patriotic , @ @ @ @ @ president .
That may turn out to be the most fundamental difference between Trump and @ @ @ @ @ .
In 1972 , I was discussing the upcoming presidential election with a friend from @ @ @ @ @ were on the left at the time , but my friend summed up the race @ @ @ @ @ going to win because he is for America , and McGovern is against America.
” @ @ @ @ @ wins the Democratic nomination , but essentially the same dynamic will be on display this @ @

In what many deem a stroke of political genius, President Trump served today as Grand Marshal of the Daytona 500 NASCAR race. He vowed to take a lap in the armored presidential limousine serving as a pace car, and did. Here are two short videos that show some of the action:
President @realDonaldTrump gives the starting command at the 62nd Daytona 500. pic.twitter.com/yDPx8inN4R — FOX Sports (@FOXSports) February 16, 2020
President @realDonaldTrump takes a few laps around Daytona International Speedway. pic.twitter.com/H2shfXbqYk — FOX: NASCAR (@NASCARONFOX) February 16, 2020
As you would expect, the president got an enthusiastic reception from the crowd of up to 200,000. NASCAR is famously patriotic, and Trump is a patriotic president. That may turn out to be the most fundamental difference between Trump and his Democratic opponent in November.
In 1972, I was discussing the upcoming presidential election with a friend from college. Both of us were on the left at the time, but my friend summed up the race succinctly: “Nixon is going to win because he is for America, and McGovern is against America.” It depends somewhat on who wins the Democratic nomination, but essentially the same dynamic will be on display this year.
PAUL ADDS: The good news is that Americans are still for America. The bad news is that Americans aren’t as for America as they were in 1972.


powerlineblog--2020-02-16--Donald Does Daytona [with comment by Paul]

In what many deem a stroke of political genius , President Trump served today as Grand Marshal of the Daytona 500 NASCAR race .
He vowed to take a lap in the armored presidential limousine serving as a pace car , and did .
Here are two short videos that show some of the action : As you would expect , the president got an enthusiastic reception from the crowd of up to 200,000 .
NASCAR is famously patriotic , and Trump is a patriotic president .
That may turn out to be the most fundamental difference between Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1972 , I was discussing the upcoming presidential election with a friend from college .
Both of us were on the left at the time , but my friend summed up the race succinctly : “ Nixon is going to win because he is for America , and McGovern is against America.
” It depends somewhat on who wins the Democratic nomination , but essentially the same dynamic will be on display this year .
PAUL ADDS : The good news is that Americans are still for America .
The bad news is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America as they were in 1972 .


powerlineblog--2020-02-20--Steve Scalise Wins Tweet of the Year

Steve Scalise Wins Tweet of the Year

Bernie Sanders ’ s weakest moment last night is hard to single out , but one leading example would have @ @ @ @ @ that some of the bad behavior of Bernie Bros are Russian false flag operations .
@ @ @ @ @ the defense of Bernie Bros .
Which set up Rep. Steve Scalise for what we @ @ @ @ @ it is only February , to be Tweet of the Year hands down : Yes @ @ @ @ @ forgot about Bernie Bro James Hodgkinson , who , as Glenn Reynolds like to remind @ @ @ @ @ from history .
I wonder if Ellison will have the good sense to delete this @ @

Bernie Sanders’s weakest moment last night is hard to single out, but one leading example would have to be his lame answer that some of the bad behavior of Bernie Bros are Russian false flag operations. Whereupon Keith Ellison came to the defense of Bernie Bros. Which set up Rep. Steve Scalise for what we can declare, even though it is only February, to be Tweet of the Year hands down:
Yes, it seems Ellison completely forgot about Bernie Bro James Hodgkinson, who, as Glenn Reynolds like to remind us, has been airbrushed from history.
I wonder if Ellison will have the good sense to delete this Tweet.


powerlineblog--2020-04-27--Yet another media smear

Yet another media smear

If you consume what the mainstream media dishes out , then you are probably aware of claims by many of its outlets that the Trump administration tapped “ a dog breeder , ” Brian Harrison , to run its response to the Wuhan coronavirus .
“ Special Report : Former Labradoodle breeder was tapped to lead U.S. pandemic task force , ” Reuters blared .
“ Not a Joke : The Trump Admin Hired a Dog Breeder to Run Its Coronavirus Task Force , ” claimed Vanity Fair .
The Daily Beast chimed in with a report that “ Azar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus Task Force.
” MSNBC demanded to know “ Why would a former dog breeder help oversee a pandemic ?
” These claims are grossly misleading .
Harrison briefly owned a family business raising Labradoodles .
However , he has served in important posts at HHS , the White House , and the Pentagon .
In addition , his private sector experience includes work as a director at an independent public affairs firm , where he helped oversee its healthcare portfolio Moreover , Harrison never “ ran ” the Trump administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was assigned a typical role for a cabinet secretary ’ s chief of staff , serving as aide de camp on a task force run by HHS Secretary Azar , until Trump replaced Azar with Vice President Pence .
Harrison ’ s predecessor as Azar ’ s chief-of-staff explained Harrison ’ s role as follows : Harrison ’ s background in government , as set forth by the Dallas Morning News , is precisely that of a typical high level government staffer .
During the Bush 43 administration , when Azar was Deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Azar ’ s staff .
Vice President Cheney ’ s team noticed Harrison and snatched him up to serve on the VP ’ s staff at the White House .
After that , Harrison moved on to the Pentagon , where he remained for the first two years of the Obama administration .
None of this experience would qualify Harrison to formulate the administration ’ s response to the coronavirus .
But this was never Harrison ’ s role .
For better or for worse , the likes of Dr. Fauci , Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Azar and then Pence , did the formulating , subject to sign off by President Trump .
The mainstream media can ’ t attack the paper credentials of the medical professionals who advised the administration .
Thus , its organs go after the top staff guy .
And to make this work , they must distort its portrait of him .
Sickening , but par for the course .

If you consume what the mainstream media dishes out, then you are probably aware of claims by many of its outlets that the Trump administration tapped “a dog breeder,” Brian Harrison, to run its response to the Wuhan coronavirus. “Special Report: Former Labradoodle breeder was tapped to lead U.S. pandemic task force,” Reuters blared. “Not a Joke: The Trump Admin Hired a Dog Breeder to Run Its Coronavirus Task Force,” claimed Vanity Fair.
The Daily Beast chimed in with a report that “Azar Tapped Ex-Dog Breeder to Lead Early Federal Coronavirus Task Force.” MSNBC demanded to know “Why would a former dog breeder help oversee a pandemic?”
These claims are grossly misleading. Harrison briefly owned a family business raising Labradoodles. However, he has served in important posts at HHS, the White House, and the Pentagon. In addition, his private sector experience includes work as a director at an independent public affairs firm, where he helped oversee its healthcare portfolio
Moreover, Harrison never “ran” the Trump administration’s pandemic task force. Rather, he was assigned a typical role for a cabinet secretary’s chief of staff, serving as aide de camp on a task force run by HHS Secretary Azar, until Trump replaced Azar with Vice President Pence.
Harrison’s predecessor as Azar’s chief-of-staff explained Harrison’s role as follows:
Your job is to keep the trains moving. It’s not being the guy who comes up with the idea about what HHS does about testing. People have this idea that it’s some kind of czar job. You’re staff.
Harrison’s background in government, as set forth by the Dallas Morning News, is precisely that of a typical high level government staffer. During the Bush 43 administration, when Azar was Deputy Secretary of HHS, Harrison served on Azar’s staff. Vice President Cheney’s team noticed Harrison and snatched him up to serve on the VP’s staff at the White House. After that, Harrison moved on to the Pentagon, where he remained for the first two years of the Obama administration.
None of this experience would qualify Harrison to formulate the administration’s response to the coronavirus. But this was never Harrison’s role. For better or for worse, the likes of Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, and Dr. Redfield, along with Azar and then Pence, did the formulating, subject to sign off by President Trump.
The mainstream media can’t attack the paper credentials of the medical professionals who advised the administration. Thus, its organs go after the top staff guy. And to make this work, they must distort its portrait of him.
Sickening, but par for the course.


powerlineblog--2020-04-30--Michael Moore Heresy Watch (2)

Michael Moore Heresy Watch (2)

There ’ s not much new to report on the fuss on the left over the Michael Moore anti-renewable energy film “ Planet of the Humans , ” but as a public service I just have to share the agony of The Nation magazine , which today published this delicious headline and primal scream : Meet the New Flack for Oil and Gas : Michael Moore Like many of Moore ’ s fans , I thought , “ Cool , how timely !
” Trump is in the White House ripping every environmental law to shreds , rolling back dozens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agreement , denying climate change , and opening up millions of acres for fracking .
We need a movie on this complex and dramatic moment .
.
.
But after watching Planet of the Humans for about 10 minutes , I wanted to turn it off .
Instead , I took notes .
Because the film is so dangerous , so wildly off-track and full of misinformation , fossil fuel industry taking points , and unfounded , wacky statements you could be forgiven for thinking it was created by Breitbart Newsor Steve Bannon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bombast that is Michael Moore .
( As if to prove that the world is upside down , when world-renowned author and climate scientist Michael Mann , Naomi Klein , and I came out with a sign-on letter protesting the film ’ s inaccuracies and falsehoods , Breitbart actually piped up in defense of Michael Moore ! )
.
.
.
Releasing this on the eve of Earth Day ’ s 50th anniversary is like Bernie Sanders endorsing Donald Trump while chugging hydroxychloroquine .
Planet of the Humans delivers all of the fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in a bow , sold to us by one of the progressive left ’ s loudest voices .

There’s not much new to report on the fuss on the left over the Michael Moore anti-renewable energy film “Planet of the Humans,” but as a public service I just have to share the agony of The Nation magazine, which today published this delicious headline and primal scream:
Meet the New Flack for Oil and Gas: Michael Moore
Like many of Moore’s fans, I thought, “Cool, how timely!” Trump is in the White House ripping every environmental law to shreds, rolling back dozens of environmental rules, trashing the Paris Agreement, denying climate change, and opening up millions of acres for fracking. We need a movie on this complex and dramatic moment. . .
But after watching Planet of the Humans for about 10 minutes, I wanted to turn it off. Instead, I took notes.
Because the film is so dangerous, so wildly off-track and full of misinformation, fossil fuel industry taking points, and unfounded, wacky statements you could be forgiven for thinking it was created by Breitbart Newsor Steve Bannon and not the erstwhile bastion of progressive bombast that is Michael Moore. (As if to prove that the world is upside down, when world-renowned author and climate scientist Michael Mann, Naomi Klein, and I came out with a sign-on letter protesting the film’s inaccuracies and falsehoods, Breitbart actually piped up in defense of Michael Moore!) . . .
Releasing this on the eve of Earth Day’s 50th anniversary is like Bernie Sanders endorsing Donald Trump while chugging hydroxychloroquine. Planet of the Humans delivers all of the fossil fuel industry’s misinformation points tied up in a bow, sold to us by one of the progressive left’s loudest voices.


powerlineblog--2020-06-02--Interracial violence in America, by the numbers

Heather Mac Donald writes about the pandemic of violence that spread across America after the killing of George Floyd .
Her excellent article includes this statistic : Blacks commit around 70 percent of black-white interracial homicides .
I take it that , as a statistical matter , the “ expected ” number is 50 percent for all forms of black-white interracial violent crime .
Is the vastly disproportionate number of violent crimes by blacks against whites explained by black racism ?
Not necessarily .
It might be the product of the disproportionate propensity of blacks to commit violent crimes against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism , criminality , or both .
In all events , these numbers render absurd the claim that racist America is waging war against “ black bodies.
” When whites encounter blacks , it ’ s “ white bodies ” that are in greater jeopardy .
( As a statistical matter , neither set of bodies is normally in danger . )
We almost never see the statistics on interracial violence presented above .
It ’ s politically incorrect , and probably impolite , to bring them up .
I ’ m fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trashed and burned by mobs on the pretext that white racism makes blacks , as a group , unsafe in America .

Heather Mac Donald writes about the pandemic of violence that spread across America after the killing of George Floyd. Her excellent article includes this statistic:
Between 2012 and 2015, blacks committed 85.5 percent of all black-white interracial violent victimizations (excluding interracial homicide, which is also disproportionately black-on-white). That works out to 540,360 felonious assaults on whites. Whites committed 14.4 percent of all interracial violent victimization, or 91,470 felonious assaults on blacks.
Blacks commit around 70 percent of black-white interracial homicides. I take it that, as a statistical matter, the “expected” number is 50 percent for all forms of black-white interracial violent crime.
Is the vastly disproportionate number of violent crimes by blacks against whites explained by black racism? Not necessarily. It might be the product of the disproportionate propensity of blacks to commit violent crimes against anyone. But the explanation must be racism, criminality, or both.
In all events, these numbers render absurd the claim that racist America is waging war against “black bodies.” When whites encounter blacks, it’s “white bodies” that are in greater jeopardy. (As a statistical matter, neither set of bodies is normally in danger.)
We almost never see the statistics on interracial violence presented above. It’s politically incorrect, and probably impolite, to bring them up.
I’m fine with that — until our cities are trashed and burned by mobs on the pretext that white racism makes blacks, as a group, unsafe in America.


powerlineblog--2020-06-08--Save Us From Woke Capitalism

Save Us From Woke Capitalism

Over the last week the stock market has enjoyed a huge rally , amidst the continuing overhang of the COVID-19 crisis and mass rioting throughout many urban areas .
The market has now made up nearly all of the ground it lost starting in February .
It ’ s either the market ’ s way of giving the middle finger to the virus crisis and the riots , or it could be one of the greatest short-covering rallies of all time .
I ’ ll leave that for our insider market mavens .
Meanwhile , I wish I could say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they need to act and emote like college presidents .
To the contrary , leading American businesses are falling over each other to profess their allegiance to the Woke Catechism .
The less said about Ben & Jerry ’ s the better .
Lego has announced that it will cease advertising its police and fire-themed sets ( and throw in $ 4 million in protection money to boot ) , though it won ’ t stop selling them— got ta move that inventory .
Though I do recommend buying your Lego SWAT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will become a collector ’ s item .
Or you can buy the Lego police station set , and re-enact the sacking of the Minneapolis police station .
( I ’ m going to keep mine next to my old McDonald ’ s polystyrene hamburger boxes , and my Land O Lakes butter boxes with the native American woman who has apparently gone into the witness protection program . )
Fuji bicycles has halted sales of its police model ; Trek bikes is under pressure to follow .
Maybe the most absurd is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows because most cop shows glorify the police , but if that happens at least we ’ ll still have T.J. Hooker reruns .
( Maybe we could get that famous crossover episode where officer Hooker runs into Captain Kirk in Star Trek IV , and opens up a black hole .
Can we still say “ black hole , ” by the way ? )
I could go on since the list of corporate grovelers is quite long indeed .
Aside from the protection money , much of this is simply virtue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Dietrich Bonhoeffer ’ s “ cheap grace.
” But here and there are some truly egregious steps , such as Uber , which announced several steps , including this one : As a starting point , we will use Uber Eats to promote Black-owned restaurants while making it easier for you to support them , with no delivery fees for the remainder of the year .
And in the coming weeks , we will offer discounted rides to Black-owned small businesses , who have been hit hard by COVID-19 , to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible that this kind of racial and price discrimination might run afoul of both civil rights laws and anti-trust or other price discrimination laws .
You might call it wokeness Uber alles .
Meanwhile , playing a hunch suggested by “ Lucretia , ” Power Line ’ s international woman of mystery , I made the following two queries with Apple ’ s Siri : P.S .
I am informed that this is a revised answer from Siri , and that a few days ago the reply to “ All lives matter ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about that .
”

Over the last week the stock market has enjoyed a huge rally, amidst the continuing overhang of the COVID-19 crisis and mass rioting throughout many urban areas. The market has now made up nearly all of the ground it lost starting in February. It’s either the market’s way of giving the middle finger to the virus crisis and the riots, or it could be one of the greatest short-covering rallies of all time. I’ll leave that for our insider market mavens.
Meanwhile, I wish I could say that corporate presidents hadn’t decided that they need to act and emote like college presidents. To the contrary, leading American businesses are falling over each other to profess their allegiance to the Woke Catechism. The less said about Ben & Jerry’s the better. Lego has announced that it will cease advertising its police and fire-themed sets (and throw in $4 million in protection money to boot), though it won’t stop selling them—gotta move that inventory. Though I do recommend buying your Lego SWAT team set fast—I’ll predict they will become a collector’s item. Or you can buy the Lego police station set, and re-enact the sacking of the Minneapolis police station. (I’m going to keep mine next to my old McDonald’s polystyrene hamburger boxes, and my Land O Lakes butter boxes with the native American woman who has apparently gone into the witness protection program.)
Fuji bicycles has halted sales of its police model; Trek bikes is under pressure to follow. Maybe the most absurd is the demand that Hollywood stop making cop shows because most cop shows glorify the police, but if that happens at least we’ll still have T.J. Hooker reruns. (Maybe we could get that famous crossover episode where officer Hooker runs into Captain Kirk in Star Trek IV, and opens up a black hole. Can we still say “black hole,” by the way?)
I could go on since the list of corporate grovelers is quite long indeed. Aside from the protection money, much of this is simply virtue signaling, which is the secular version of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “cheap grace.” But here and there are some truly egregious steps, such as Uber, which announced several steps, including this one:
As a starting point, we will use Uber Eats to promote Black-owned restaurants while making it easier for you to support them, with no delivery fees for the remainder of the year. And in the coming weeks, we will offer discounted rides to Black-owned small businesses, who have been hit hard by COVID-19, to help in their recovery.
It is quite possible that this kind of racial and price discrimination might run afoul of both civil rights laws and anti-trust or other price discrimination laws. You might call it wokeness Uber alles.
Meanwhile, playing a hunch suggested by “Lucretia,” Power Line’s international woman of mystery, I made the following two queries with Apple’s Siri:
P.S. I am informed that this is a revised answer from Siri, and that a few days ago the reply to “All lives matter” was “I’m not sure about that.”


powerlineblog--2020-06-26--Judge blocks New York’s limitation on outdoor religious services [UPDATED]

A federal district court judge today issued a preliminary injunction against Gov .
Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio to stop them from limiting participation in outdoor religious gatherings as a response to the pandemic .
The judge , Gary Sharpe ( a Bush 43 appointee ) , emphasized that , notwithstanding the Wuhan coronavirus , Cuomo and de Blasio permitted , and indeed seemed to bless , outdoor protests following the killing of George Floyd .
Judge Sharpe explained that the regulation limiting participation in outdoor religious services results in the “ curtailment of fundamental rights without compelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preventing the spread of the coronavirus .
However , as the attorneys from the Thomas More Foundation who filed the lawsuit noted , this justification “ went right out the window as soon as [ Gov .
Cuomo ] and Mayor de Blasio saw a mass protest movement they favored taking to the streets by the thousands.
” At that point , “ the limit on ‘ mass gatherings ’ was no longer necessary to ‘ save lives.
’ ” Judge Sharpe saw the same problem .
He quoted this statement by Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
With this virus , you can do many things now as long as you ’ re smart about it , right ?
You can reopen , you can go into a store and you can do a lot of things , just be smart .
Yet , the number of people allowed by New York to worship together outdoors was sharply limited , no matter how “ smartly ” the religiously observant were prepared to proceed .
Allowing political protests , no matter the size , while limiting religious worship was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment rights .
Judge Sharpe went on to say : Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio could have just as easily discouraged protests , short of condemning their message , in the name of public health and exercised discretion to suspend enforcement for public safety reasons instead of encouraging what they knew was a flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules .
They could have also been silent .
But by acting as they did , Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio sent a clear message that mass protests are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not sure that silence , or even non-enforcement , would have been sufficient to avoid the discrimination against religion worship resulting from an order expressly severely limiting gatherings for the purpose of worship .
But Cuomo and de Blasio — incorrigible leftist virtue signalers that they are — made these questions irrelevant , and made it easy for the judge to shoot them down .
UPDATE : Judge Sharpe ’ s opinion is here .
In addition to his ruling on outdoor religious events , the judge also enjoined New York from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 25 percent capacity .
He noted that on its face , the 25 percent rule applies only to houses of worship .
No other secular entity , save for those that remain closed in their entirety until Phase 4 or beyond , is limited to only 25 percent capacity .
Yet , entities allowed to operate at 50 percent capacity are not justifiably different from house of worship .
the judge found .
He cited offices , retail stores that are not inside of shopping malls , salons , and restaurants .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ case incorrectly characterized New York ’ s rule as a ban on outdoor religious gatherings , rather than as a severe limitation on participation in them .

A federal district court judge today issued a preliminary injunction against Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio to stop them from limiting participation in outdoor religious gatherings as a response to the pandemic. The judge, Gary Sharpe (a Bush 43 appointee), emphasized that, notwithstanding the Wuhan coronavirus, Cuomo and de Blasio permitted, and indeed seemed to bless, outdoor protests following the killing of George Floyd.
Judge Sharpe explained that the regulation limiting participation in outdoor religious services results in the “curtailment of fundamental rights without compelling justification.” The purported compelling justification is preventing the spread of the coronavirus. However, as the attorneys from the Thomas More Foundation who filed the lawsuit noted, this justification “went right out the window as soon as [Gov. Cuomo] and Mayor de Blasio saw a mass protest movement they favored taking to the streets by the thousands.” At that point, “the limit on ‘mass gatherings’ was no longer necessary to ‘save lives.’”
Judge Sharpe saw the same problem. He quoted this statement by Cuomo:
Protest. Just be smart about it. With this virus, you can do many things now as long as you’re smart about it, right? You can reopen, you can go into a store and you can do a lot of things, just be smart.
Yet, the number of people allowed by New York to worship together outdoors was sharply limited, no matter how “smartly” the religiously observant were prepared to proceed. Allowing political protests, no matter the size, while limiting religious worship was obvious discrimination against one set of First Amendment rights.
Judge Sharpe went on to say:
Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio could have just as easily discouraged protests, short of condemning their message, in the name of public health and exercised discretion to suspend enforcement for public safety reasons instead of encouraging what they knew was a flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules. They could have also been silent. But by acting as they did, Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio sent a clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment.
I’m not sure that silence, or even non-enforcement, would have been sufficient to avoid the discrimination against religion worship resulting from an order expressly severely limiting gatherings for the purpose of worship. But Cuomo and de Blasio — incorrigible leftist virtue signalers that they are — made these questions irrelevant, and made it easy for the judge to shoot them down.
UPDATE: Judge Sharpe’s opinion is here. In addition to his ruling on outdoor religious events, the judge also enjoined New York from enforcing its rule limiting indoor religious services to 25 percent capacity. He noted that on its face, the 25 percent rule applies only to houses of worship. No other secular entity, save for those that remain closed in their entirety until Phase 4 or beyond, is limited to only 25 percent capacity.
Yet, entities allowed to operate at 50 percent capacity are not justifiably different from house of worship. the judge found. He cited offices, retail stores that are not inside of shopping malls, salons, and restaurants.
NOTE: My original post about this case incorrectly characterized New York’s rule as a ban on outdoor religious gatherings, rather than as a severe limitation on participation in them.


powerlineblog--2020-07-10--How Bad Are America’s Colleges? This Bad

Some conservatives tend to say , “ Sure the colleges and universities are bad , but… ” There is no but .
With rare exceptions , they are worse than you can imagine .
Unless they are studying to be an engineer or a doctor , most people would be better off to avoid college altogether , learn a trade , and read books on their own .
Which is the way it used to be .
For a window into the zoo that is “ higher ” education in the 21st century , check out this article by Kathy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the upcoming issue of Thinking Minnesota .
Kathy is a Senior Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment , and is by far Minnesota ’ s best columnist and investigative reporter .
I think this piece is one of her best : This issue of Thinking Minnesota will be mailed beginning on July 14 to a circulation of 97,000 .
If you would like to subscribe to this quarterly journal–for free !
–all you need to do is send an email to [ email protected ] with your name and address @

Some conservatives tend to say, “Sure the colleges and universities are bad, but…” There is no but. With rare exceptions, they are worse than you can imagine. Unless they are studying to be an engineer or a doctor, most people would be better off to avoid college altogether, learn a trade, and read books on their own. Which is the way it used to be.
For a window into the zoo that is “higher” education in the 21st century, check out this article by Kathy Kersten on Minnesota’s Macalester College in the upcoming issue of Thinking Minnesota. Kathy is a Senior Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment, and is by far Minnesota’s best columnist and investigative reporter. I think this piece is one of her best:
This issue of Thinking Minnesota will be mailed beginning on July 14 to a circulation of 97,000. If you would like to subscribe to this quarterly journal–for free!–all you need to do is send an email to [email protected] with your name and address.


powerlineblog--2020-07-11--In the Flynn case, more exculpatory evidence

The case brought by Team Mueller in the name of the United States against Michael Flynn constitutes a sidebar to the biggest political scandal in American history by far .
While the United States now seeks to dismiss the case , Judge Sullivan resists .
His resistance now extends to the The D.C .
Circuit opinion granting Flynn ’ s petition for a writ of mandamus ordering him to dismiss the case .
While the D.C .
Circuit mulls over Sullivan ’ s petition for en banc review of the court ’ s mandamus order , the government continues to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flynn .
Reminder : Attorney General Barr assigned United States Attorney Jeffrey Jensen the task of reviewing the government ’ s file in the Flynn matter .
Jensen ’ s review has resulted in several productions of exculpatory evidence that prosecutors acting on behalf of the United States should previously have turned over to Flynn .
What we have here is a sickening disgrace from which the press averts its eyes like Victorians confronting a public display of sex .
At every step along the way , the press acted as a co-conspirator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Obama administration .
You can understand why they might not be inclined to look back or confess and repent their wrongdoing .
They look forward to the Biden Ministry of Truth depositing it down the memory hole .
Flynn counsel Sidney Powell filed Flynn ’ s Second Supplement In Support of Agreed Dismissal yesterday .
It is accessible here .
The newly produced exculpatory evidence was attached to the memo as Exhibit A .
The memo explains the circumstances underlying the production and itemizes the government ’ s previous productions of undisclosed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sidebar to the scandalous sidebar .
I have embedded the newly produced exculpatory evidence below via Scribd , where it is posted at the moment .
NR reports on the material here .
Conservative Tree House ’ s Sundance helpfully explicates it here .
US v Flynn – DOJ July 2020 … by Techno Fog on Scribd

The case brought by Team Mueller in the name of the United States against Michael Flynn constitutes a sidebar to the biggest political scandal in American history by far. While the United States now seeks to dismiss the case, Judge Sullivan resists. His resistance now extends to the The D.C. Circuit opinion granting Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus ordering him to dismiss the case.
While the D.C. Circuit mulls over Sullivan’s petition for en banc review of the court’s mandamus order, the government continues to produce previously undisclosed exculpatory material to General Flynn. Reminder: Attorney General Barr assigned United States Attorney Jeffrey Jensen the task of reviewing the government’s file in the Flynn matter. Jensen’s review has resulted in several productions of exculpatory evidence that prosecutors acting on behalf of the United States should previously have turned over to Flynn.
What we have here is a sickening disgrace from which the press averts its eyes like Victorians confronting a public display of sex. At every step along the way, the press acted as a co-conspirator with the perpetrators inside the FBI and the Obama administration. You can understand why they might not be inclined to look back or confess and repent their wrongdoing. They look forward to the Biden Ministry of Truth depositing it down the memory hole.
🚨New Flynn Documents – Thread. 1/30/17 DOJ(?) Memo: "FBI advised that they believed Flynn believed what he was saying was true." FBI determined "Flynn was not acting as an agent of Russia." pic.twitter.com/ZwID3tHJPF — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) July 10, 2020
Flynn counsel Sidney Powell filed Flynn’s Second Supplement In Support of Agreed Dismissal yesterday. It is accessible here. The newly produced exculpatory evidence was attached to the memo as Exhibit A. The memo explains the circumstances underlying the production and itemizes the government’s previous productions of undisclosed exculpatory evidence. This is a scandalous sidebar to the scandalous sidebar.
I have embedded the newly produced exculpatory evidence below via Scribd, where it is posted at the moment. NR reports on the material here. Conservative Tree House’s Sundance helpfully explicates it here.
US v Flynn – DOJ July 2020 … by Techno Fog on Scribd


powerlineblog--2020-08-01--The Week in Pictures: Barr None Edition

The Week in Pictures: Barr None Edition

“ Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
” Winston Churchill “ Proclaim Liberty throughout @ @ @ @ @ the Inhabitants Thereof.
” Inscription on the Liberty Bell

“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell


powerlineblog--2020-08-07--More Good Economic News

More Good Economic News

The July jobs report came out today , and it exceeded Wall Street ’ s expectations with 1.8 million new @ @ @ @ @ to 10.2 % .
Together with job gains in May and June , 42 % @ @ @ @ @ lost in March and April have now been regained .
Democrats have been hoping that @ @ @ @ @ pessimism about the economy to push them to victory in November .
That could still @ @ @ @ @ becoming a harder sell .
My economist friends tell me that this year ’ s @ @ @ @ @ likely show the biggest increase in GDP of any quarter in history .
When does @ @ @ @ @ Oh yeah , October .

The July jobs report came out today, and it exceeded Wall Street’s expectations with 1.8 million new payroll jobs. Unemployment dropped to 10.2%. Together with job gains in May and June, 42% of the jobs that were lost in March and April have now been regained.
Democrats have been hoping that COVID shutdowns would cause enough pessimism about the economy to push them to victory in November. That could still happen, but pessimism is becoming a harder sell. My economist friends tell me that this year’s 3rd quarter GDP report will likely show the biggest increase in GDP of any quarter in history. When does that report come out? Oh yeah, October.