Who said this?

“The EPA is one of the most toxic places in the federal government to work. If you don’t get rid of the toxicity of the employees at the EPA, we are doing a great disservice to this country. I have serious questions about [the EPA administrator’s] ability to actually administrate.”

No, those remarks aren’t from one of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s many critics on the Left.

They’re the words of former House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who held several congressional hearings in 2016 to investigate egregious cases of misconduct and mismanagement under the leadership of Gina McCarthy, President Obama’s last EPA chief.

Since official Washington is consumed with Pruitt’s every move, perhaps it’s time to take a little trip down pre-Trump Memory Lane—when all was right in the world, according to incurious elite media—and jolt the faulty memories of these hyperventilating talking heads and editorial boards who insist Pruitt should be fired for spending 50 bucks a night to rent a D.C. condo.

Gina McCarthy should share a place of ignominy in the Obama Hall of Shame, right alongside IRS commissioner John Koskinen, FBI Director James Comey, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She is impossibly corrupt – and here are the examples.

The FBI, bluntly, is a mess. The level of incompetence mixed with bias is stunning. If the FBI were a private corporation, it would either be in Chapter 11 or fighting off stockholder rebellion or both.

Unfortunately, however, it's our most important law enforcement agency,

Its litany of incompetence is extraordinary -- completely missing the Boston Marathon and Pulse night club terror murderers when they were staring them in the face, grotesquely overlooking the Parkland schools mass killer when his violent psychosis should have been apparent to anyone with a 3-digit IQ,  are but three recent catastrophes on their watch.

As for the bias part, well, that is what is being uncovered.  The extent of it, it is easy to predict, will be great.  It already is.

We have already seen how dishonest the organization is, how desperately they are hiding facts from the public. Documents have to be pried out with a crowbar. The stonewalling is endless, the numbers of self-serving redactions myriad and seemingly rote.  It is anti-democratic in the extreme.

Dummy David Hogg’s real voice

Follow the money.

It’s a strange political fact, but nearly every major anti-gun group has been a front group.  By contrast, the NRA is maligned 24/7 and yet it’s completely obvious whom it represents.

Despite the efforts to tie the NRA to everyone from firearms manufacturers to the Russians (if you can’t tie any random Republican thing to the Russians these days, you won’t be working at the Washington Post or CNN for very long), it represents its five million members.

Anti-gun groups tend to represent shadowy networks. The one consistent thing about anti-gun groups is that that they are usually the opposite of what their name says they are.

March for Our Lives is on every cable channel, but who runs it? The photogenic teen fronts are out front. But it’s obvious to everyone that a bunch of teen-agers in high school don’t have the resources and skills to coordinate a nationwide movement. Instead it’s the experienced activists who are actually running things.

Ever since Donald Trump rode down his escalator and announced he was running for president, a good swath of America, not to mention the overwhelming majority of its media, has been having the collective equivalent of a nervous breakdown.

It got worse when he actually became president and it hasn't stopped since.  The ramifications have been, to put it mildly, depressing  -- families divided, longtime friendships shattered, the society even more sundered than it was during Vietnam.

This has largely been the Left's doing, to be honest -- they tend to react more emotionally -- but some on the Right (“Never Trumpers”) are responsible too.

Enter Roseanne Barr.

The woman whose sitcom with John Goodman broke ground thirty years ago as a symbol of working class progressivism returned, after a three-decade hiatus, Tuesday night, but this time -- oh, apostasy! -- as a Trump supporter in Roseanne.

Late night Friday's (3/16) firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, based on a report from the Office of Professional Responsibility, is only the beginning of what is likely to be the most explosive series of revelations in American history.

Forget Watergate. It will be the distant past once the inspector general's reports—there apparently will be more than one—start to come out. This will be the "Gate of Gates."

From the FBI and across the intelligence agencies an astonishing number of people are going to find themselves accused, one can safely predict at this point, of some atrocious behavior in a free republic. And it will not just be the small change of Peter Strzok (the dimwitted director of counter-intelligence) and his gal pal Lisa Page.

It will include—on one level or another—James Comey, Loretta Lynch, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice and, almost inevitably, Barack Obama, not to mention others known and unknown.

All these people's reputations will be damaged forever for the pathetic purpose of getting Hillary Clinton elected president and later for their determination to manipulate the FBI and intelligence agencies to wound as severely as possible Trump's presidency.

Sometimes the hysteria of crowds causes them to overlook the obvious. Here is a series of 12 questions that do not seem to trouble Robert Mueller, but the answers to these should expose why so many of the people today alleging scandals should themselves be considered scandalous.

1) Had Hillary Clinton won the election, would we now even know of a Fusion GPS dossier? Would assorted miscreants such as Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, or Peter Strzok now be under a cloud of suspicion?

Or would they instead have been quietly lionized by a President Clinton grateful for noble services in the shadows rendered during the campaign?

2) If Clinton had won, would we now know of any Russian-supplied smears against Donald Trump?

Would a FISA judge now be complaining that he was misled in a warrant request? Would likely Attorney General Loretta Lynch be reassigning Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr for his consultations with Fusion GPS operatives?

Two ominous tweets, one written by former CIA Director John Brennan, the other by former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power, openly threaten a sitting president — President Trump. This must be investigated.

Both of these tweets raise enormous questions, not only about what is meant by these threats, but what kind of inside information these former Obama officials might be receiving from unauthorized sources.

Late Friday night (3/16), after the long overdue firing of Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former acting FBI director, the president tweeted to the American people that McCabe’s termination (and possible loss of pension) marks a “great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI – A great day for Democracy.”

Brennan responded with a tweet of foaming rage that was unquestionably a threat, which Power then supported.  The very idea that a Brennan and Power, two former Cabinet-level officials in the Obama administration, are publicly hurling not-so-veiled threats at a sitting American president, is not only beyond the pale, but must be taken seriously by Federal authorities.

Obama and Farrakhan 2005

All during his 2008 election campaign and throughout his presidency, Barack Obama diligently obfuscated his associations with Antisemites.  Consider his relationship with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Farrakhan is the most prominent and politically powerful Antisemite in America.  He has a four-decade record of viciously Antisemitic statements along the lines of the posts at the Palestine Live Facebook group.

Farrakhan has called Hitler “a very great man.” He has referred to Judaism as “a gutter religion,” and to Jews as “satanic.”

Obama’s relationship with Farrakhan returned to the news in January when photo-journalist Askia Muhammad published a photograph he took of the two men together at a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) meeting when Obama was a serving U.S. Senator.  He had hidden it all these years.

Rather than disavowing Farrakhan, after Askia’s photograph was published, leading Black Democrats in Congress have embraced him.  You can’t wallow in the sewer of Hitlerian hate for Jews more than that.

James “The Leaker” Clapper

According to government sources, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper leaked classified information to CNN early last year, prior to Donald Trump’s Inauguration.

He disclosed to CNN the classified briefings given to then President-Elect Donald Trump and President Barrack Obama on the salacious dossier claiming the Russians had compromising information on the president-elect. He was one of four senior Obama administration officials present. The evidence of Mr. Clapper’s leak was collected during the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation.

Yet immediately after CNN ran with the story based on his leaks, Clapper issued an official statement denouncing the leak (January 11, 2017).  He stated his “profound dismay at the leaks,” warned that the leaks were “extremely corrosive and damaging” to national security, and denied any US intelligence agency involvement.

Evidently it was thanks to Clapper’s leaks to CNN that “gave the dossier story legs and news agencies began to publish its contents because it had now become official news,” one congressional source told this reporter.  Thus the Trump-Russia Collusion story was born.

Dear Hillary,

Hey, girl. Good to see you up and about these days. I hear India is lovely this time of year. Watch those steps!

So, listen—we need to talk. I think it’s time you heard directly from some white, married women about why we didn’t vote for you.

Your life plan didn’t end the way you wanted it to, and you’re bitter about it. Apparently, you are really ticked off at your sistren; white, married moms like me who voted for Donald Trump instead of you.

During an event in India the other day you ripped us again. The reason we didn’t vote for you, you said: “Part of this is.. a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

I asked several friends, all married ladies, to respond to your comments. This is by no means a scientific poll, but maybe it will give you some insight as to why you lost our vote. And it might sting:

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller continues to ever more desperately search for new evidence of Russian interference in the US elections, every unscripted tête-à-tête between Americans and Russians indeed turns into a “toxic” compromising liaison (Lenta.ru, March 8).

The real issue about Russia, however, is that it has recently produced an astounding amount of problems that are literarily toxic.

At the top of the list is the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, the United Kingdom, on March 4.

The only reason for this crime, involving the use of the Russian nerve toxin Novichok as a murder weapon, could be Skripal’s past as a double agent. The retired GRU (military intelligence) colonel was convicted, in 2006, for espionage on behalf of the UK secret services and exchanged, in 2010, for the “sleeper agents” exposed in the United States (New Times, March 7).

Moscow engaged in the usual vehement denials, despite the statement of British Prime Minister Theresa May that “either the Russian state was directly responsible for the poisoning or it had allowed the poison, which belonged to the Novichok group of nerve agents, to get into the hands of others” (Meduza.io, March 8; The Moscow Times, March 12).

The headline in British newspapers today (3/14) regarding PM May is:  “We’ve Vlad Enough!”  Putin’s reaction to British anger?  “Don’t threaten a nuclear power!” he sneered.

Picture this: thanks to a combination of diplomatic ingenuity, unique personalities and a historic willingness to see tensions in Northeast Asia disappear, President Donald J. Trump convinces North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to do the unthinkable and give up his nuclear weapons.

While we are a long way from even a meeting between the two taking place, let alone the ending of Kim’s nuclear weapons program, we can stargaze a little.

If the Trump administration can somehow land the ultimate of deals, the geopolitical map would instantly be reset. America’s security, and that of its allies in Asia, would be enhanced dramatically, ridding our planet of one of its greatest security risks.

Not only would President Trump deserve the Nobel Prize, but his place in history would be secure—forever.  And few things would keep China’s Xi Jinping up at night more. Here’s why.

Yesterday (3/06), TTP’s Jack Kelly wrote “Why Trump Is Right on Trade.”  It really hit a nerve, eliciting a number of excellent insightful comments, both pro and anti, on the TTP Forum.  Here is why I think Kelly is right.  It’s based on my personal business experience.

I have direct-reduced iron producing clients in 13 nations. These are the first tier beneficiation plants that convert iron ore into iron pellets for further use in steel making. Iron oxide in the ore is reduced to iron metal using coal or metallurgical coke as a reductant in very large rotary kilns. The process consumes a lot of thermal energy and can have a heavy environmental footprint.

I personally know my way around most of these facilities, know their production costs, their production efficiency, plant and equipment life remaining, and the names of the husbands and wives of the executives. I know the union bosses if they have them. I know this industry.

Free trade theory is discussed daily on American heavy industry shop floors. The blue collar guys understand the theory, they understand Milton Friedman and have studied Free to Choose at length. Many subscribe to the Cato Institute letter, FEE, or even that Mises Institute at Auburn. They understand the concepts as though their lives depend on it…because they do.

Not long ago I waited for a flight to board. The plane took off 45 minutes late. One reason: there were only two attendants to accommodate 11 passengers who had requested wheelchair assistance.

Such growing efforts to ensure that the physically challenged can easily fly are certainly welcome. But when our plane landed—late and in danger of causing many passengers to miss their connecting flights—most of the 11 wheelchair-bound passengers left their seats unassisted and hurried out.

It was almost as if newfound concerns about making connections had somehow improved their health during the flight.

Special blue parking placards were initially a long-overdue effort to help the disabled. But these days, the definition of “disabled” has so expanded that a large percentage of the population can qualify for special parking privileges—or cheat in order to qualify.

In California, 26,000 disabled parking placards are currently issued to people over 100 years of age, even though state records list only about 8,000 living centenarians.

As in just about every cause progressives advocate, this is not progress.

Much has been written in the past few days about the balderdash that was the Oscar Awards program that aired Sunday night (3/04).  Those who lost those four hours of their lives to what amounted to an interminable, self-aggrandizing celebration by celebrities surely regret the waste of that time.

At least they now know what OSCAR stands for: Overrated Self-congratulating Celebrities Acting Ridiculously Self-righteous.

Has there ever been a more self-obsessed group of narcissists outside Washington, DC?  If one were deposited on Earth like the Brother From Another Planet, one would think the creatures in the Kodak theater Sunday night were the kings and queens of the universe.

One can only conclude that they, so blinded by the light of their own reflected glory in film, actually believe they are the kings and queens of the universe.  Why else shoot hot dogs at the peons in the cheap seats watching the show on a big screen?

Italy has progressed from pre-insurrectional anger to outright revolt. Insouciant markets are betting that this can somehow be contained. It smacks of delusion.

Risk spreads on Italian 10-year bonds are exactly where they were a week ago before the "anti-system" parties of Left and Right swept away the post-War establishment. The euro has shrugged off the vote entirely, rising 2% against the dollar since the earthquake.

Investors are acting as if they think Italy’s "poteri forti" and its eternal mandarin class will organize another technocrat government regardless of what has happened, or that the Five Star Movement’s Luigi Di Maio will cobble together a co-opted centre-Left coalition that scarcely differs from the last one.

Now damage control has begun. Praise is suddenly effusive for the elegant choir-boy leader Di Maio sitting on 33% of the vote. “Five Star does not frighten us, we have lived through worse,” the business lobby Confindustria says.

This is to play down the genesis of the Five Star phenomenon and the party’s avowed intent to push an eclectic anti-capitalist agenda inspired by the neo-Marxist writings of Thomas Piketty.  The markets are singing in the dark.