Boycott The GOP And Ignore Foreign Naysayers

11 12 2015

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan were great and heroic American leaders, who would be disgusted and saddened with their Republican Party today.  It has deteriorated into a clique of whining, puny “establishment” ciphers like Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell, George Will, Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan[2]—who have never done anything great or heroic in their collective lifetimes, and are the worst of American politics.

They traffic in fear and implicit hatred of everything that Donald Trump stands for; they have been brutally divisive; and they are doing everything in their power to demonize and block the presidential candidacy of Trump[3], who is leading in the polls[4].  They are the reason why lots of Americans left the GOP years ago, and will never return except to vote for Trump, and only Trump.

If they were to succeed in preventing him from getting the party’s nomination, many Americans would vote for him as an Independent, or literally hold their noses and vote for Hillary Clinton[5], or not vote at all in the general election.  This would effectively “gut” the GOP, like Ross Perot did in 1992.  The American people are angry; and this includes very conservative GOP women, Independents, and Reagan Democrats.

One needs to work on or with Capitol Hill to realize fully how bad both national political parties are.  If one truly cares about our great nation and its future, the rejection of both parties is an easy and necessary decision.  This is why lots of Americans have become Independents[6], and will never become members of either national party again.  These Americans do not care what happens to the GOP.  If it goes down the drain, so be it.  The same is true of the Democratic Party.  Sometime in the not-too-distant future, an Independent will be elected as America’s president.[7]

However, the criticism of Trump is not limited to the Republican party, or the Democrats, but extends abroad as well, in countries such as the UK.[8]  Most Americans do not care what the Brits think about anything, much less our electoral politics.  The country is descending into irrelevancy; and that process will be accelerated when Scotland leaves and the Trident program is canceled[9].  The sheer stupidity of some Brits is mind-boggling though—until it is remembered that the UK might be speaking German now if the U.S. had not been its “salvation” in World War II.

They ridiculed Reagan too.  Lest they forget relatively-recent history, Reagan and George H.W. Bush set their sights on destroying the USSR, and it is gone now, without a shot being fired. The Brits and others in Europe would still be cowering at the feet of the Soviets but for the United States.  How many young kids today have ever heard of the Soviet Union or the USSR, or the Cold War?  Yet, in elementary schools in Los Angeles, as an example, students were taught to hide under their desks and cover their heads, and shield themselves from “falling debris”—stemming from a Soviet nuclear attack.

At some point, Trump and his lovely wife, Melania, may ask: “Do we really need this?”  The answer is clearly “no,” and he might drop out of the race—although hopefully not.  If he does, many Americans will never vote for a GOP candidate again, as retribution.  Perhaps Trump gains satisfaction from “fighting the system,” and trying to make America better, just as Ronald Reagan did before him.  Clearly, the “establishments” of both parties scream and “claw” at those who dare to challenge their power and orthodoxy.  It is like belonging to a private club that discriminates.

Trump is admired by vast numbers of Americans, from all walks of life, just as Reagan was.  Who would have thought that Reagan and Bush could have brought down the USSR’s thoroughly “Evil Empire.”  Russia and its KGB-trained brutal killer and dictator-for-life, Vladimir Putin, must be next.[10]  Reagan truly changed the world, which is why he is deified and “Teflon-coated” today—much to the disgust of the Democrats who hated him, just as they hated Richard Nixon and now Donald Trump.  The Neanderthals in the GOP are too stupid to recognize the parallels.

Like Reagan before him, Trump represents America’s glorious future, not its past.[11]

© 2015, Timothy D. Naegele

Donald Trump


[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see and He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,, and can be contacted directly at; see also Google search: Timothy D. Naegele

[2]  Noonan is a perfect example.  Like Rove, Will and Kristol, she is full of herself and a raving Narcissist.  Her words have not been worth reading in years.  She considers herself one of the GOP “elites,” when in reality she and the others are nothing more than whining, puny “establishment” ciphers.  Her latest Trump “hit piece” in the Wall Street Journal is an example.

See (“A Rash Leader in a Grave Time”—”Trump could bridge the divide between the elites and GOP voters. Instead, he’s deepening it”)

To his credit, Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—issued a warning to the Republican Party:

Throw your weight behind GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump now—or prepare to lose next year’s election to Hillary Clinton.

See (“Pat Buchanan to GOP: Support Trump Now or Lose to Hillary”)

[3]  See (“The Demonization Of Donald Trump”); see also (“GOP preparing for contested convention”)

The Wall Street Journal has become part of the problem.

See, e.g. (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens”)

Islamophobia is un-American, but a failure of any president to defend and protect the United States and the American people is unforgivable.

See (“Islamophobia Is Un-American”)

[4]  See, e.g. (Rasmussen public opinion polling: “Voters Like Trump’s Proposed Muslim Ban”)

[5]  See (“Clinton Fatigue”)

[6]  See, e.g. (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents”)

[7]  Will it be Trump in 2016, if the GOP Neanderthals block his nomination by that party, and he runs as an Independent?

[8]  See, e.g. and (“Playing with fear”—”Populist [or conservative] ideas need defeating. . . . Even when they are not in power, populists warp the agenda. . . . This newspaper stands for pretty much everything the populists despise”)

[9]  See (“UK Trident programme”)

[10]  See (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”)

[11]  By way of full disclosure, the author believed that former Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had a very bright political future, which turned out to be wrong.  Indeed, he believed that “two women might face off for the American presidency in 2012,” Hillary Clinton and Palin—which did not happen.

See (“Sarah And Todd Palin: The Big Winners?”); see also (“Rethinking Sarah Palin”)



232 responses

11 12 2015

Mr. Naegele,

One of the very best articles I have read in a long time.

Both major political parties have morphed into an oligarchy that cow-tow to the special interests of the Wall Street/Bankers/Corporate Establishment. Both parties differ only in political rhetoric that is designed to keep the electorate duped and divided. Once elected, the establishment (controls both parties) ensures that their interests are protected via their puppet politicians.

The average American citizen is increasingly informed (due primarily to the internet) and outraged. In my lifetime, I have never encountered so much pent-up frustration being expressed by people regarding our “establishment” politicians … hence Donald Trump.

I agree with you, if the corrupt establishment of the GOP is successful in thwarting Trump’s nomination, that will be the death knell for this party. Personally, I would rather stay home if given the choice between establishment types such as Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio. I have voted far too many times while holding my nose (literally), I will not do it again. I sense that millions of American voters are in agreement with us.

Thanks again for a great article. Keep the good work!

Liked by 1 person

11 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Ray, for your very kind words.

I appreciate them greatly, and agree with everything that you have said.

By the way, the highly-respected Rasmussen public opinion polling announced today:

Belief among Republicans that Donald Trump is their next likely presidential candidate continues to rise despite his condemnation by nearly all the other GOP candidates for proposing a temporary ban on immigrants from Muslim countries.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Likely Republican Voters now believe Trump is likely to be their party’s nominee, with 31% who say it’s Very Likely. This overall figure is up from 68% last week but still falls short of the survey’s all-time high of 74% in late October. Interestingly, however, the number who say a Trump nomination is Very Likely has moved very little.

Only 27% of GOP voters think Trump is unlikely to win the nomination, with 10% who say it’s Not At All Likely.

Among voters who support Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants, 73% think he is likely to be the nominee, with 39% who say it’s Very Likely.

Overall belief among Republican voters that the billionaire developer is likely to win the nomination had generally run in the mid-50s for most weeks since Rasmussen Reports began the weekly survey in mid-August until the terrorist attacks in Paris in November. Since then his numbers have been climbing steadily through the 60s.

Among all voters, 55% say Trump is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee, with 25% who say it is Very Likely. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree, including 16% who say it’s Not At All Likely. This is unchanged from the week before but is notable given the heavy criticism Trump has received for the proposed ban.

Despite that criticism, 66% of Republicans agree with Trump and favor a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Even among all voters, the ban is favored 46% to 40% as national security becomes the biggest issue on the campaign trail.

See (Rasmussen public opinion polling: “Trump Change”) (emphasis added)

Second, it has been reported:

Ben Carson is threatening to leave the Republican Party and launch an independent White House bid if reports that party leaders preparing for a brokered convention next year in Cleveland are true, saying that the party will be destroyed if its leaders “subvert the will of the voters.”

To his credit, Dr. Carson stated:

If this was the beginning of a plan to subvert the will of the voters and replace it with the will of the political elite, I assure you Donald Trump will not be the only one leaving the party.

See (“Carson Slams RNC, ‘Brokered’ Convention Reports”)


Third, it has been reported:

A group of former GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s wealthy donors and loyalists are planning to push for his nomination from the convention floor next year in Cleveland . . . .

See (“Mitt Romney Loyalists May Launch WH Bid at Convention Floor”)

I voted for Romney last time. However, he has had his chance and that is it. I would not vote for him again.

More importantly, the so-called GOP “establishment” are like a “circular firing squad”—destroying the party completely.

Since I do not care whether the GOP survives or not—and feel the same way about the Dems—it is a bit “fun” to watch, if our great nation’s future was not at stake.

Imagine Trump and Carson running together as a team of Independents—and being elected.

Fourth, building on the disgraceful Peggy Noonan’s tripe, the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial staff has the gall to release an editorial that tries to assert Trump has Mafia ties.

See (“Trump and the Goodfellas”)

More anti-Trump “trash” from the Journal.

If it is not the insufferable Peggy Noonan, then it is someone else. One attack after another, all in hopes of scuttling the Trump candidacy.

What a hatchet job, but it is expected from the Journal these days, which has lost all credibility with respect to this issue and the deal with Iran.

Needless to say, the Journal has “fawned” over the murderous Netanyahu to the extent that it can, even though he and his ilk killed an estimated 2,200 Palestinians in Gaza last year alone.

See (“Netanyahu Sets Off Firestorm Of Criticism”)

In the Journal “hit piece” about Trump, the editorial notes:

“[W]e have no new revelations.”

The Journal‘s work on this subject should have ended there, but it didn’t. This too speaks volumes.

What about the Kennedy family’s involvement with the mafia? Joe Kennedy was a successful bootlegger, but were their ties ever investigated by the Journal?

See (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History”) (see also all of the comments beneath the article)

And what about the mafia’s involvement in Hollywood? And the list goes on and on.

Yet, the Journal is trying to “cherry pick” Trump, and defame by innuendos.


11 12 2015

Tim, I apologize but this is one of the most ridiculous opinions you have written to date. In fact, this is twice in a row and the rhetoric doesn’t match previous blogs you’ve written. IN fact, your complaints about Putin can be directly related to Trump and his behavior.

You cite a lack of “great” and “heroic deeds” in regards to Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell, George Will, Bill Kristol and even Peggy Noonan. Yet you do not list Trump’s “great” and “heroic deeds” that somehow places him above these people. Was it his bankruptcies? Was it his lust for his own daughter? Or is it his desire to blow stuff up the first chance he gets?

You are 110% incorrect in your assertion that Trump does not stand for Republican values. He in fact embodies the current-day Republican ideologies to a heightened, beyond the comical stereo-types we are used to seeing in political cartoons. He exemplifies fear, hatred, and racism. In other words he is exactly like all his Republican counter parts except he has no tact. He can’t disguise his racism, his hatred, and his fear mongering the way career politicians do. People love him because they no longer have to guess whether Trump hates Mexicans, Muslims and Black people. He’s come right out and said it without any care for the repercussions his words will have. Career politicians have seen what unabashed, ideological speech has done.

It doesn’t matter whether Trump gets the nomination or not. He has failed before he has even begun, regardless of his current polls and popularity among white, racist, gun-toting, males. He has alienated two-thirds of the United States population: The Latinos, Blacks, and Muslims. Even the Governor of Florida doesn’t want him there and Florida is a MAJOR battle ground state for electoral votes. Hell, if I didn’t know any better I would have said Trump was a Democrat plant, sent to destroy the Republican’s Presidential bid for 2016. It makes perfect sense. Before you dismiss this “conspiracy theory” as tin foil hat rhetoric, remember that the last time a Clinton was in the Presidential race….there was a Billionaire who brought down the Republican’s presidential bid.

The Republicans should have followed the 2013 Memorandum given by Reince Priebus. Inclusion of ethnic and minority groups commonly shunned by the Republicans was what would have been needed. Republicans racist hatred towards a darker skinned President has lead them wildly out of control in every facet of Government in the United States. The rest of the world is laughing at us more than usual because we cannot even run our Government properly.

I don’t know what you think a President Trump would accomplish. I would try to contemplate it, but since I know it will never happen in my lifetime (which extends to Trump’s lifetime as well) I won’t waste my time on it.

Good luck.

P.S. The only thing GOOD I can say about Trump, is his beautiful lack of theocratic, religious, bible-thumping statements. Separation of Church and State forever!


11 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments. They are a “mouthful,” needless to say.

First, you have said:

[Y]our complaints about Putin can be directly related to Trump and his behavior.

There is no linkage at all.

See (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”)

Second, you said:

You cite a lack of “great” and “heroic deeds” in regards to Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell, George Will, Bill Kristol and even Peggy Noonan. Yet you do not list Trump’s “great” and “heroic deeds” that somehow places him above these people.

Trump has done more already than they will ever accomplish in their lifetimes, individually or collectively. He may be a historic figure. They will be mere ciphers or less and forgotten.

Also, it is too early to tell whether he will be elected our next president, either as a Republican or an Independent. Frankly, I do not care which.

The possibility that Hillary may be indicted is still hanging over her head. If she is, it is “game over” for her and the Democrats—certainly if Trump is the GOP nominee, or if he runs as an Independent.

Third, your third paragraph speaks for itself. The same things could have been said about Ronald Reagan. He was maligned and belittled in every way that Trump is, yet he is deified today and untouchable.

Fourth, your fourth paragraph becomes irrelevant if Hillary is indicted, or her health problems truly surface, or the scandals swirling about her take wings. She makes Donald Trump seem like a choir boy or saint.

See (“Clinton Fatigue”)

Someone has commented recently:

You’re forgetting about the people who will support Secretary Clinton no matter what comes out that wouldn’t be an impeachable offense.

Yearning for a female president is very widespread.

I understand that; however, her indictment, serious health problems and/or other issues may trump such considerations.

Fifth, you stated:

The rest of the world is laughing at us more than usual because we cannot even run our Government properly.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks about anything? I certainly don’t, not at all.

Among other things, they are being suckered in by the so-called man-made “global warming” or “climate change” swindle, which is a total hoax and simply wealth redistribution to the tune of $34 trillion or more. Yet, they seem too dumb to know or do anything about it.

George Orwell was right on target when he foretold of this madness in his Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.

See (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming”)


12 12 2015
Michael Smith

Pappyvanwinkle, you said about Trump: “his desire to blow stuff up the first chance he gets?”

I remember that the same thing was said about Reagan by the NY Times, WaPo, most Dems and even some Republicans, and yet America succeeded through strength under Reagan.

Liked by 1 person

12 12 2015

You’re an idiot.. Timothy is too nice..

Liked by 1 person

11 12 2015

So, you’re cool with the temporary Muslim ban?


11 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Richard, as always.

I have mixed views about the subject. However, my bottom line is:

Islamophobia is un-American, but a failure of any president to defend and protect the United States and the American people is unforgivable.

See (“Islamophobia Is Un-American”)


12 12 2015

You are correct in your opinion, and I feel I am correct in mine, which is “Trump smells a rat…perhaps a lot of rats that work for Obama.”

Liked by 1 person

12 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Smilin Jack. It is nice to hear from you, as always. 🙂


13 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

The GOP Establishment Is Unhinged [UPDATED]

R.I.P. G.O.P.

This is the “paraphrased” title of an article by Pat Buchanan, which is worth reading:

Calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” Donald Trump this week ignited a firestorm of historic proportions.

As all the old hate words — xenophobe, racist, bigot — have lost their electric charge from overuse, and Trump was being called a fascist demagogue and compared to Hitler and Mussolini.

The establishment seemed to have become unhinged.

Why the hysteria? Comes the reply: Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration tramples all over “American values” and everything we stand for, including the Constitution.

But is this really true?

The Constitution protects freedom of religion for U.S. citizens. But citizens of foreign lands have no constitutional right to migrate. And federal law gives a president broad powers in deciding who comes and who does not, especially in wartime.

In 1924, Congress restricted immigration from Asia, reduced the numbers coming from southern and Central Europe, and produced a 40-year moratorium on most immigration into the United States.

Its authors and President Coolidge wanted ours to remain a nation whose primary religious and ethnic ties were to Europe, not Africa or Asia.

Under FDR, Truman and JFK, this was the law of the land.

Did this represent 40 years of fascism?

Why might Trump want a moratorium on Muslim immigration?

Reason one: terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, as were the shoe and underwear bombers on those planes, the Fort Hood shooter, the Times Square bomber and the San Bernardino killers.

And as San Bernardino showed again, Islamist terrorists are exploiting our liberal immigration policies to come here and kill us.

Thus, a pause, a timeout on immigration from Muslim countries, until we fix the problem, would seem to be simple common sense.

Second, Muslims are clearly more susceptible to the siren call of terrorism, and more likely to be radicalized on the Internet and in mosques than are Christians at church or Jews at synagogue.

Which is why we monitor mosques more closely than cathedrals.

Third, according to Harvard’s late Samuel Huntington, a “clash of civilizations” is coming between the West and the Islamic world. Other scholars somberly concur. But if such a conflict is in the cards, how many more millions of devout Muslims do we want inside the gates?

Set aside al-Qaida, ISIS and their sympathizers. Among the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide are untold millions of followers of the Prophet who pray for the coming of a day when sharia is universal and the infidels, i.e., everyone else, are either converted or subjugated.

In nations where Muslims are already huge majorities, where are the Jews? Where have all the Christians gone?

With ethnic and sectarian wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria and Somalia, why would we bring into our own country people from all sides of these murderous conflicts?

Many European nations — Germans, French, Swedes, Brits — appear to regret having thrown open their doors to immigrants and refugees from the Islamic world, who have now formed unassimilated clusters and enclaves inside their countries.

Ought we not explore why, before we continue down this road?

In some countries of the Muslim world, Americans who embrace “Hollywood values” regarding abortion, adultery and homosexuality, can get their heads chopped off as quickly as converts to Christianity.

In what Muslim countries does Earl Warren’s interpretation of the First Amendment — about any and all religious presence being banned in public schools and all religions being treated equally — apply?

When is the next “Crusade for Christ” coming to Saudi Arabia?

Japan has no immigration from the Muslim world, nor does Israel, which declares itself a Jewish state. Are they also fascistic?

President Obama and the guilt-besotted West often bawl their apologies for the horrors of the Crusades that liberated Jerusalem.

Anyone heard Muslim rulers lately apologizing for Saladin, who butchered Christians to take Jerusalem back, or for Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered the Christian Balkans rampaging through Hungary all the way to the gates of Vienna?

Trump’s surge this week, in the teeth of universal denunciation, suggests that a large slice of America agrees with his indictment — that our political-media establishment is dumb as a box of rocks and leading us down a path to national suicide.

Trump’s success tells us that the American people really do not celebrate “globalization.” They think our negotiators got snookered out of the most magnificent industrial machine ever built, which once guaranteed our workers the highest standard of living on earth.

[Americans] don’t want open borders or mass immigration. They want people here illegally to be sent back, the borders secured, and a moratorium imposed on Muslim immigration until we fix the broken system.

As for the establishment, they are saying pretty much what The Donald is saying. To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell’s speech to the Rump Parliament:

You have sat here too long for any good you have done here. In the name of God, go!

See (“AN ESTABLISHMENT UNHINGED”) and (emphasis added); see also (Samuel P. Huntington: “The Clash of Civilizations”)

As noted in my article above:

To his credit, Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—issued a warning to the Republican Party:

Throw your weight behind GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump now—or prepare to lose next year’s election to Hillary Clinton.

See (Footnote 2)

Also, to his credit, media mogul Rupert Murdoch has cautioned GOP leaders against any plan to interfere with Donald Trump becoming the GOP presidential nominee:

“GOP mad to think of expelling Trump, or ganging up,” Murdoch said Friday on Twitter. Doing so would “justify” an independent run by Trump, damaging the party’s chance to defeat likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, added Murdoch, whose sprawling corporate empire includes Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

See (“Murdoch: GOP ‘mad’ to try dumping Trump”)

In another hatchet piece from the Journal with respect to Donald Trump, the author refers to Trump as a demagogue, and goes on to say that he is exploiting “[e]conomic anxiety, demographic resentment and fears for physical security” for his own purposes.

See (“The Bleak Reality Driving Trump’s Rise”)

The Murdochs need to clean house at the Journal; and they can begin by firing the author of this article. Peggy Noonan should be fired too, along with those at the Journal who defamed Trump in an editorial entitled, “Trump and the Goodfellas.”

The U.S. continues to “bestride the world like a colossus.” We have the strongest military in the world by far; and we are the largest energy producer globally once again, and essentially energy independent.

As I have said repeatedly, and will say again:

Islamophobia is un-American, but a failure of any president to defend and protect the United States and the American people is unforgivable.

See (“Islamophobia Is Un-American”)


16 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

It’s Time For The Other 13 GOP Candidates to Drop Out [UPDATED]

Tweedledum and Tweedledee

This is the title of an article by the always-outspoken American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist and lawyer, Ann Coulter.

Without saying so directly, she is talking about the “Tweedledums” and “Tweedledees” of the Republican party, which includes all of its presidential candidates except the frontrunner, Donald Trump—and inferentially all of its so-called “elite,” “establishment” and “leadership” members.

See (“Tweedledum and Tweedledee”)

Coulter writes:

At what point in Donald Trump’s inaugural address do you figure the GOP establishment will finally grasp what’s been happening?

The establishment — not “elites,” because they’re mostly bland functionaries who went to third-rate schools — have thrown absolutely everything they have at Trump. I’ve never seen so many Republicans featured on MSNBC.

At least no one will be able to say the Republican National Committee didn’t give it the old college try (and, again, that would be third-rate colleges).

Trump is a runaway hit with Americans for the simple reason that he’s the only candidate saying anything Americans care about.

After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, committed by Muslim immigrants — which followed the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist attack committed by Muslim immigrants; the 9/11 terrorist attacks committed by Muslim immigrants; the Fort Hood terrorist attack committed by a Muslim immigrant; the Boston Marathon terrorist attack committed by Muslim immigrants, and on and on — Trump suggested a temporary pause on Muslim immigration.

The other candidates responded by attacking him viciously. Now, the eunuchs are duking it out over who has the most aggressive approach to … fighting ISIS!

Asked why he called Trump’s proposal “unhinged,” Jeb! explained: “Well, first of all, we need to destroy ISIS in the caliphate.”

Marco Rubio said: “The problem is we had an attack in San Bernardino,” adding that “what’s important to do is we must deal frontally with this threat of radical Islamists, especially from ISIS.”

Ted Cruz said: “We need a president who understands the first obligation of the commander in chief is to keep America safe. If I am elected president . . . we will utterly destroy ISIS.”

Why are Republicans talking about starting a war in Syria to stop Muslim immigrants from killing Americans in America? Is it our job to straighten out Syria? Can’t our government just stop bringing the terrorists here? If Rubio thinks he knows how to govern Syria, he’s free to run for president there. (Except he’d have to stop talking about his dad the bartender because Muslims don’t drink.)

Republicans love pointing out that all the gun restrictions proposed by Democrats after every mass shooting would have done absolutely nothing to stop that particular mass shooting.

But the GOP’s demand that we take out ISIS would also have done nothing to prevent the San Bernardino attack. As we know from Jim Comey, the director of the FBI: Syed Farouk and Tashfeen Malik were planning a terrorist attack against Americans before ISIS existed.

It’s as if there’s a law of toughness conservation: The weaker a candidate is on protecting our borders, the more aggressively he talks about bombing foreign countries, a move known as “the Lindsey Graham.”

The GOP’s conservation of toughness has led them to such macho positions on Syria that even our feckless commander in chief is able to checkmate them.

Obama has said: “Let’s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens when there’s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya perhaps? Or if there’s a terrorist network that’s operating anywhere else in North Africa or in Southeast Asia?”

Good grief! This GOP machismo on ISIS has resulted in Obama actually making sense.

Here’s an idea: We let backward, poverty-stricken, misogynistic, clitorectomy-performing Third Worlders scratch out a living in their medieval hellholes, and just keep them out of our country. Also known as: the Trump Plan.

Except the fun parts when Trump was speaking, the candidates talked about almost nothing else at the debate but carpet-bombing the Middle East, taking out this leader or that group, sending American forces to train Sunni Arabs, touting the Kurds, announcing their specific strategies for defeating ISIS, giving perfect little answers about our nuclear throw-weights and the “nuclear triad” and correctly identifying the “good guys” and “bad guys” — all of whom live 7,000 miles away from us.

When do we get to talk about Americans?

Only Trump seems to care. Asked about dictators running the Middle East, Trump said:

“In my opinion, we’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could’ve spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we’ve had, we would’ve been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now . . .”

The nice thing about having your own helicopter is you can see the terrain below. The rest of them keep bumping into one another, as if they’re 9-year-olds trying to out-precocious one another on knowing unimportant military terminology and the pronunciation of foreign names.

As we learned from Spelling Bee champ Rubio, the “nuclear triad” refers to the fact that we have nukes on (1) the ground, (2) airplanes and (3) submarines.

Wow, isn’t that fascinating? Having learned it, I now have to excise it from my brain, as Sherlock Holmes would, as useless knowledge.

Did FDR know how to change the oil on a landing craft vehicle?

These debates have turned Republicans into self-parodies of wonkery over common sense. Without Trump in the debate, the entire audience would have been asleep in 30 minutes.

Rubio lectures Americans that “we need to understand who ISIS is.” Rubio needs to understand what a border is.

At this point, the most important question facing the Republican Party is: When Trump’s the only one with the poll numbers to make the main stage at the next debate, what should he do? Card tricks? Juggle? Sing “Danny Boy”?

See (emphasis added)

Coulter seems to be in good company. Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—and media mogul Rupert Murdoch—whose corporate empire includes Fox News and the Wall Street Journal—would appear to agree with her.

See (“The GOP Establishment Is Unhinged“)

Also, to his credit, Rush Limbaugh—conservative political commentator and talk show host—has stated:

The country was just sold down the river again by your very Republican Party.

I have a headline here from the Washington Times: “White House Declares Total Victory Over GOP in Budget Battle.” That headline’s a misnomer. There was never a battle. None of this was opposed. The Republican Party didn’t stand up to any of it, and the die has been cast for a long time on this. . . . [T]wo years ago when the Republican Party declared they would never do anything that would shut down the government and they would not impeach Obama, there were no obstacles in Obama’s way and there were no obstacles in the way of the Democrat Party.

Not a penny of money can be spent in this country by this government without the House of Representatives authorizing it. . . . They gave up the power of the purse. The reason they did that is because for some inexplicable reason, they are literally paranoid and scared to death of even being accused of doing something that would shut down the government.

. . . Every constitutional mechanism found in the power of the purse, Separation of Powers, the Republican Party years ago gave it away, in total fear of the media.

. . . It’s not all Republican caving. A lot of it is Republican fealty and loyalty to some of their donors. Some people today looking at this, and this is 2,009 pages. It’s said to be a spending bill. Among the things that it does, it fully funds Obamacare.

It fully funds Planned Parenthood. That, to me, is unforgivable, with everything now known about what goes on behind closed doors at Planned Parenthood, and that the federal government, led by a Republican Party, sees fit to pay for it. It is beyond comprehension, and it is a total squandering of moral authority to fully fund the butchery at Planned Parenthood. This spending bill . . . pays for Obama’s refugee plans, fully. This spending bill, this budget bill quadruples the number of visas Obama wants for foreign workers. This is even a slap at American union workers. . . .

This spending bill even fully pays for every dime asked for by Obama on all of this idiocy that’s tied up into climate change. Everything Obama wanted, everything he asked for, he got. You go down the list of things, it’s there.

And this is causing some people to wonder if they just dreamed all that stuff about Boehner resigning. And then other people are wondering if they even dreamed all that stuff about the Republicans winning the largest number of seats they’ve had in Congress since the Civil War. We had two midterm elections in 2010 and 2014, which were landslide victories for the Republican Party. The Democrat Party lost over a thousand seats nationwide in just those two elections. People went to the polls in droves wanting exactly what was rubber-stamped last night (or what will be) stopped.

. . . It is as though Nancy Pelosi is still running the House and Harry Reid is still running the Senate. “Betrayed” is not even the word here. What has happened here is worse than betrayal. Betrayal is pretty bad, but it’s worse than that.

This was out-and-out, in-our-face lying, from the campaigns to individual statements made about the philosophical approach Republicans had to all this spending. There is no Republican Party! You know, we don’t even need a Republican Party if they’re gonna do this. You know, just elect Democrats, disband the Republican Party, and let the Democrats run it, because that’s what’s happening anyway. And these same Republican leaders doing this can’t, for the life of them, figure out why Donald Trump has all the support that he has? They really can’t figure this out?

Repeated stabs in the back like this — which have been going on for years — combined with Obama’s policy destruction of this country, is what has given rise to Donald Trump. If Donald Trump didn’t exist and if the Republican Party actually does want to win someday, they’d have to invent him.

See (“GOP Sells America Down the River“) (emphasis added); see also (“Politico, The Hill, Hide Speaker Ryan’s 2016 Report Card From Pelosi: ‘They Gave Away The Store’”)

Next, Newsmax has reported about Franklin Graham, the American Christian evangelist and missionary, and the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, the spiritual adviser to several American presidents:

Franklin Graham has resigned from the Republican Party and become an independent, declaring that “I have no hope in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or tea party to do what is best for America.

“Unless more godly men and women get in this process and change this wicked system, our country is in for trouble,” Graham, 63, wrote on Facebook.

Graham called on “Christians, even pastors, across the country to pray about running for office where they can have an impact.

“We need mayors, country commissioners, city council members, school board members who will uphold biblical values.”

The budget deal was widely slammed by Republicans and conservatives last week, who charged congressional leaders — including new House Speaker Paul Ryan — with “betrayal” for putting through a spending plan that financed many of President Barack Obama’s programs.

Besides Planned Parenthood, other Obama efforts that were fully financed under the deal were Obamacare, sanctuary cities, climate change, refugee resettlement programs — and well as an increase in foreign worker visas.

“It is as though Nancy Pelosi is still running the House and Harry Reid is still running the Senate,” radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh charged on Friday. He was referring to the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate.

“‘Betrayed’ is not even the word here,” he said. “What has happened here is worse than betrayal.

“Betrayal is pretty bad, but it’s worse than that.”

In Graham’s Facebook post, he also announced the start of his “Decision America Tour” next month in which he will be holding prayer rallies in 50 state capitals.

The first is on Jan. 5 in Des Moines. Iowa holds its caucus on Feb. 1 in the first test of the 2016 presidential primary season. . . .

See (“Franklin Graham: ‘I Have Resigned From the Republican Party'”) (emphasis added)

Well said, Rush, Ann, Pat, Rupert and Franklin!

. . .

I spent years working on and with Capitol Hill. Two lessons that I learned are that the Dems are “evil,” while the Republicans are Neanderthals and stupid.

They are far worse than the public knows. I have seen GOP staffers on the Hill who would literally turn stomachs, they are so bad.

Perhaps it is a stretch, but they might have found a home with Hitler’s SS, and fit right in and never missed a beat.

Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would not be members of the GOP today. They would probably form a third party.

See (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents“) and (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It“)

Indeed, an Independent run by Trump—pulling together very conservative GOP women, Independents, and Reagan Democrats—might give rise to a new “centrist” party that our great nation needs desperately.

See also (“Donald Trump saved a family farm: Widow’s daughter shows up at campaign rally to recall how The Donald paid off her mom’s $300,000 mortgage after her father committed suicide“)


22 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

More Trash Talk About Donald Trump From Bret Stephens [UPDATED]

Bret Stephens

Not to be outdone by his earlier Islamophobic rants, the Wall Street Journal‘s resident Jew from Tel Aviv—Bret Stephens—is trashing Donald Trump and posing as an American conservative:

Dear fellow conservatives:

Let us now pledge to elect Hillary Clinton as the 45th president of the United States.

Let’s skip the petty dramas of primaries and caucuses, the debate histrionics, the sour spectacle of the convention in Cleveland. Let’s fast-forward past that sinking October feeling when we belatedly realize we’re going to lose—and lose badly.

Let’s move straight to that first Tuesday in November, when we grimly pull the lever for the candidate who has passed all the Conservative Purity Tests (CPTs), meaning we’ve upheld the honor of our politically hopeless cause. Let’s stop pretending we want to be governed by someone we agree with much of the time, when we can have the easy and total satisfaction of a president we can loathe and revile all the time.

Let’s do this because it’s what we want. Maybe secretly, maybe unconsciously, but desperately. We want four—and probably eight—more years of cable-news neuralgia. We want to drive ourselves to work as Mark Levin or Laura Ingraham scratch our ideological itches until they bleed a little. We want the refiner’s fire that is our righteous indignation at a country we claim no longer to recognize—ruled by impostors and overrun by foreigners.

We also want to turn the Republican Party into a gated community. So much nicer that way. If the lesson of Mitt Romney’s predictable loss in 2012 was that it’s bad politics to tell America’s fastest-growing ethnic group that some of their relatives should self-deport, or to castigate 47% of the country as a bunch of moochers—well, so what? Abraham Lincoln once said “If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.” What. Ever. Now the party of Lincoln has as its front-runner an insult machine whose political business is to tell Mexicans, Muslims, physically impaired journalists, astute Jewish negotiators and others who cross his sullen gaze that he has no use for them or their political correctness.

And while we’re building a wall around our party, let’s also take the opportunity to throw out a few impostors in our midst. Like that hack, George Will. Or John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush and every other Republican In Name Only. Or Marco Rubio, who didn’t chicken out on immigration reform quite as quickly or convincingly as Ted Cruz did. Or the Republican “Establishment” and “elite”—like the editorial board of this newspaper—who want to flood the country with cheap foreign labor so they can enrich their Wall Street pals.

All of them must be humbled, re-educated or thrown out, like old-time cadres with suspected bourgeois tendencies. How else will real Americans get a hearing and find their voice? What’s a lost election cycle or two when the soul of movement conservatism is at stake?

As for what the soul of that movement is supposed to be, we can figure that out later. Donald Trump is a candidate of impulses, not ideas. (If you can hire people to write your books you can also hire them to do your thinking.) This doesn’t seem to have perturbed his supporters in the slightest. Mr. Cruz is happy to be on any side of an issue so long as he can paint himself as a “real Republican”—the implicit goal here being the automatic excommunication of anyone who disagrees with him. Naturally, he’s rising.

What we won’t accept, however, is a standard-bearer whose convictions or personality might conceivably appeal to those wavering voters who usually decide elections in this country. Of all the reasons to dislike Mr. Rubio, surely the greatest is that he’s the only Republican who consistently outpolls Mrs. Clinton in general election matchups.

Didn’t we already mention that our subliminal goal is to lose this election?

Of course we’ll tell ourselves that the polls don’t matter, that a congenital liar like Mrs. Clinton can’t possibly win, that all we have to do is turn out the hidden Republican base that supposedly didn’t show up to the polls for Mitt Romney. We’ll convince ourselves, too, that those voting blocs we’ve spent the past decade alienating—not just Hispanics, or Asian-Americans or gays and lesbians, but also moderates turned off by loudmouth vulgarians, oleaginous debate champs or ostentatiously pious Christians—don’t matter either.

Deep down, though, we know the political math doesn’t add up for us. We just don’t care. Because we’ve turned even the appearance of moderation, or the amenability to compromise, into a four-letter word. Oh, did we mention House Speaker Paul Ryan is another sell-out?

Years ago, the late columnist Michael Kelly wrote of American liberalism that it was “an ideology of self-styled saints, a philosophy of determined perversity. Its animating impulse is to marginalize itself and then enjoy its own company. And to make itself as unattractive to as many people as possible: If it were a person, it would pierce its tongue.”

On current trend, this will soon better describe American conservatism, which is going the way of the Democratic Party circa 1972. So let’s skip the non-suspense of next year’s campaign cycle, gird ourselves for a McGovern-style debacle, and elect Hillary Rodham Clinton now.

Merry Christmas!

See (“Let’s Elect Hillary Now”) (emphasis added)

More psychobabble from Stephens.

For openers, Mitt Romney lost because the GOP Neanderthals stayed home and did not vote. They turned on him, like they are doing with Donald Trump today; and they will pay dearly for it.

See (“Boycott The GOP And Ignore Foreign Naysayers“)

Second, and very predictably, Stephens castigates Trump:

Now the party of Lincoln has as its front-runner an insult machine whose political business is to tell Mexicans, Muslims, physically impaired journalists, astute Jewish negotiators and others who cross his sullen gaze that he has no use for them or their political correctness.

How did “astute Jewish negotiators” find their way into this article? Oh yes, some readers may have forgotten that Stephens is an “Israel Firster” and an avowed Islamophobic.

See (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens“)

He adds:

Donald Trump is a candidate of impulses, not ideas. (If you can hire people to write your books you can also hire them to do your thinking.)

Next, he trashes Hillary Clinton too. Surely Stephens would feel more at home back in Israel.

Lastly, he does not need to wish any of us “Merry Christmas” when it is not his religion. It is a token gesture devoid of meaning.


23 12 2015

I agree with your comments 100%. I always appreciate reading your astute take on current events, especially being aware of your extensive background in Washington.

In my opinion, the East Coast Rockefeller Establishment is having a hissy fit over Trump, as are the Neo-Conservatives, who have recently put out feelers for creating a 3rd. party if Trump is nominated. If the psychopathic Neo-Cons get THEIR candidate elected (Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Kasich, Christie and yes … Carson) as POTUS, another major war will be waged in the Middle East, possibly even two (Syria & Iran), which could easily morph into World War III, being that Russia is allied with both Syria & Iran. Turkey has a long history as a warrior nation and as a member of NATO, it feels even more emboldened to confront its neighbor Russia. In the past, major wars have begun over lesser issues than the recent shoot down of the Russian plane by Turkey (along with its brutal execution of the Russian pilot). As far as his overall Middle Eastern policy is concerned, Trump stands in opposition to the Neo-Con/Israeli plan to “remake” the Middle East according to their agenda. So far, this “agenda” has produced nothing other than the deaths of millions of innocent people, bankrupted the federal government, and caused utter chaos in an already unstable Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, etc.).

When foreign nations (i.e. the USA) begin to force their geo-political agenda upon other sovereign nations, they are usually met with an escalated response, provided of course that the nation that is on the receiving end has sufficient military capability to respond. In this case, Russia has clandestinely modernized its military capability (to the “surprise” of many “experts”), and seems to believe it can successfully engage any potential enemy (i.e. the USA). Also, Russia remains the one nation on earth that has the unfortunate nuclear capability to destroy the mainland of the USA in a single afternoon.

Trump understands the late hour of our overall situation. He sees that our unemployment is far worse than the reported statistics and that the manufacturing base has been crushed. He sees that we have an oligarchy in the two parties that have turned a deaf ear to American citizens. He understands that massive trade imbalances are draining the wealth of the nation, and that future generations are being sold out by both parties in DC, etc. In response, the Wall Street/Mega Bankers/Corporate/Military Industrial Complex all fear Trump because, as an astute businessman and apparent patriot (AND a non-career politician to boot!), he recognizes the deep problems that we face on multiple fronts (AND as POTUS just might rally the American people enough to DEMAND real change). Trump stands in opposition to this evil, self-serving cabal on virtually every issue, and THAT is why the attacks on him are increasing exponentially. So far, the numerous attacks on Trump by the corporate controlled main stream media have failed. When all else fails, some type of “label” must be applied. I personally see the “anti-Semite” card being flipped over very soon (which will resonate with the millions of uneducated pro-Zionist “evangelicals”). Due to the fact that more and more people rely NOT on the main stream media, but rather the Internet for their news source, these attacks on Trump seem doomed to fail … precisely why blogs such as yours are so important!


23 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you as always, Ray, for your thoughtful comments and kind words. Merry Christmas to you and your family.

First, I spent time with David Rockefeller when I worked in the Senate and he would meet with the late Senator Edward W. Brooke. Only four of us would be together: the Senator, David Rockefeller and his aide, and me.

See (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead”)

He was very nice; and I viewed him as anything but a far-Right ideologue. This is not to say, however, that lots of people who have benefited from the Rockefeller family’s largesse would not fit that bill.

As you may know, David’s nephew Jay retired in January as the Senator for West Virginia. He is married to Sharon Percy, the daughter of former GOP Senator Chuck Percy of Illinois.

Also, I spent time around Win Rockefeller, who died all too soon. I remember being at a fishing tournament in the Bahamas, and he had the smallest boat there, and he was very unassuming.


Second, I do not believe the true Neanderthals aka GOP “establishment” will be able to prevent Donald Trump from getting the nomination. If they did, it would tear the GOP apart, and the party might never recover.

Are they willing to engage in political suicide? I do not think so; and I am pleased to see that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan and Rupert Murdoch are standing tall. In a very real sense, they are the “conscience” of what is best about the GOP.

See (“It’s Time For The Other 13 GOP Candidates to Drop Out”)

Third, I agree that the United States needs to stay out of the Middle East, which is imploding. In many ways, perhaps Donald Trump said it best when he talked about letting the parties in the region fight it out; and when the dust settles—or the nuclear clouds part—we can then see who is still standing, if anyone.

The Middle East is not our fight, just as the Iraq War and the Vietnam War were tragic mistakes.

The U.S. is the largest energy producer in the world again, and essentially energy independent. We do not need the Middle East anymore, including Israel.

Fourth, you stated:

Russia remains the one nation on earth that has the unfortunate nuclear capability to destroy the mainland of the USA in a single afternoon.

Both China and North Korea have that capability too, inter alia, with an EMP Attack. The greatest risk in that regard, however, would be for terrorists to obtain that capability.

See (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive”)

I do not believe Putin is suicidal. He wants to retain his life, power and perks. However, at some point we might wake up and learn that he is gone, having succumbed to a fate not dissimilar to that of Italy’s Mussolini. I do not believe Putin will live to a “ripe old age.” Most dictators don’t.

See (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”)

Fifth, I agree with your last paragraph; and again, I appreciate your kind words.

I do not believe Trump is an anti-Semite at all; and I do not believe attempts to label him as such will resonate.

Anyone who dares to defy the “rules” and not march in lockstep with certain Jewish groups is labeled as an anti-Semite—which of course is absurd.

See, e.g., (“Why I Write And Say What I Do”)

Also, so-called “Evangelicals” represent a small sect within Christianity. Most Christians reject them and their views categorically.


6 01 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Rises, Hillary Wallows [UPDATED]


Stephen R. Soukup has written the following for The Hill:

Conventional wisdom has it that Hillary Clinton will crush Donald Trump next November, if they both happen to be their respective parties’ nominees. We’re told that Trump is too brash, too crude, too inexperienced, and too offensive to present a real challenge to a seasoned pro like Clinton.

As has been the case repeatedly where Trump is concerned, however, that conventional wisdom may prove not simply wrong, but entirely backward.

Clinton has two major weaknesses as a candidate – presuming, of course, that voters can and will overlook her apparent dishonesty. First, she has to build her own winning coalition of voters, being unlikely to reproduce Barack Obama’s and entirely unable to resurrect that which put her husband in the White House nearly a quarter century ago. Second, and more importantly, she must overcome her own record of foreign policy failure, which is obviously tied to Barack Obama’s record and, less obviously, to George W. Bush’s record as well.

In both cases, Donald Trump presents significant problems for her.

The first of these advantages is that Trump appeals in a unique and powerful way to white, working-class voters, the demographic group that used to determine presidential elections, but which has, by and large, been abandoned by both parties and by the Democrats especially.

It is worth noting here that these voters still decided elections as recently as a decade or two ago. Indeed, they decided both of Bill Clinton’s two victories in the 1990s and George W. Bush’s two victories after that. But their power waned, and Barack Obama became the first president in history to be elected while losing this demographic. Obama assembled his own coalition that was far different from that assembled by any of his predecessors, even his Democratic predecessor. Indeed, the contrasts between the demographic characteristics of Bill’s winning coalition and that of Obama are stunning. Bill was the last Democrat to win anything in the South, where the white, working-class, Scots-Irish or “Jacksonian” Democrats still dominate. Obama, by contrast, won without any support at all from the Scots-Irish working class, but instead won by turning out minority voters in record numbers.

Now, it has always been doubtful that Hillary would be able to reassemble the Obama coalition. For a variety of reasons, she offers far less to minority voters than Obama did. Additionally, after eight years of Obama’s broken promises and failures, many of these voters have serious doubts about the ability of the political process to address their concerns, meaning that they may well stay home on Election Day. In order to win, therefore Hillary Clinton will have to find at least some votes that Obama couldn’t, which is to say among the white-working class – who are now dedicated Trump supporters.

The second of Hillary Clinton’s problems stems from her tenure in the Obama administration. Her service in the Obama State Department will forever be linked with the word “Benghazi.” Politically speaking, it doesn’t matter whether anything could have been done differently or if the Americans killed there could have been saved. All that matters is that Hillary didn’t get Ambassador Christopher Stevens the security upgrades he requested, that she went home and slept through the attack, that she allegedly lied to the families of the dead about the cause of the attacks (and then allegedly lied about lying to the families), and then blew up at her Congressional inquisitors when they asked for answers. Even more than Obama, Hillary owns Benghazi.

She also owns Libya more broadly and, by extension, the Obama debacle in Iraq, which gave rise, at least in the immediate sense to the Islamic State. They too happened during her tenure and thus taint her record.

By contrast, Donald Trump may be the only politician in the country free to speak openly about the foreign policy disasters associated with both of the last two presidents, both parties, and thus both of the primary fields. In the recent GOP debate in Las Vegas, Trump railed against the last fifteen years of foreign policy interventionism, asking “What do we have now? We have nothing. We’ve spent $3 trillion and probably much more – I have no idea what we’ve spent. Thousands and thousands of lives, we have nothing. Wounded warriors all over the place who I love, we have nothing for it.” He makes a point, one which Mrs. Clinton cannot easily rebut.

In short, Donald Trump may not be an ideal Republican and would certainly represent a serious gamble as president. But he may also be the perfect candidate to take on Hillary Clinton, the only one in either party who can hit her where it hurts.

See (“Trump v. Clinton: Hillary’s nightmare?”) (emphasis added)

Hillary is maniacal

This is a fine article.

Like Ronald Reagan before him—who was dismissed by his critics as a “B-movie actor,” and a charlatan—Donald Trump is giving vast numbers of Americans much-needed hope again. Hillary Clinton is not. Indeed, she epitomizes everything that is wrong about America.

See, e.g., (“Trump Could Win It All”—”A new survey shows a sizable number of Democrats ready to defect from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump”—”Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they’d cross sides and vote for Trump”—”[A] far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are ‘100 percent sure’ of switching than the Republicans”) and (“Joe Biden: ‘It’s possible’ Donald Trump could be the next president“) and (“NBC Prez Bob Greenblatt on Donald Trump: ‘He’s One of the Most Important Political Figures of Our Time’”) and (“Many ‘lost’ voters say they have found their candidate in Trump”) and (“America Elects Its Next President”)

If she is indicted, it is “game over” for her candidacy. Among other issues, this constitutes a “Sword of Damocles” hanging over her head.

The author has barely touched on the multitudinous skeletons in her closet.

See (“Clinton Fatigue”)

Will she become America’s first lesbian president?



22 01 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

National Review Is Desperately Leading Campaign To Stop Trump [UPDATED]

Donald Trump

The once-proud but now “down-and-out” National Review and its editor, Rich Lowry, are trying to galvanize their fellow GOP “Neanderthals” in an effort to stop Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy.

This group includes those who crusaded with Israel’s murderous Benjamin Netanyahu, AIPAC, the AIPAC-bought GOP lackeys in Congress, and un-American Islamophobic “Israel Firsters”—against the Iran deal. Israel and its “neocon” surrogates pushed us into the Iraq War, just as Netanyahu and his ilk have been trying to push us into a war with Iran.

According to media coverage, the National Review‘s group includes William Kristol, Israel-born Yuval Levin, and Jonah Goldberg. Arguably, the Wall Street Street Journal‘s resident Islamophobe from Tel Aviv, Bret Stephens, should join them.

See (“More Trash Talk About Donald Trump From Bret Stephens“); see also (“Is The Wall Street Journal Islamophobic?“)

A National Review article entitled “Against Trump”—which is subtitled “Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism”—states:

Donald Trump leads the polls nationally and in most states in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. There are understandable reasons for his eminence, and he has shown impressive gut-level skill as a campaigner. But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.

Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot. The real-estate mogul and reality-TV star has supported abortion, gun control, single-payer health care à la Canada, and punitive taxes on the wealthy. (He and Bernie Sanders have shared more than funky outer-borough accents.) Since declaring his candidacy he has taken a more conservative line, yet there are great gaping holes in it.

His signature issue is concern over immigration — from Latin America but also, after Paris and San Bernardino, from the Middle East. He has exploited the yawning gap between elite opinion in both parties and the public on the issue, and feasted on the discontent over a government that can’t be bothered to enforce its own laws no matter how many times it says it will (President Obama has dispensed even with the pretense). But even on immigration, Trump often makes no sense and can’t be relied upon. A few short years ago, he was criticizing Mitt Romney for having the temerity to propose “self-deportation,” or the entirely reasonable policy of reducing the illegal population through attrition while enforcing the nation’s laws. Now, Trump is a hawk’s hawk.

He pledges to build a wall along the southern border and to make Mexico pay for it. We need more fencing at the border, but the promise to make Mexico pay for it is silly bluster. Trump says he will put a big door in his beautiful wall, an implicit endorsement of the dismayingly conventional view that current levels of legal immigration are fine. Trump seems unaware that a major contribution of his own written immigration plan is to question the economic impact of legal immigration and to call for reform of the H-1B–visa program. Indeed, in one Republican debate he clearly had no idea what’s in that plan and advocated increased legal immigration, which is completely at odds with it. These are not the meanderings of someone with well-informed, deeply held views on the topic.

As for illegal immigration, Trump pledges to deport the 11 million illegals here in the United States, a herculean administrative and logistical task beyond the capacity of the federal government. Trump piles on the absurdity by saying he would re-import many of the illegal immigrants once they had been deported, which makes his policy a poorly disguised amnesty (and a version of a similarly idiotic idea that appeared in one of Washington’s periodic “comprehensive immigration” reforms). This plan wouldn’t survive its first contact with reality.

On foreign policy, Trump is a nationalist at sea. Sometimes he wants to let Russia fight ISIS, and at others he wants to “bomb the sh**” out of it. He is fixated on stealing Iraq’s oil and casually suggested a few weeks ago a war crime — killing terrorists’ families — as a tactic in the war on terror. For someone who wants to project strength, he has an astonishing weakness for flattery, falling for Vladimir Putin after a few coquettish bats of the eyelashes from the Russian thug. All in all, Trump knows approximately as much about national security as he does about the nuclear triad — which is to say, almost nothing.

Indeed, Trump’s politics are those of an averagely well-informed businessman: Washington is full of problems; I am a problem-solver; let me at them. But if you have no familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, get rolled. Especially if you are, at least by all outward indications, the most poll-obsessed politician in all of American history. He has shown no interest in limiting government, in reforming entitlements, or in the Constitution. He floats the idea of massive new taxes on imported goods and threatens to retaliate against companies that do too much manufacturing overseas for his taste. His obsession is with “winning,” regardless of the means — a spirit that is anathema to the ordered liberty that conservatives hold dear and that depends for its preservation on limits on government power. The Tea Party represented a revival of an understanding of American greatness in these terms, an understanding to which Trump is tone-deaf at best and implicitly hostile at worst. He appears to believe that the administrative state merely needs a new master, rather than a new dispensation that cuts it down to size and curtails its power.

It is unpopular to say in the year of the “outsider,” but it is not a recommendation that Trump has never held public office. Since 1984, when Jesse Jackson ran for president with no credential other than a great flow of words, both parties have been infested by candidates who have treated the presidency as an entry-level position. They are the excrescences of instant-hit media culture. The burdens and intricacies of leadership are special; experience in other fields is not transferable. That is why all American presidents have been politicians, or generals.

Any candidate can promise the moon. But politicians have records of success, failure, or plain backsliding by which their promises may be judged. Trump can try to make his blankness a virtue by calling it a kind of innocence. But he is like a man with no credit history applying for a mortgage — or, in this case, applying to manage a $3.8 trillion budget and the most fearsome military on earth.

Trump’s record as a businessman is hardly a recommendation for the highest office in the land. For all his success, Trump inherited a real-estate fortune from his father. Few of us will ever have the experience, as Trump did, of having Daddy-O bail out our struggling enterprise with an illegal loan in the form of casino chips. Trump’s primary work long ago became less about building anything than about branding himself and tending to his celebrity through a variety of entertainment ventures, from WWE to his reality-TV show, The Apprentice. His business record reflects the often dubious norms of the milieu: using eminent domain to condemn the property of others; buying the good graces of politicians—including many Democrats—with donations.

Trump has gotten far in the GOP race on a brash manner, buffed over decades in New York tabloid culture. His refusal to back down from any gaffe, no matter how grotesque, suggests a healthy impertinence in the face of postmodern PC (although the insults he hurls at anyone who crosses him also speak to a pettiness and lack of basic civility). His promise to make America great again recalls the populism of Andrew Jackson. But Jackson was an actual warrior; and President Jackson made many mistakes. Without Jackson’s scars, what is Trump’s rhetoric but show and strut?

If Trump were to become the president, the Republican nominee, or even a failed candidate with strong conservative support, what would that say about conservatives? The movement that ground down the Soviet Union and took the shine, at least temporarily, off socialism would have fallen in behind a huckster. The movement concerned with such “permanent things” as constitutional government, marriage, and the right to life would have become a claque for a Twitter feed.

Trump nevertheless offers a valuable warning for the Republican party. If responsible men irresponsibly ignore an issue as important as immigration, it will be taken up by the reckless. If they cannot explain their Beltway maneuvers — worse, if their maneuvering is indefensible — they will be rejected by their own voters. If they cannot advance a compelling working-class agenda, the legitimate anxieties and discontents of blue-collar voters will be exploited by demagogues. We sympathize with many of the complaints of Trump supporters about the GOP, but that doesn’t make the mogul any less flawed a vessel for them.

Some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him. Count us out. Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.

See; see also (“Donald Trump or Ted Cruz? Republicans Argue Over Who Is Greater Threat“) and (NYT Highlights How National Review Is Leading The Conservative Media Campaign To Stop Trump”) and (Jonah Goldberg: “The Establishment vs. the Conservatives”) and (“National Review Urges ‘Say No’ to Trump“) and (“The Goldberg File“)

The National Review should be boycotted, shut down and put out of business.

The mindset of these Neanderthals is exactly why lots of us left the GOP years ago, and will never come back except to vote for Donald Trump—and only Trump.

Republican giants like Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would, in all likelihood, categorically reject this group and its screed.

. . .

The same thing is true of the once-great Wall Street Journal. The Murdoch family that owns the newspaper should fire the Bret Stephens and Peggy Noonans, and replace them with a new generation.

Donald Trump has tapped into a political vein and “Mother Lode,” much like Ronald Reagan did. Yet, the Reagan “faithful” are tired old souls today, who are out of touch with America. Yes, they followed in his footsteps, but they never understood who he was.

In his own way, Trump does.

See, e.g., (“Is The Wall Street Journal Islamophobic?“) and (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens“) and (“More Islamophobia From The Wall Street Journal And Bret Stephens“) and (“It’s Time For The Other 13 GOP Candidates to Drop Out“)


5 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

America’s Failed Political Establishments [UPDATED]

Hillary is maniacal

Patrick J. Buchanan—senior advisor to U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, and presidential aspirant himself—has written:

Donald Trump won more votes in the Iowa caucuses than any Republican candidate in history.

Impressive, except Ted Cruz set the new all-time record.

And Marco Rubio exceeded all expectations by taking 23 percent.

Cruz won Tea Party types, Evangelicals, and the hard right.

Trump won the populists and nationalists who want the borders secure, no amnesty, and no more trade deals that enable rival powers like China to disembowel American industries.

And Rubio? He is what columnist Mark Shields called Jimmy Carter, 35 years ago, “the remainderman of national politics. He gets what’s left over after his opponents have taken theirs by being the least unacceptable alternative to the greatest number of voters.”

Marco is the fallback position of a reeling establishment that is appalled by Trump, loathes Cruz, and believes Rubio — charismatic, young, personable — can beat Hillary Clinton.

But there is a problem here for the establishment.

While Rubio has his catechism down cold — “I’ll tear up that Iran deal my first day in office!” — his victory would mean a rejection of the populist revolt that arose with Trump’s entry and has grown to be embraced by a majority of Republicans.

Cruz, Trump, Carson — the outsiders — won over 60 percent of all caucus votes. Their anti-Washington messages, Trump and Cruz’s especially, grew the GOP turnout to its largest in history, 186,000, half again as many as participated in the record turnout of 2012.

Most significant, 15,000 more Iowans voted in GOP caucuses than the Democratic caucuses, where participation plummeted 30 percent from 2008.

What does this portend?

While Iowa has gone Democratic in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, it is now winnable by Republicans — on two conditions.

The party must be united. And it cannot lose the fire and energy that produced this turnout and brought out those astonishing crowds of tens of thousands.

The remainderman, however, cannot reproduce that energy or those crowds. For Rubio is not a barn burner; he is a malleable man of maneuver.

Arriving in Washington to the cheers of populists reveling in his rout of Charlie Crist, Rubio went native and signed on to the Schumer-McCain amnesty.

He voted for “fast track,” the GOP’s pre-emptive surrender of Congress’s constitutional power to amend trade treaties. He hailed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade treaty President Obama brought home.

Now he is moving crabwise away from TPP. Shiftiness, however, does not bother the establishment, it reassures the establishment.

Rubio is “The Hustler,” the “Fast Eddie” Felson of 2016. And the Beltway is all in behind him.

He is now the candidate of the Washington crowd that a majority of Republicans voted to reject in Iowa, the darling of the donor class, and the last hope of a Beltway punditocracy that recoils whenever the pitchforks appear.

Which brings us to the antithesis of Rubio — Bernie Sanders.

Given where he started a year ago, a sparring partner for the heavyweight Clinton, and where he ended, a split decision and a coin toss, the Brooklyn-born Socialist was the big winner of Iowa.

In the Democratic race, it is Sanders who has been getting the Trump-sized crowds, while Hillary and Bill Clinton have been playing to what look like audiences at art films in the 1950s.

Sanders will likely have the best night of his campaign Tuesday — if Hillary Clinton’s surge does not overtake him — when he wins New Hampshire.

After that, however, absent celestial intervention, such as a federal prosecutor being inspired to indict Clinton, he begins a long series of painful defeats until his shining moment at the convention.

But just as a stifling of the Trump-Cruz-Carson rebellion, with another establishment favorite like Rubio, would bank all the fires of enthusiasm in the GOP, Clinton’s rout of Sanders would cause millions of progressives and young people who rallied to Bernie to give up on 2016.

And if both the Sanders’ revolution that captured half his party in Iowa, and the Trump-Cruz revolt that captured half of their party are squelched, and we get an establishment Republican vs. an establishment Democrat in the fall, America will be sundered.

For there is not one America today, nor two. Politically, there are at least four.

Were this Britain or France, the GOP would have long ago split between its open-borders, globalist, war party wing, and its populist, patriotic, social conservative wing.

The latter would be demanding a timeout on immigration, secure borders, no amnesty, no more needless wars, and a trade policy dictated by what was best for America, not Davos or Dubai.

Democrats would break apart along the lines of the Clinton-Sanders divide, with the neo-socialists becoming a raucous and robust anti-big bank, anti-Wall Street, soak-the-rich and share-the-wealth party.

These splits may be postponed again in 2016, but these rebellions are going to reappear until they succeed in overthrowing our failed establishments.

For the causes that produced such revolutions — Third World invasions, income inequality, economic torpor, culture wars, the real and relative decline of the West — have become permanent conditions.

See (“The Remainderman”) (emphasis added); see also (“Clinton Fatigue“); but see (“The ‘establishment’ nonsense”)

Not mentioned by Pat in his fine article is the fact that Independents represent a political force in the United States that may savage both parties.

Many angry Republicans and Democrats have abandoned their parties and joined the important middle ground of American politics.

See, e.g., (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents“)

Also, if the GOP is to have any future at all, it must focus on purging its ranks of the despicable Karl Rove, Bill Kristol and their fellow Neanderthals.

Lots of us left the party years ago because of these cretins; and we will never come back, much less to stay, until they are gone—long gone.

See, e.g., (Rove: “GOP Infighters Need to Focus on Trump”—”[T]he chances of nominating a mainstream Republican may dissipate”—”Americans have never elected a serial bankrupt [Trump]”)


15 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

GOP Under Fire [UPDATED]


CBS’ coverage of the GOP debate on Saturday, February 14, 2016, was marred by mass booing of Donald Trump and others from the audience. It was hosted by John Dickerson—whose mother Nancy was a television network political correspondent, who became infamous after being “deflowered” in the White House by President Lyndon Johnson.

Dickerson should have kept control of the audience, but he failed to do so. Matthew Boyle of Breitbart News reported:

The chairman of the local Republican Party here confirmed to local television that 2016 frontrunner billionaire Donald Trump’s concerns—and those of his closest competitor Sen. Ted Cruz—with the Republican National Committee (RNC) allocation of debate audience tickets are well-placed.

Chad Groover, the chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party here, told WYFF—the local NBC News station—that party donors get tickets to the debate.

“You’ll have a good mix of people who are donors, people who are donors and workers, and people who are just workers,” Groover said, noting that he got “a couple of dozen” of tickets to hand out to the party’s faithful donors.

“I didn’t have hundreds of tickets. I had a couple of dozen tickets,” Groover said.

That means a significant proportion of his stack of approximately 24 tickets went to monied interests backing the GOP—not to actual voters in the upcoming election.

Sources close to the process who work for the RNC, but are not authorized to speak on the record, confirmed to Breitbart News throughout the evening on Saturday that that is standard operating procedure for the RNC and the party as a whole for all debates: Donors get tickets while voters have to watch on TV at home.

As such, the same appears to have been true party-wide. One well-placed source who works for one of the GOP presidential campaigns and was in attendance at the debate on Saturday evening here—but was not authorized to speak on record about the matter—told Breitbart News that Sen. Lindsey Graham and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley were personally given scores of tickets to distribute. Both despise Trump and have said so publicly–Haley even using the platform of the official GOP response to the State of the Union to do so–and it would be no surprise if they did aim to stack the audience with anti-Trump sentiment.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” said another source in the audience, someone who has attended several of the GOP debates. That source said the anti-Trump and anti-Cruz audience members—who were thoroughly cheering for Sen. Marco Rubio and his mentor former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush when they made passionate cases for amnesty for illegal aliens, something entirely non-representative of South Carolina’s electorate—were behaving unlike any audience he’d ever seen in his lifetime of attending GOP presidential debates.

The Republican National Committee’s Sean Spicer confirmed to Breitbart News pre-debate that the RNC proper distributed 367 tickets while the state party and locally elected officials received 550 tickets. Meanwhile the debate partners—CBS News, the Peace Center, and Google—received another 100 tickets. That means more than 1000 tickets—1,017 by Spicer’s admission—went not to voters in the upcoming election and not to campaigns for equal distribution to their supporters but to special interest distribution of those connected to the party, mostly high dollar donors. Only 600 tickets were distributed equally among the six remaining GOP campaigns, which to be fair to the RNC is the highest number of tickets distributed as such so far this election cycle.

But Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, is calling for the RNC to drop all donor tickets and stop handing them out to special and monied interests entirely. Lewandowski says at all the rest of the debates from here on out, Spicer and the RNC must equally allocate all tickets among the various campaigns so they can distribute them equally and fairly to their supporters—and cut out all the donors and special interests who get tickets.

“I think the RNC does a terrible job in allocating the tickets, to be honest with you, There’s an opportunity—there’s 2,000 seats out there, there’s six candidates on stage, they should just divide them evenly so everyone has them, but instead they just give them to the donor class, they give them to the lobbyists and to all the special interests,” Lewandowski said in the spin room. “It’s not fair, it’s not equitable. So I think what they should do moving forward is take the total number of seats available, allocate them across the board and let the candidates bring their people in, because that’s who should be here, not the donors.”

Spicer has refused repeatedly over the course of several emails on Saturday and Sunday morning to answer whether the RNC will comply with Lewandowski’s request to drop all RNC and state and local party ticket allocation and just allow the campaigns to equally distribute all debate tickets fairly to their supporters in the future.

Trump’s and Cruz’s concerns are even being confirmed by many across the political spectrum. In fact, even the left-of-center Huffington Post confirms that the RNC’s ticket allocation system seems to have been “behind” the excessive and unwarranted booing of Trump and Cruz—and cheering of the donor class supported Rubio and Bush.

“The audience at Saturday’s CBS News Republican presidential debate was more boisterous than unusual — booing, clapping and generally making its feelings known during several exchanges between candidates on stage in Greenville, South Carolina,” the Huffington Post’s Igor Bobic wrote. “At various points, attendees seemed to favor former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio, and to be very much against Sen. Ted Cruz and real estate mogul Donald Trump — the two candidates currently leading the race. The way the Republican National Committee distributed the tickets may have been behind the heightened reactions.”

Vox, another left-of-center outlet, ran a headline that made it even clearer: “The Republican establishment packed the debate audience with Donald Trump haters.” In the piece, author German Lopez noted that the audience’s pro-Rubio and pro-Bush cheering was “very peculiar” as was the booing of Trump and Cruz.

“Something very peculiar happened at the Republican debate on Saturday night: When Donald Trump talked, the audience booed. Yet when Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and even John Kasich talked, they got loud cheers and applause,” Lopez wrote. “This happened again and again. It even led a spike in Google searches for ‘Why are people booing?’”

Vox even admits that Trump’s claim on stage that the odd—and unrepresentative of the party’s voting base—audience was made up of “Jeb’s special interests and lobbyists” was really not “that far-fetched.”

“Prior to the debate, the Republican Party decided not to use a lottery system to decide who should be in the audience,” Lopez wrote. “Instead, most tickets went to elected Republican officials, donors, and other workers for the party picked by local, state, and national party officials. The result, it seems, is the room was packed with Republican voters who overwhelmingly dislike Trump.”

That seems to be why Lewandowski is calling for a new system for fairness, one that cuts the RNC completely out of the process. It remains to be seen if other campaigns will get on board with this, but earlier in the cycle–due to the RNC’s ineffectiveness in dealing with biased moderators–the entire field of campaign managers met privately to cut the RNC out of the process of negotiating with the networks. It is only logical that the next step is that the campaigns work to ensure fairness in debate audience selection, something the RNC clearly failed at providing.

See (“RNC Under Fire Over Debate Audience Stacking–Local GOP Chairman Confirms Party Donors Get Debate Tickets“); see also (“It’s Time For The Other 13 GOP Candidates to Drop Out“)

This underscores the political biases of the media—this time, CBS—and the so-called GOP “establishment,” which is outrageous.


18 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Pope Attacks Donald Trump [UPDATED]

Pope Francis

AP has reported:

Thrusting himself into the heated American presidential campaign, Pope Francis declared Thursday that Donald Trump is “not Christian” if he wants to address illegal immigration only by building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump fired back ferociously, saying it was “disgraceful” for a religious leader to question a person’s faith.

The rare back-and-forth between pontiff and presidential candidate was the latest astonishing development in an American election already roiled by Trump’s free-wheeling rhetoric and controversial policy proposals, particularly on immigration. It also underscored the popular pope’s willingness to needle U.S. politicians on hot-button issues.

Francis’ comments came hours after he concluded a visit to Mexico, where he prayed at the border for people who died trying to reach the U.S. While speaking to reporters on the papal plane, he was asked what he thought of Trump’s campaign pledge to build a wall along the entire length of the border and expel millions of people in the U.S. illegally.

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” he said. While Francis said he would “give the benefit of the doubt” because he had not heard Trump’s border plans independently, he added, “I say only that this man is not a Christian if he has said things like that.”

Trump, a Presbyterian and the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, responded within minutes.

“For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful,” he said at a campaign stop in South Carolina, which holds a key primary on Saturday. “I am proud to be a Christian, and as president I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened.”

Trump also raised the prospect of the Islamic State extremist group attacking the Vatican, saying that if that happened, “the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president because this would not have happened.”

Francis, the first pope from Latin America, urged Congress during his visit to Washington last year to respond to immigrants “in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal.” He irked Republicans on the same trip with his forceful call for international action to address climate change.

Immigration is among the most contentious issues in American politics. Republicans have moved toward hardline positions that emphasize law enforcement and border security, blocking comprehensive legislation in 2013 that would have included a path to citizenship for many of the 11 million people in the U.S. illegally.

Hispanics, an increasingly large voting bloc in U.S. presidential elections, have flocked to Democrats in recent years. President Barack Obama won more than 70 percent in the 2012 election, leading some Republican leaders to conclude the party must increase its appeal to them.

However, the current GOP presidential primary has been dominated by increasingly tough rhetoric. Trump has insisted that Mexico will pay for his proposed border wall and has said some Mexicans entering the U.S. illegally are murderers and rapists.

While Trump’s words have been among the most inflammatory, some of his rivals have staked out similar enforcement positions. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson are among those who have explicitly called for construction of a wall.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, one of the few GOP candidates proposing a path to legal status for people already in the U.S. illegally, said Thursday he supports “walls and fencing where it’s appropriate.” Bush said that while he gets his guidance “as a Catholic” from the pope, he doesn’t take his cues from Francis on “economic or environmental policy.”

Marco Rubio, another Catholic seeking the GOP nomination, said that Vatican City has a right to control its borders and so does the United States.

Rubio said he has “tremendous respect and admiration” for the pope, but he added, “There’s no nation on Earth that’s more compassionate on immigration than we are.”

Cruz said he was steering clear of the dispute. “That’s between Donald and the pope,” he said. “I’m not going to get in the middle of them.”

The long-distance exchange between the pope and Trump came two days before the voting in South Carolina, a state where 78 percent of adults identify as Christian, according to the Pew Research Center’s 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study. Of that group, 35 percent identify as evangelical and 10 percent as Catholic, the survey found.

It’s unclear what impact, if any, the pope’s rhetoric will have, here or in other states. An October poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that most Americans had no strong opinion on the pope’s approach to immigration issues, though he was overall viewed favorably.

Even before Thursday, Trump had been critical of Francis’ visit to Mexico. He said last week that the pope’s plans to pray at the border showed he was a political figure being exploited by the Mexican government.

Francis glossed over Trump’s assertion that he was a pawn of Mexico, telling reporters on his plane that he would “leave that up to your judgment.” But he seemed pleased to hear the candidate had called him a “political” figure, noting that Aristotle had described the human being as a “political animal.”

See (“POPE VS. TRUMP: ‘NOT CHRISTIAN’ TO ONLY BUILD BORDER WALLS“) (emphasis added); see also (“After branding Trump ‘not Christian’ for his plans to build a wall on the Mexican border the Pope heads home to Vatican City… which is surrounded by a wall“) and (“PHOTOS: Pope’s border wall around Vatican“) and (“Pope Francis is more than head of the Catholic Church — he’s also the head of state of the Vatican, which as a government has possibly the most restrictive immigration and citizenship policies of any nation in the world“) and (POPE NOW SAYS BIRTH CONTROL OK) and (“[Pope] embraces Raul Castro but calls Donald Trump anti-Christian!”)

Trump responded by saying:

If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.

The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story – he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.

For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.

See (“TRUMP RESPONDS TO POPE FRANCIS ATTACKS – ‘Pope Will Wish I Was President If ISIS Attacks Vatican’ (VIDEO)”) (emphasis added); see also (“After Mollycoddling Castro[,] Pope Francis Blunders In Attack on Trump”—”The Pope’s ill-considered comments about Donald Trump are of a piece with hysterical overreactions to him and his candidacy in this and other countries. No pope has ever overtly intervened in an American political campaign before”—”Pope Francis allegedly said, as he ended his visit to Mexico, that someone ‘who thinks only about building walls and not building bridges, is not Christian.’ This was an outrageous comment and is not the first time this Pope has blundered into dangerous secular territory”—”[T]here is no doubt that Mr. Trump is a Christian, he proclaims himself to be so, has been married in Christian ceremonies and his personal habits (he does not drink, smoke, touch drugs, and rarely swears or blasphemes), and the manner in which he has raised his children, are all in entire conformity with middle-of-the-road Christianity”—”Pope Francis’ mollycoddling of the decrepit and oppressive Castro regime, and especially his avoidance when in Cuba of the representatives of the political victims of the regime, is a good deal harder to excuse than Donald Trump’s sometimes inelegantly expressed but well-founded criticism of an immigration ‘policy’ of decades that has simply turned a blind eye to the illicit, undocumented arrival in the United States of 12 million largely uneducated peasants who clog the American justice, education and welfare systems at immense cost, though they do the menial work that Americans of all pigmentations won’t touch”—”[The Pope] puts himself in the same category of imbecility as the Vancouver aldermen who want to take Mr. Trump’s name off a prominent building (whose builders paid Donald handsomely for the use of his name), and the cretins of the British parliament who want to bar him from entering the U.K.”—”[T]he present Pope’s fraternization with the antichrist and flippant trespasses in the presidential selection process of the traditional leader of the Western countries is, unfortunately, as Donald Trump describes it”)

I have cared about the Catholic Church for a long time, and agree with many of the things that it stands for. Ancestors on both sides of my family have been Catholics for hundreds of years; and I attend its churches (including California’s lovely and historic Missions) much of the time.

See (“The Catholic Church At A Crossroads“); see also (“Abortions And Autos Kill More In America Than Guns“)

However, the Church is not perfect, by any means. Wading into American politics is unseemly for the Pope, especially days before an important election.

With all due respect to his Holiness, he is another foreign naysayer who might wish to keep his mouth shut at times. Surely he has bigger issues to deal with, such as pedophile priests.

Also, why isn’t he “housing” all of the migrants at the Vatican? Of course I am being facetious. But the immigration issue is ripping Europe apart; and it is very contentious in the United States—which is a nation of immigrants, and the greatest “melting pot” of cultures on the face of the Earth.

The Pope has been an outspoken believer in so-called man-made “global warming” or “climate change,” which is fraudulent, a hoax and the “Great Green Con”—so at the very least, his judgment is not infallible.

See (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming“) and (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life“)

Lastly, it has been reported that the Pope has backed down, and “retracted” his comments about Trump.

See (“Trump’s victory over the Pope: Francis backs down over ‘not Christian’ claim as Vatican says it was not a ‘personal attack’ or attempt to influence presidential vote“)

Donald Trump


19 02 2016

The Pope is obviously very liberal, to the point where he has no issue with gay marriage and such… Additionally, he appears to be buddies with Obama, and his rhetoric is in line with the typical liberal crap, you hear from Obama about immigration. I’d say they are allies against the Republicans . Trump has a huge target on his head , just like justice Scalia did,before he died of “natural causes”. Hopefully, Trump fares better than him.

Liked by 1 person

19 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Well said, Rick. I agree completely.

Also, I find it very disturbing that an autopsy is not being conducted with respect to Scalia. Surely, his fellow Supreme Court Justices know this is wrong and illegal, yet once again they turn a collective “blind eye” to the issue.

See, e.g., (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix”)

To his credit, Trump is a fighter, and so is Bernie Sanders. Obviously they come from different ends of the political spectrum, yet they are capturing the anger of the American people with respect to government at all levels. They are riding a wave; and it will be interesting to see how far it carries both of them.

My guess is that Trump will be the GOP nominee . . . or the party will be ripped apart like at no other time in its history, since Lincoln. My guess too is that Hillary will be indicted, which would mean “game over” for her presidential quest for the second time.

She has way too much baggage. Among other things, her health is a serious issue.

See (“Clinton Fatigue”)


19 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The GOP Neanderthals [UPDATED]

GOP Establishment Neanderthals

American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist and lawyer Ann Coulter has written:

Donald Trump’s latest bombshell, claiming the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction to get us into the Iraq War, is just him doing wheelies on the way to the nomination. He’s apparently decided it would be fun to taunt the entire GOP by demonstrating that he can say anything and his voters won’t care.

I wish he’d stop showing off, the little scamp, but maybe the GOP establishment will finally get the message that voters have been waiting a really long time for a candidate who would put Americans first. Not donors, not plutocrats, not foreigners, and certainly not foreign plutocrats (i.e., Fox News).

Trump is the first presidential candidate in 50 years who might conceivably: (1) deport illegal aliens, (2) build a wall, (3) block Muslim immigration, (4) flout political correctness, (5) bring manufacturing home, and (6) end the GOP’s neurotic compulsion to start wars in some godforsaken part of the world.

That’s all that matters! Are you listening yet, RNC?

There is not another candidate who agrees with Trump on all these positions. Maybe one issue, but not all of them — and if it’s immigration, they would be lying.

Even Ted Cruz still refuses to say he’d deport illegal aliens (unless they’re arrested for breaking some other law), build a wall (instead he talks about “border security,” which is code for: No Wall), or reduce legal immigration at all.

Trump is like a greatest-hits album. The two political parties are the record companies, refusing to put all the hits on one album and instead forcing us to choose between Republicans who will depress wages through immigration and bad trade deals, or Democrats who pretend to care about working-class Americans while sacralizing abortion and gay marriage.

Trump is right about President Bush not keeping us safe — though not about his “Bush lied” argument that makes me want to strangle him. This is what Trump said last October on “Coyote News Sunday” (FNC) about how things would have been different on 9/11 under President Trump:

“Well, I would have been much different, I must tell you. . . . I am extremely, extremely tough on illegal immigration. I’m extremely tough on people coming into this country. I believe that if I were running things, I doubt . . . that those people would have been in the country.”

And that was before Trump announced his plan for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration! (By contrast, as governor of Florida, Jeb! aggressively pushed a bill to allow illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses, less than three years AFTER 13 of 19 hijackers used Florida driver’s licenses to board the planes on 9/11.)

It is apparently considered less controversial to send a million troops to the Middle East than to stop printing visas for would-be terrorists.

It’s not just George W. Bush’s open-borders policy that cries out for re-examination. During a debate with Al Gore one year before the 9/11 attack — committed by Arabs on U.S. commercial airlines — he pre-emptively denounced the racial profiling of Arabs by airport security.

The Wall Street Journal proclaimed that “the ‘racial profiling’ issue might help Bush win Michigan.” (Good call, WSJ! Bush lost Michigan, anyway.)

In June 2001 — three months before the attack committed by Arabs on U.S. commercial airlines — the Bush administration undertook a study to ensure that Arabs were not being disproportionately stopped by airport security.

When U.S. Airways ticket agent Michael Tuohey laid eyes on Mohamed Atta on the morning of 9/11, he got a “chill” and thought to himself, “If this guy doesn’t look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.” But then, he says, he gave himself a politically correct “slap,” and handed Atta his ticket.

Atta proceeded to murder 3,000 Americans. But at least no undue scrutiny of Arabs was taking place at U.S. Airports!

The Marco Rubios, Nikki Haleys, Paul Ryans, Jeb!, Zeppo and Shemp Bushes of the GOP say: “Vote for me — we may have a terrorist attack, but at least we’ll know we did the right thing!” Trump says: “I’m going to protect you.”

That’s why it doesn’t matter when Trump pops off and says things that are not conservative orthodoxy — or even true!

Even if you think Trump is a libertine, shallow narcissist, you know he will do what no other Republican will: Go to Washington, kick ass, mock political correctness, build a wall, deport illegals, bring manufacturing home, and end the GOP’s peculiar fixation with remaking the Muslim world.

This is our last chance. It’s similar to the “point of no return” global warming alarmists keep talking about, except our data isn’t fake.

At our current rate of immigration/transformation, if we don’t break the donor fever grip now, we never will. This kind of correction isn’t just a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, it’s a once-in-a-millennium opportunity.

The GOP didn’t hear us with Eric Cantor[‘s political defeat], with the 2014 election or with John Boehner. After all that, they still gave us Nikki Haley and Paul Ryan. President Trump is the last and only message they will understand.

See (“GOP Baffled As Voters Rally to Popular Candidate”) (emphasis added); see also (Laura Ingraham: “The Suicide of the GOP Establishment”—”[O]ld Reaganites like Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly understand and are looking kindly on Trump’s campaign, because they know you must utterly rout the Establishment in order to change policy. This is the reason people like Senator Jeff Sessions and Sarah Palin are supporting Trump — because they understand that compromise is impossible with an entrenched oligarchy. This is the reason Christie has endorsed Trump — because he recognizes that Rubio and his supporters will lead us down a path that will be disastrous for the party”)

I respectfully disagree with Ann about whether George W. Bush “lied.” He and Dick Cheney were being pushed into the Iraq War by Israel and its “neocon” surrogates; and there is reason to believe that the latter “fabricated evidence” to foster their goal of having the United States fight Iraq on their behalf.

Bush and Cheney should have known better; or if they did, they looked the other way and were complicit.


21 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Why Trump? [UPDATED]

Donald Trump

Frank Bruni has written in the New York Times:

Over the last few months and even weeks, the question among many flabbergasted Republican traditionalists and incredulous political analysts was when the forces of gravity would catch up with Donald Trump and send him tumbling to earth.

It was going to happen. Of course it was going to happen. You just had to be patient. You just had to be strong.

But in the wake of his victories in New Hampshire and now South Carolina, the question is no longer “when.” It’s “if.” And the answer isn’t clear at all.

Consider this: From 1980 forward, no Republican presidential candidate has won both the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries and gone on to lose the party’s nomination.

And this: Over that same time period, only one Republican victor in South Carolina failed to become the nominee, and that was Newt Gingrich, in 2012. But Gingrich didn’t have Trump’s durable (and sizeable) lead in national polls. He didn’t dominate the race’s narrative and capture an exasperated electorate’s mood the way Trump has.

As it happens, Gingrich was on Fox News on Saturday night to discuss Trump’s latest triumph, and he didn’t say: “South Carolina? It’s a muggy, marshy, inconsequential tease. I bagged it four years ago and all it got me was this gig babbling in the wee hours about election returns.”

No, Gingrich marveled at what he made clear was “a huge night for Donald Trump.”

“Nobody should kid themselves,” he added.

Trump didn’t just win South Carolina, and he didn’t just win it by a margin of 10 points. He won it despite what looked, over recent days, like a concerted effort to lose it. He won it after what appeared to be one of the worst weeks that a candidate could have.

It began at the most recent debate, where he trashed the last Republican president, George W. Bush, and accused him of lying to the American people as he led them into war in Iraq. He sounded like a liberal Democrat. Republican primary voters, especially those in the South, aren’t typically receptive to that.

Over the next days, Trump sounded even more like a liberal Democrat, at least as described by Ted Cruz, who went after him relentlessly, armed with Trump’s own past statements in support of abortion rights and Planned Parenthood.

The week got messier from there. Trump picked a fight with the Pope. Trump picked a fight with Apple. It became evident that no personage or brand, no matter how beloved, was safe from his wrath. You had to wonder what or whom he’d go after next. Kittens? Betty Crocker? Betty White?

Then Trump spoke up for a key aspect of Obamacare before realizing what he’d done and assuring everyone that he deplored every aspect of Obamacare, which paled in comparison with Trumpcare, whatever that might turn out to be.

This prompted extensive commentary on Trump’s inconsistencies and a fresh round of murmuring about an imminent tumble.

But what we incredulous political analysts keep failing to take into account—what I was reminded of when I went to a Trump rally last week and listened hard to his supporters—is that the people voting for him aren’t evaluating him through any usual ideological lens. They’re not asking what kind of Republican he is. They’re not troubling themselves with whether the position he’s selling today matches the position he was selling yesterday or even what that old position was.

They want to try something utterly different—utterly disruptive, to use the locution du jour—and that leaves them, on the Republican side, with the options of Trump and Ben Carson. Trump has the fire.

One woman told me that she loves the idea of a billionaire who is funding his own candidacy and won’t be beholden to contributors and special interests. Wouldn’t that be refreshing? Couldn’t that be transformative? Why not give it a shot?

She’d also been to a Marco Rubio rally and was impressed: what a nice young man. But she’s not in the market for nice and young, not this time around.

Another woman told me that she craves a president who is fearless, really fearless, and that of all the candidates in the race, Trump seems the least bowed, the least cowed. She trusts him to fight. All he does is fight. And a fight is what’s in order.

A man who served in the Air Force and now works as a trucker told me that over several decades, through several presidents, the Veterans Administration has remained dysfunctional and his wages haven’t gone up. If he keeps voting the same way, for the same run-of-the-mill politicians, shouldn’t he expect more of the same? Trump isn’t the same.

Gingrich analyzed his appeal perfectly during that Fox News appearance. “It’s a very simple rule,” he said. “If you think Washington is so sick you want someone to kick over the kitchen table, then you like Donald Trump and you frankly don’t care about the details.”

In an exit poll of voters who participated in the Republican primary on Saturday, there was a near even split between those who said that the best preparation for the presidency was political experience and those who put more faith in someone from outside the political establishment. Rubio performed best with the former group, getting 38 percent of their votes. But Trump performed best with the latter group—and got 63 percent of theirs.

Going forward, Rubio is probably the bigger threat to Trump than Cruz, who won only 26 percent of South Carolina voters who identified themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians despite having campaigned as narrowly and fearlessly as possible for their favor. More of them chose Trump, who got 34 percent of the evangelical vote, and plenty of them chose Rubio, who got 21 percent.

That potentially spells trouble for Cruz in the Southern states on Super Tuesday that he’d hoped to dominate. Rubio, meanwhile, is better positioned than Cruz to pick up former supporters of Jeb Bush, who ended his candidacy Saturday night, and to compete well in states outside the South.

And in the days and weeks to come, Rubio will get even more help and money than he has so far from Republican bigwigs who are desperate to see someone less truculent and divisive than Trump or Cruz burst into the lead. His South Carolina showing redeemed his New Hampshire embarrassment and renewed their faith.

But Rubio hasn’t notched a single victory yet. Trump has notched two, and whether they fully lived up to the advance polling is irrelevant. They’re victories, plural. They’re no fluke, no fad.

Naysayers can’t claim that he’s just a bad gaffe or an ugly revelation away from doom. There have already been gaffes aplenty—if you can call them gaffes. There have been revelations galore.

All Trump’s fans see is someone barreling forward without apology and with a largeness that makes them feel a little less small. They see a winner. And it’s no longer an illusion.

See (“Is There Any Stopping Donald Trump?“) (emphasis added); see also (“Trump emerges stronger after spats, continues domination of Republican race”—”It has become cliche to say Mr. Trump is breaking the mold of traditional campaigning, but it also is one of the main reasons he has done so well, according to voters in South Carolina and New Hampshire — states with widely divergent Republican electorates that he won easily”—”Most of all, Mr. Trump has dominated the race, absorbed most of the oxygen and convinced Republican voters that he is the strong leader they have been seeking”) and (“Nationalism and Populism Propel Trump”—”Trump is winning because, on immigration, amnesty, securing our border and staying out of any new crusades for democracy, he has tapped into the most powerful currents in politics: economic populism and ‘America First’ nationalism. . . . If Beltway Republicans think they can stop Trump and turn back the movement behind him, and continue on with today’s policies on trade, immigration and intervention, they will be swept into the same dustbin of history”—”Trump is not only a candidate. He is a messenger from Middle America. And the message he is delivering to the establishment is: We want an end to your policies and we want an end to you. If the elites think they can not only deny Trump the nomination, but turn back this revolution and re-establish themselves in the esteem of the people, they delude themselves. This is hubris of a high order”)

This will be a revolutionary year in American politics, and/or it will be the “year of the payback” bigtime.

If Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are denied their parties’ nominations, their dedicated and fanatic supporters may bolt from their respective parties and not vote—or they may demand that Trump and Sanders run as Independents.

This would be nothing new for Sanders. He has done it before. Similarly, Trump has let it be known that he is prepared do so too; and he certainly has the money.

Two “wild cards” may come into play; namely, (1) Hillary Clinton should be indicted—which would mean “game over” for her candidacy—and (2) another New York City billionaire, former mayor Michael Bloomberg, might enter the race as an Independent, which would siphon away votes from the Democrats.

If Trump and Sanders emerge victorious and are their parties’ nominees, it will pit a far-Left socialist against the 21st Century reality TV’s version of P.T. Barnum. Either way, it will be an interesting and exciting election year, which may be overshadowed in part by the coming global economic depression.

See (“The Obama Great Depression“); but see (“Michael Bloomberg Says He Won’t Run for President“)

. . .

The Wall Street Journal and its pathetic lilliputians continue to disparage Trump; and make gratuitous statements that are tacky, unnecessary and fallacious.

See, e.g., (“America’s Moment of Trump”—”Are Republicans really going to jump off the cliff into the great Trump unknown?”—”Trump declared that he is leading ‘a movement,’ but for that to be true he will have to unify the Republican Party. It still isn’t clear what his movement represents other than Mr. Trump’s blunt persona, his family and ultimatums to various countries”—”Hillary Clinton’s win in Nevada Saturday suggests that in the end Democrats aren’t going to indulge their inner socialist this year. Republicans have a last chance to reconsider their Trump embrace, or dive head-first into who-knows-what”) and (“Is The Wall Street Journal Islamophobic?“) and (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens“) and (“More Islamophobia From The Wall Street Journal And Bret Stephens“); see also (“The GOP Neanderthals“) and (“The Pope Attacks Donald Trump“) and (“GOP Under Fire“) and (“America’s Failed Political Establishments“) and (“It’s Time For The Other 13 GOP Candidates to Drop Out“)

Trump need not “unify” the GOP to win. He is bringing in Independents and “Reagan Democrats” already.

Indeed, like Ronald Reagan before him—who was disparaged as a “B-movie star,” and far worse—Trump may go on to win the presidency and, yes, be elected to a second term.

When his lovely and intelligent wife Melania was asked what her role would be if her husband were to become president, she replied:

I would be very traditional. Like Betty Ford or Jackie Kennedy. I would support him.


Clearly, they are thinking ahead. No one should underestimate him—or them.

While Trump has been a great success in business and in getting things done, those who live in his shadow speak highly of his fairness and, indeed, his generosity. These are not hallmarks of a tyrant. He has made gifts to people and never sought credit or recognition for having done so.

. . .

Hillary Clinton should be indicted criminally, not given any chance at all of being our president.

See (“Clinton Fatigue”)


24 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Melania Trump MSNBC Interview [UPDATED]

She is smart and lovely; and she is correct with respect to immigration.

She came to the United States legally, and she followed the often difficult and arduous process. Lots of others have too, and they have waited patiently in line; and many have never been admitted. Tragic stories exist, such as those described in the article below.

Others ignore our laws and come here illegally; and they should be deported and go back to their native countries and get at the end of the line, and wait to come here legally—if at all.

See (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple“); see also (“At home with Melania: Dazzling new pictures give a glimpse into the lavish home comforts enjoyed by Mrs Trump, the First Lady of BLING”—”Mrs Trump may yet become the first foreign-born First Lady since Louisa Adams, the British-born wife of 1820s president John Quincy Adams”)


25 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump’s Plane And Pilot [UPDATED]

[Published on March 20, 2016]

Donald Trump’s spectacular Boeing 757 is part of his air fleet, which also includes a Cessna Citation X jet and three Sikorsky S-76B helicopters.

Also, follow pilot John Dunkin as he faces the unique challenges of working for the billionaire and presidential aspirant.



25 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The New York Times Must Fire Ross Douthat [UPDATED]

Ross Douthat

It has been reported:

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat caused outrage after he joked about how an assassination attempt could end Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

“Good news guys I’ve figured out how the Trump campaign ends,” Douthat tweeted last night.

The tweet links to a video clip from the 1983 movie The Dead Zone, which features a character played by Christopher Walken attempting to gun down a political figure played by Martin Sheen.

In the plot, Walken’s character tries to kill the US Senatorial candidate (played by Sheen) because he has visions of him becoming president in the future and starting a nuclear war. Sheen’s character holds up a baby as a human shield during the assassination attempt, destroying his credibility.

While joking about an assassination attempt on any public figure is crass, it’s particularly relevant with Trump because he faces a very real threat of being targeted.

As we previously highlighted, according to his former advisor Roger Stone, Trump now wears a bullet proof vest at all public appearance[s] due to the sheer volume of death threats he receives on a regular basis.

Trump first began wearing the vest in October last year after reports that the world’s most wanted drug lord El Chapo had put a $100 million bounty on his head. He also received Secret Service protection at around this time.

Following his controversial comments on Muslim immigration back in December, Twitter exploded with death threats aimed at Trump.

Reaction to Douthat’s Twitter quip from Trump supporters was forceful.

Douthat bills himself as a conservative, but in his latest column for the New York Times he concludes that “President Hillary” would be a better choice for America than “our own nuclear-armed Berlusconi”.

Attacks on Trump from conservatives and members of the Republican establishment have picked up in recent days, with Mitt Romney remarking yesterday that the billionaire’s tax documents could be hiding a “bombshell” revelation.

See (“NY TIMES COLUMNIST JOKES ABOUT ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ENDING TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN“) (emphasis added); see also (“Political Science Professor: Odds Of President Trump Range BETWEEN 97% AND 99%“)

This is not a joke. It is very serious.

Our Secret Service and FBI investigate Americans for lesser statements.

Also, lots of us remember JFK’s assassination, and the attempts on Ronald Reagan in Washington, D.C., and on Gerald Ford in San Francisco.

Alabama’s Governor George Wallace was “shot five times by Arthur Bremer while campaigning at the Laurel Shopping Center in Laurel, Maryland, at a time when he was receiving high ratings in national opinion polls.” He was paralyzed, and used a wheelchair for the rest of his life.


Barack Obama’s life has been threatened; and statements similar to those of Douthat have been made about him. I voted against Obama twice, but no one must be permitted to threaten his life, or to make statements like those of Douthat about Trump or him.

The New York Times must fire Ross Douthat. Nothing less will suffice.

. . .

As of March 14, 2016, Douthat is still with the New York Times; and he appeared as a guest on CNN as well—after Donald Trump’s life was threatened.

See (“Security Scare At Trump Rally“) and (“Ohio Judge Who Released Trump Attacker Must Be Removed From Office“); see also


26 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Donald Trump’s Odds Against Hillary Clinton [UPDATED]

Trump v. Clinton

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

In a Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump race – which, the Beltway keening aside, seems the probable outcome of the primaries – what are the odds the GOP can take the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court?

If Republicans can unite, not bad, not bad at all.

Undeniably, Democrats open with a strong hand.

There is that famed “blue wall,” those 18 states and D.C. with a combined 242 electoral votes, just 28 shy of victory, that have gone Democratic in every presidential election since 1988.

The wall contains all of New England save New Hampshire; the Acela corridor (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland); plus Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin in the Middle West; and the Pacific coast of California, Oregon, Washington – and Hawaii.

Changing demography, too, favors the Democrats.

Barack Obama carried over 90 percent of the black vote twice and in 2012 carried over 70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian votes. These last two voting blocs are the fastest-growing in the USA.

A third Democratic advantage is simple self-interest.

Half the nation now receives U.S. government benefits – in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, student loans, rent subsidies, school lunches and Earned Income Tax Credits, etc.

Folks who rely on government benefits are unlikely to rally to a party that promises to cut government. And as half the nation pays no income tax, these folks are unlikely to be thrilled about tax cuts.

Bernie Sanders, who promises free college tuition and making Wall Street and the 1 percent pay for it, knows his party.

While these realities of national politics would seem to point to inexorable Democratic dominance in coming decades, there are worms in the apple.

First, there is the strangely shrunken and still shrinking Democratic leadership base. As the Daily Caller reports, under Obama, Democrats have lost a net of more than 900 state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 U.S. House and 13 Senate seats. Such numbers suggest a sick party.

Republican strength on Capitol Hill is again as great as it was in the last years of the Roaring ’20s.

Second, due to Trump, viewership of the Republican debates has been astronomical – 24 million for one, 23 million for another.

The turnout at Trump rallies has been unlike anything seen in presidential primaries; and what’s more, the GOP voter turnout in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada set new records for the party.

Yet voter turnout for the Clinton-Sanders race has fallen, in every contest, below what it was in the Clinton-Obama race in 2008.

Bernie’s millennials aside, the energy and excitement has been on the Republican contest, often a sign of party ascendancy.

Not only would Trump at the top of the GOP ticket assure a huge turnout (pro and con), he is the quintessence of the anti-Washington, anti-establishment candidate in a year when Americans appear to want a wholesale housecleaning in the capital.

As a builder and job creator, Trump would surely have greater cross-party appeal to working-class Democrats than any traditional Republican politician. Moreover, when Bernie Sanders goes down to defeat, how much enthusiasm will his supporters, who thrilled to the savaging of Wall Street, bring to the Clinton campaign?

This is the year of the outsider, and Hillary is the prom queen of Goldman Sachs. She represents continuity. Trump represents change.

Moreover, on the top Trump issues of immigration and trade, the elites have always been the furthest out of touch with the country.

In the 1990s, when Bill Clinton fought the NAFTA battle, the nation rebelled against the deal, but the establishment backed it. When Republicans on Capitol Hill voted for most-favored-nation status for China, year in and year out, did Republican grass roots demand this, or was it the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable?

On immigration, where are the polls that show Middle Americans enthusiastic about increasing the numbers coming? Where is the majority demanding amnesty or open borders?

The elites of Europe are as out of touch as America’s.

Angela Merkel, Time’s Person of the Year in 2015, is at risk of being dumped in 2016 if she does not halt the next wave of Middle Eastern refugees who will be arriving on Europe’s shores when the seas calm in the spring in the Aegean and the Mediterranean.

If we believe the immigration issue Trump has seized upon is explosive here, look to Europe. In the Balkans and Central Europe, even in Austria, the barriers are going up and the border guards appearing.

Mass migration from the Third World to the First World is not only radicalizing America. It could destroy the European Union. Anger over any more migrants entering the country is among the reasons British patriots now want out of the EU.

America is crossing into a new era. Trump seems to have caught the wave, while Clinton seems to belong to yesterday.

A note of caution: This establishment is not going quietly.

See (emphasis added); see also (“All Signs Point To ‘The Donald'”—”The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly Trump Change national survey finds that 81% of Likely Republican Voters now believe the billionaire businessman will win the GOP nomination, with 45% who say it is Very Likely. Both are the highest findings to date”—”Among all likely voters, 70% feel Trump is the likely Republican nominee, with 37% who consider it Very Likely”—”Men are still more confident of a Trump nomination than women are, but most voters in both groups consider it likely. While 77% of whites and 60% of other minority voters think a Trump nomination is likely, just 47% of blacks agree”) and (“Hillary could lose to Trump in Democratic New York“) and (“Clinton Fatigue”) and (“Fears of Trump as Fascist Echo Similar Warnings Against Ronald Reagan”) and (“Amid Trump surge, nearly 20,000 Mass. voters quit Democratic party”)

If Hillary Clinton is indicted criminally, it will be “game over” for her presidential aspirations.

Buchanan is correct that the EU may be on the verge of fragmenting. The wave that is rolling American politics seems to be washing over European shores as well.

See (“Clinton Fatigue“) and (“The EU And Brexit“)


1 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

A New Republican Party Under President Trump

Trump and Secret Service

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

The first four Republican contests — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — produced record turnouts.

While the prospect of routing Hillary Clinton and recapturing the White House brought out the true believers, it was Donald Trump’s name on the ballot and his calls for economic patriotism, border security, and an end to imperial wars that brought out the throngs.

The crowds that continue to come out for his appearances and the vast audiences he has attracted to GOP debates testify to his drawing power.

Moreover, Trump has now been endorsed by Gov. Chris Christie, ex-chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, one of the most respected conservatives on Capitol Hill.

Yet, with polls pointing to a possible Trump sweep on Super Tuesday, save Texas, his probable nomination, and a chance for the GOP to take it all in the fall, is causing some conservatives and Republicans to threaten to bolt, go third party, stay home, or even vote for Clinton.

They would prefer to lose to Clinton than win with Trump.

A conservative friend told this writer that Trump, unlike, say, Ted Cruz, has never shown an interest in the Supreme Court, which, with Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat vacant, hangs in the balance.

Yet, surely, a President Trump, hearing the clamor of those who elected him to find a Scalia, would be responsive.

With President Clinton, the court is gone for a generation.

We hear wails that the nomination of Trump would mean the end of the conservative movement. But how so?

If Trump won and conducted a conservative government, it would validate the movement. If Trump won and turned left, it would inspire an insurgency like Ronald Reagan’s in 1976, when the Ford-Rockefeller-Kissinger administration moved too far toward detente.

If Trump ran and lost, the conservative movement would have President Clinton to unite and rally the troops against.

One recalls Barry Goldwater’s historic wipeout in 1964. But, in 1966, Republicans made the greatest gains in a generation, and went on to win the presidency for 20 of the next 24 years.

Undeniably, a Trump presidency would mean an end to the Bush and establishment policies on trade, immigration and intervention.

But those policies have already been repudiated in the primaries, as they have proven to be transparent failures for America.

As long ago as the early 1990s, populist conservatives were imploring George H. W. Bush to secure our Mexican border, as tens of thousands poured across in the San Diego-Tijuana corridor. Gov. Pete Wilson turned near-certain defeat into a stunning comeback victory in 1994 by promising to send the National Guard.

Why did the establishment not respond then to the electorate? Why, instead of trashing Wilson for imperiling future party prospects with Hispanics, did the establishment not do what the people had demanded and move decisively to secure our southern border?

What is conservative about uncontrolled borders?

Why, as trade deficits with China and the world rose from the tens of billions to hundreds of billions, did the establishment not wake up and see the shuttering factories, the lost jobs and the ghost towns arising across America — and react?

Could they not see that, as we celebrated globalization, Beijing and Tokyo were practicing ruthless mercantilism and protectionism?

At the end of the Cold War in 1991, many Americans urged that, with the Soviet Empire dissolved and Soviet Union disintegrating, it was time to bring our troops home and let the rich fat nations that had been freeloading for half a century provide the soldiers and pay the cost of their own security.

Instead, the establishment opted for empire, for expanding old alliances, dumping over regimes, crusading for democracy, sending our soldiers out to remake Third World countries in the image of Iowa and Vermont.

Who now thinks all these wars were worth the cost?

Whether Trump wins or loses the nomination, the immigration, trade and foreign policies pursued by the elites since the end of the Cold War are dead letters. The nation has declared them to be so in the primaries.

Who is campaigning, in either party today, for open borders, or passing The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or sending troops back to Iraq or into Syria?

The Bernie Sanders insurgency appears to have been turned back by the vested interests of his party. But like the George McGovern insurgency in ’72, which also relied heavily upon the enthusiasm of the young, Sanders’ socialism may be the ideological future of his party.

The same may be said of the Trump insurgency. Whatever happens at Cleveland, the returns from the primaries look like the passing of the old order, the death rattle of an establishment fighting for its life, and being laughed at and mocked as it goes down.

As in 1964 and 1980, a new Republican Party is taking shape.

Defections are to be expected, and not altogether unwelcome.

See (“Is a New GOP Being Born?”)

It is time to jettison the Neanderthals from the GOP, which is why lots of us left the party years ago. Yes, we will come back for Trump, but not for anyone else.

If he is not the party’s nominee, we will bolt and vote as Independents, or we will not vote at all. We do not need the GOP.

Also, America is not wedded to a two-party system, period.

See (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents“) and (“The GOP Neanderthals“)


1 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Melania Trump CNN Interview With Anderson Cooper [UPDATED]

[Trump Towers, New York City, February 29, 2016]

See also (“Melania Trump MSNBC Interview“)


2 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

When Will Hillary Disavow Bill Clinton? [UPDATED]


The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Political commentator and Trump supporter Jeffrey Lord said the Ku Klux Klan is a ‘leftist’ organization during a sizzling clash with [black] former Obama staffer Van Jones during a CNN Super Tuesday debate.

Lord, who wrote a book entitled What America Needs: The Case For Trump, went head-to-head with CNN’s Van Jones during a discussion about Trump’s reluctance to disavow the support of former KKK leader David Duke.

Things became heated when fellow contributor S.E. Cupp, a conservative, accused Trump of ‘crazy, dog-whistle policy proposals’ to win the support of prejudiced voters.

He said: ‘Donald Trump has tried to otherize every other candidate in this race….to sort of scare this very small part of the electorate who thinks that all of their problems are the fault of people who don’t look like them’.

Lord leaped to The Donald’s defense and rounded on the Republican establishment, saying ‘their view of civil rights is to tip the black waiter five bucks at the country club’.

At this point, Jones intervened and said: ‘The things that Donald Trump has done – and not just in this race – are horribly offensive’.

He continued: ‘There is a dark underside here. … He is whipping up and tapping into and pushing buttons that are very, very frightening to me and frightening to a lot of people’.

Referring to Trump’s refusal to denounce the KKK in an interview Sunday before eventually doing so on Twitter, Van Jones said: ‘Playing funny with the Klan, that is not cool’.

Before suggesting The Donald is selective when it comes to his fight against terrorism: ‘I know this man [Trump] when he gets passionate about terrorism,’ Jones said. ‘I know how he talks about terrorism. The Klan is a terrorist organization’.

At this point Lord interrupted Jones, saying: ‘A leftist organization’.

He later said: ‘It is wrong to understand that these are not leftists. They were the military arm, the terrorist arm of the Democratic party.’

Lord seemed to be referring to the beginnings of the Ku Klux Klan, when some conservative Democrats resisted Reconstruction policies after the Civil War.

Jones angrily replied: ‘“What difference does it make if you call them leftists?. Call them chipmunks! They kill people. Don’t play games with that.

‘I don’t care how they voted 50 years ago. I care about who they killed’.

To which Lord quipped: ‘I care about American history. It counts’.

Two days before, Lord called former KKK Grand Wizard Duke ‘a hardcore leftist’ in another CNN interview.

Lord has a history of bringing up allegations of white supremacy in the Democratic party. He wrote a 1900-word article in the Wall Street Journal in 2008, pointing out the ‘missing’ parts of the party’s history – most of them after the Civil War and during the Civil Rights movement.

However, historians agree that the historical Democratic party has little to do with what it is today as both Republican and Democratic ideologies have shifted in the past decades.

‘The simple fact is that, despite surface similarities, the Republican and Democratic parties of mid-century were vastly different beasts than their contemporary counterparts,’ Slate chief political correspondent Jamelle Bouie wrote in 2014.

‘Unlike the ideologically coherent parties of today (i.e., most Democrats are liberals and most Republicans are conservatives), the Republicans and Democrats of the immediate post-war period were heterodox coalitions of interest and historical circumstance.’

Bouie, writing about a different case, said at the time it was ‘silly’ to refer to the Ku Klux Klan as a paramilitary faction of the Democratic party while making a connection with modern politics.

‘Yes, in the 1870s, the Klan was a near-surrogate for a Democratic Party that was fundamentally different in terms of its constituency and ideology than the one we’ve had for the last half-century,’ he wrote.

Trump told ABC on Tuesday he disavowed all forms of racism and bigotry and said he was a champion of equality.

He gave the example of his ‘inclusive’ Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, and said the establishment had set a new standard in the area by accepting all would-be members in the 1990s.

Despite his assurances, Trump has been unable to avoid a murky association with the violent and racist KKK group.

Last year he was forced to deny the veracity of a 1927 New York Times report that said his father Fred Trump was arrested during a KKK riot in 1927.

The report listed ‘Fred Trump’ as one of the people taken in during a ‘free-for-all’ battle between police and 1,000 members of the Ku Klux Klan.

The address in the article also matches that of Trump’s father in Queens.

At the time, he would have been just 21, long before he became a self-made millionaire as a real estate developer.

Trump however told Daily Mail Online that his father had not been arrested and that it was impossible he could have been, as it would have prevented him getting business licenses in the future.

This is ridiculous,’ he said.

‘He was never arrested. He has nothing to do with this. This never happened. This is nonsense and it never happened.

‘This never happened. Never took place. He was never arrested, never convicted, never even charged.

‘It’s a completely false, ridiculous story. He was never there! It never happened. Never took place.

‘Think – if it had, he would never have been able to get licenses in New York for anything associated with his business, with construction. This is just bizarre and untrue.

The article stated that ‘1,000 Klansmen and 100 policemen staged a free-for-all’ during a May parade.

Their anger had been prompted by claims that ‘Roman Catholic’ police officers from the NYPD had earlier stopped Klansmen taking part in a Memorial parade – and beaten them.

The Times reported that a KKK flyer claimed: ‘Native-born Protestant Americans clubbed and beaten when they exercise their rights in the country of their birth.’

Trump’s father was born to German immigrants who came to this country in the early 1900s.

He began working in real estate when he was just 15, starting a company with his mother Elizabeth.

He went on to build single-family houses in Queens in the late 1920s and later supermarkets in the 1930s. He married Donald’s mother Mary Anne in 1936. She was a Scottish immigrant from the Isle of Lewis, and the couple had five children.

He would go on to build barracks during World War II on the East Coast and then move into affordable housing, amassing an estimated fortune of $250million at the time of his death in 1999 as the result of pneumonia.

See (“Trump supporter calls the KKK ‘leftists’ in blazing row with African American ex-Obama staffer Van Jones on CNN during Super Tuesday”) (emphasis added); see also (“Ku Klux Klan”—”[T]the Klan was a political failure and therefore was discarded by the Democratic leaders of the South”—”[T]he Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party”—”The KKK made people vote Democratic and gave them certificates of the fact”)

First, KKK members were products of the Democrats’ racist South.

Second, Jones is super-obnoxious. Just watch him on CNN if you have any doubts.

Third, Barack Obama is a black racist. Please read his book, “Dreams from my Father,” which sets forth his core racial beliefs.

There will not be a shadow of doubt in your mind if you read the book, which is summarized in the article at the following link, with direct quotes from Obama accompanied by page cites.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist and lawyer, Ann Coulter, added:

Do they have TV sets at CNN? An Internet connection? I don’t work at a television network, but I saw Trump “disavow” David Duke a half-dozen times before Jake Tapper asked him to disavow Duke again last Sunday.

The question served absolutely no journalistic purpose. No new information was sought. It was just a smear, for the sole purpose of getting the words “KKK” into the same sentence as “Donald Trump.”

Unsuspecting viewers who missed Trump’s earlier disavowals are supposed to think, Is Trump connected with the Klan? Why else would they be asking him about David Duke?

Given that Trump did disavow Duke the day before the Tapper interview, the only explanation for his refusal to do it again is that he was ticked off by the question and decided not to play ball. (Tip for journalists: When WASPs don’t want to answer impertinent questions from reporters, they often say, “I don’t know,” rather than the more urban “go f—yourself.”)

How many times must Trump waste precious airtime “disavowing” some random person he doesn’t know, has never met and never mentioned?

David Duke IS a random person: The KKK has not been an organization of any significance since the mid-’60s (outside of Southern Poverty Law Center fundraisers), and David Duke hasn’t been a member of this meaningless group since 1980.

Also, David Duke has never been accused of rape. Hillary’s most prominent supporter has. Will she be asked to disavow Bill Clinton?

If she doesn’t think her husband raped Juanita Broaddrick, how about the sexual assaults claimed by Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Christy Zercher, Eileen Wellstone, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Sandra Allen James, as well as a half-dozen other women?

Does Hillary believe any of her husband’s accusers? How many sexual assault accusations must there be before she disavows him?

As far as I know, David Duke has also never supported cop-killing. Boatloads of Hillary’s supporters do — and she plays footsie with them by endorsing #BlackLivesMatter.

I will give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, and say I do not believe that she personally supports cop-killing. But why is she seeking the votes of murderous thugs? What kind of campaign is she running that attracts such people? Will she disavow them? Is she willing to state forthrightly that cops’ lives matter?

I am not aware of David Duke ever inciting a mob that went on to commit murder. Al Sharpton has — and no Democrat can run for president without kissing his ring.

More than a decade after Duke quit the KKK, Sharpton inflamed anti-Semitic mobs in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights — mobs that were four or five times larger than the entire national KKK membership — fueling several more days of riots, during which a man, whom the crowd believed to be Jewish, was murdered.

In December 1995, Sharpton led anti-Semitic protests against a Jewish-owned clothing store in Harlem, Freddy’s Fashion Mart, which ended with a protestor bursting into the store and setting a blaze that killed seven employees.

In 1989, Sharpton libeled innocent law enforcement officers in the Tawana Brawley rape hoax — resulting in a libel judgment against him. Then in 1990, a Sharpton-led mob screamed “Whore!” at a rape victim and roughed up cameramen outside the trial of the Central Park rapists (who were guilty).

Sharpton isn’t some random nut Hillary and Bernie have vaguely heard of. Two weeks ago, Bernie Sanders publicly met with Sharpton to ask for his blessing. Hillary will be making the same pilgrimage soon. My advice is, bring your checkbook.

David Duke doesn’t speak at Republican national conventions; Sharpton was given a prominent speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention less than a decade after his demagoguery outside Freddy’s ended in the deaths of seven innocent people (this was also a quarter century after Duke left the Klan).

Duke isn’t invited to the White House to advise Republican presidents. Sharpton has officially visited Obama’s White House at least 72 times.

Duke has never been given a TV show where he gets to ask questions of elected officials. Guess who was?

In fact, now that I think about it, Duke has no connection to any GOP official whatsoever!

When David Duke is invited to give a prime-time address at the Republican National Convention, maybe the media can ask Republican candidates to “disavow” him. Until then, how about asking the Democrats about their supporters?

Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was endorsed by Willie Horton, a vicious murderer, who, after being released by Dukakis, broke into a Maryland couple’s home, tortured and raped them.

Dukakis wasn’t asked to disavow Willie Horton’s endorsement. To the contrary! President Bush was called on to repudiate a flier connecting Dukakis to Horton — whose release from “life in prison” was 100 percent the result of Dukakis’ idiotic furlough policy. Bush’s campaign chairman James A. Baker III acquiesced and disavowed the flier, in keeping with the GOP motto, “Groveling Always Works!”

Jimmy Carter was endorsed by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and Obama was endorsed by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez — as well as his own friend, Pentagon-bomber William Ayers. Bernie Sanders has supporters who admired the world’s greatest mass murder, Josef Stalin.

But never, ever, ever will Democrats be asked to “disavow” the lunatics who support them. The ritualistic demand for “disavowals” is a game played exclusively with Republicans.

The media probably can’t believe their luck, tricking Republicans into apologizing for people they have nothing to do with, while the Democrats happily accept the support of cop-killers, rapists, murderers, anti-Semitic race hustlers and domestic terrorists.

This week, Trump trashed the GOP’s time-tested groveling approach, then went on to sweep Super Tuesday. Perhaps someday, the boneless wonders in the GOP will learn.

See (“Trump Wins ‘Disavowal’ Game, Then Super Tuesday”) (emphasis added); see also (“Clinton Fatigue“)


3 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele


Mitt and Ann: no class!

Finally, like the long-asleep Rip Van Winkle, the Republican Party is coming to grips with the fact that Donald Trump is likely to win the party’s presidential nomination and be the party’s standard bearer in November. Thus, the GOP’s brain-dead “establishment” Neanderthals are pulling out all stops to defeat him.

The latest “sour grapes” efforts involve former GOP candidate Mitt Romney.

See (“Mitt Romney Attacks Donald Trump as a ‘Fraud’”—”Romney epitomizes the party’s establishment wing, so his attacks on the front-runner may only reinforce Mr. Trump’s support with voters who feel shut out by the political system and continue to express high levels of anger at GOP leaders in Washington. Mr. Trump has responded to efforts to slow his campaign by arguing that his campaign is expanding the party’s footprint, drawing millions of new voters to the GOP”) and (“Mitt Romney’s doomed plot to stop Donald Trump will only blow up in his face”—”Mitt always had something of the Las Vegas comic about him – one of those acts that comes on at five in the afternoon at the Emperor Penguin Casino to introduce a troupe of dancing poodles. ‘I’m here all week,’ one can imagine him saying: an embalmed no hoper from yesteryear who has been around since 2008″—”[T]he thing about Trump is that he keeps on winning”—”Donald Trump . . . has pledged to back the eventual nominee while simultaneously saying that he might not. This week he affirmed: ‘If I go . . . independent, which I may do . . . these millions of people that joined, they’re all coming with me'”—”Ted Cruz is more loathed in some quarters than The Donald. If Marco Rubio loses his home state of Florida on March 15, as predicted, then he really ought to quit the race”—”[T]he establishment is simply impotent. It has been worked over by a populist rising from within its ranks that it can neither negotiate with nor crush”) and (“Romney is too much a coward to say what’s really on his mind”—”Romney wants back in, but doesn’t have the nerve to come out and say it. So typical, and another example of what so many Republicans like about Trump. As writer and Fox commentator Monica Crowley put it, frustrated GOP voters ‘want a street fighter,’ and in Trump, they finally have one”—”Suppose a furious Trump runs as an independent. Or suppose the bulk of his voters sit on their hands on Election Day. Either way, Clinton probably waltzes into the White House. Any way you slice it, Romney offers no solution to the GOP’s dilemma”) and (“Rush Limbaugh Destroys Romney – Reminds Him Of The PATHETIC Thing His Father Did In 1964!“) and (Rasmussen Reports: “Voters Say No to Romney”—”Romney has recorded pre-primary telephone calls endorsing Marco Rubio in Florida and John Kasich in Ohio, but the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 15% of Likely Republican Voters say they are more likely to vote for a candidate he endorses. Slightly more Republicans (17%) are less likely to vote for that candidate, while 67% say Romney’s endorsement would have no impact on their voting decision”—”Among all voters, 10% are more likely to vote for a candidate Romney endorses, while 18% are less likely to do so. Seventy-one percent (71%) say an endorsement from Romney would have no impact on how they vote. Just 24% of all voters say they would vote for Romney to be the next president if the Republican national convention is unable to nominate any of the candidates now running and chooses him as a compromise nominee. Sixty-one percent (61%) would not vote for Romney, while 15% are not sure. Among GOP voters, 39% would vote for Romney, but 45% would not. Sixteen percent (16%) are undecided. By comparison, 36% of Republicans say they are likely to vote for Trump if he runs as a third-party presidential candidate, with 24% who say it’s Very Likely”)

I voted for Romney in 2012. However, in trashing Trump, I am ashamed that I did so.

Romney had his chance. He picked Paul Ryan as his running mate; and Ryan did not even carry his own state of Wisconsin for the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Romney’s time has passed. He is yesterday’s news. Enough is enough.

Donald Trump is in the process of creating a new and more vibrant GOP.

See (“A New Republican Party Under President Trump“).

Hopefully Romney will join us, instead of trying to be a spoiler.

Lots of us left the GOP years ago, and will only come back for Trump. Otherwise, we will not vote; or we will vote for the Independent candidacy of Trump—or some may actually hold their noses and vote for Hillary Clinton.

Mitt Romney is pathetic; and the GOP “establishment” consists of neutered Neanderthals.

See (“GOP Establishment Neanderthals’ Panic, Suicide“) and (“Clinton Fatigue“) and (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents”); see also (“The GOP Neanderthals“) and (“Melania Trump CNN Interview With Anderson Cooper“) and (“Melania Trump MSNBC Interview“) and (“When Will Hillary Disavow Bill Clinton?“) and (“Donald Trump’s Odds Against Hillary Clinton“) and (“Why Trump?“) and (“Why Is America So Angry?“) and (“It’s Time For The Other 13 GOP Candidates to Drop Out“) and (“Inside the GOP effort to draft an independent candidate to derail Trump”—”A band of exasperated Republicans — including 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney, a handful of veteran consultants and members of the conservative intelligentsia — is actively plotting to draft an independent presidential candidate who could keep Donald Trump from the White House”—”The effort has been sporadic all spring but has intensified significantly in the 10 days since Trump effectively locked up the Republican nomination. Those involved concede that an independent campaign at this late stage is probably futile. . . .”) and (“Former House Speaker Gingrich, referring to Mr. Romney in a [Wall Street] Journal interview this week said: ‘Having a guy like that go berserk in public makes you wonder what his problems are'”) and (“Romney rips 2016 also-rans for losing to Trump“)

[Note: Not only did I vote for Mitt Romney in 2012, but I went out on a limb and predicted that he would win, and defeat Barack Obama. See, e.g., (“Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who Will Not Be Reelected”). Thus, it is with great disappointment that lots of us witness Romney trashing Trump—instead of supporting him, just as we rallied behind Mitt right up to the election day. Romney should be persona non grata at the Trump White House and in the future GOP. He is truly a pathetic creature.]


4 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

GOP Establishment Neanderthals’ Panic, Suicide [UPDATED]

GOP Establishment Neanderthals

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

Donald Trump “appeals to racism.”

“[F]rom the beginning . . . his campaign has profited from voter prejudice and hatred” and represents an “authoritarian assault upon democracy.”

If Speaker Paul Ryan wishes to be “on the right side of history … he must condemn Mr. Trump clearly and comprehensively. The same goes for every other Republican leader.”

“Maybe that would split the (Republican) party,” but, “No job is worth the moral stain that would come from embracing (Trump). No party is worth saving at the expense of the country.”

If Republican leaders wish to be regarded as moral, every one of them must renounce Trump, even if it means destroying their party.

Who has laid down this moral mandate? The Holy Father in Rome?

No. The voice posturing as the conscience of America is the Washington Post, which champions abortion on demand and has not, in the memory of this writer, endorsed any Republican for president – though it did endorse Marion Barry three times for mayor of D.C.

Anticipating the Post’s orders, Sen. Marco Rubio has been painting Trump as a “scam artist” and “con artist,” with an “orange” complexion, a “spray tan” and “tiny hands,” who is “unfit to lead the party of Lincoln and Reagan.”

The establishment is loving Rubio, and the networks are giving him more airtime. And Rubio is reciprocating, promising that, even if defeated in his home state of Florida on March 15, he will drive his pickup across the country warning against the menace of Trump.

Rubio, however, seems not to have detected the moral threat of Trump, until polls showed Rubio being wiped out on Super Tuesday and in real danger of losing Florida.

Mitt Romney has also suddenly discovered what a fraud and phony is the businessman-builder whose endorsement he so avidly sought and so oleaginously accepted in Las Vegas in 2012.

Before other Republicans submit to the ultimatum of the Post, and of the columnists and commentators pushing a “Never Trump” strategy at the Cleveland convention, they should ask themselves: For whom is it that they will be bringing about party suicide?

That the Beltway elites, whose voice is the Post, hate and fear Trump is not only undeniable, it is understandable.

The Post beat the drums for the endless Mideast wars that bled and near bankrupted the country. Trump will not start another.

The Post welcomes open borders that bring in millions to continue the endless expansion of the welfare state and to change the character of the country we grew up in. Trump will build the wall and repatriate those here illegally.

Trump threatens the trade treaties that enable amoral transnational corporations to ship factories and jobs overseas to produce cheaply abroad and be rid of American employees who are ever demanding better wages and working conditions.

What does the Post care about trade deals that deindustrialize America when the advertising dollars of the big conglomerates are what make Big Media fat and happy?

The political establishment in Washington depends on Wall Street and K Street for PAC money and campaign contributions. Wall Street and K Street depend on the political establishment to protect their right to abandon America for the greener pastures abroad.

Before March 15, when Florida and Ohio vote and the fates of Rubio and Gov. John Kasich are decided, nothing is likely to stop the ferocious infighting of the primaries.

But after March 15, the smoke will have cleared.

If Trump has fallen short of a glide path to the nomination, the war goes on. But if Trump seems to be the near-certain nominee, it will be a time for acceptance, a time for a cease-fire in this bloodiest of civil wars in the GOP.

Otherwise, the party will kick away any chance of keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House, and perhaps kick away its future as well.

While the depth and rancor of the divisions in the party are apparent, so also is the opportunity. For the turnout in the Republican primaries and caucuses has not only exceeded expectations, it has astonished and awed political observers.

A new “New Majority” has been marching to the polls and voting Republican, a majority unlike any seen since the 49-state landslides of the Nixon and Reagan eras.

If this energy can be maintained, if those throngs of Republican voters can be united in the fall, then the party can hold Congress, capture the While House and reconstitute the Supreme Court.

Come the ides of March, the GOP is going to be in need of its uniters and its statesmen. But today, all Republicans should ask themselves:

Are these folks coming out in droves to vote Republican really the bigoted, hateful and authoritarian people of the Post’s depiction?

Or is this not the same old Post that has poured bile on conservatives for generations now in a panic that America’s destiny may be torn away from it and restored to its rightful owners?

See; see also (“Pat Buchanan: Trump Cannot Be Faulted for Skipping CPAC”—”‘If Donald Trump can win Florida and Ohio, which is much closer right now, where Gov. [John] Kasich is running — if he wins those two, it’s a straight glide to the nomination'”) and (“The GOP Neanderthals“) and (“MITT ROMNEY: NO CLASS!“)

Donald Trump represents the future of a new GOP. Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, George Will and other Neanderthals represent its past.

See (“A New Republican Party Under President Trump”) and (“Clash of Republican Con Artists”—”Establishment Republicans denounce Mr. Trump as a fraud . . . . But is he more fraudulent than the establishment trying to stop him? Not really”—”[Trump is] belligerent, but unlike Mr. Rubio, he isn’t the favorite of the neoconservatives, a.k.a. the people responsible for the Iraq debacle. He’s even said what everyone knows but nobody on the right is supposed to admit, that the Bush administration deliberately misled America into that disastrous war”—”[T]he establishment’s problem with Mr. Trump isn’t the con he brings; it’s the cons he disrupts”—”I predict that even if Mr. Trump is the nominee, pundits and others who claim to be thoughtful conservatives will stroke their chins and declare, after a great show of careful deliberation, that he’s the better choice given Hillary’s character flaws, or something”—”[T]he Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base. I’m talking about the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class”—”[W]e should actually welcome Mr. Trump’s ascent. Yes, he’s a con man, but he is also effectively acting as a whistle-blower on other people’s cons. That is, believe it or not, a step forward in these weird, troubled times”) and (“The Republican Party Is Shattering”)

Yes, the GOP is shattering, but who cares?

Some of us are Democrats, who certainly do not care. Others of us are part of the growing number of Independents, and we do not care either.

Indeed, lots of us left the GOP years ago and will only come back for Trump.

I worked in the U.S. Senate and headed the staff of a Republican senator. I witnessed the GOP Neanderthals personally, and left the party.

Many of us will truly believe that our democracy works when we elect an Independent president.

Both Lincoln and Reagan would be disgusted with the GOP today.

The “old” GOP is dead, and Donald Trump is writing its well-deserved obituary.


5 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Imagine Sweet Justice [UPDATED]


Imagine, just imagine that Hillary is indicted—and it is “game over” for her presidential aspirations—and The Donald continues to sweep the field, and is the GOP nominee.

Imagine Bernie Sanders against Trump.

At the very least, it would pit two gutsy and authentic Americans against each other.

And imagine too, if Trump picks John Kasich as his running mate; and if Barack Obama pardons Hillary, as he leaves the White House forever, before handing the “keys” to President Trump and his First Lady, the lovely and intelligent Melania.

For those who say it cannot happen, they are naïve.

If anyone deserved to be indicted and prosecuted, it is Hillary. She has done far worse than Richard Nixon ever did. Just ask the women whom Bill Clinton “deflowered,” and whom Hillary ridiculed—and ask the families of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Ty Woods, as well as those who survived living hell in Benghazi, Libya during the attack there.

See (“2012 Benghazi attack“) and; see also (“Clinton’s Email Jeopardy”—”Her real liability is an email scandal that has put her in legal jeopardy”—”The real action is in the courts, the FBI and Justice Department”—”Of 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton turned over to State, we now know that 2,093 were classified as ‘confidential’ or ‘secret.’ Another 22 were classified ‘top secret'”—”[A] grand jury may be empaneled if it isn’t underway”—”These investigations need to follow their honest course and hold Mrs. Clinton accountable for her actions. The country can handle the political fallout”) and (“Thousands of Bernie Sanders supporters call for Bill Clinton’s arrest after alleging the former president broke the law by campaigning for Hillary too close to polling places on Super Tuesday”—”A petition, signed by 95,000 people, was started by Bernie Sanders supporters who say Bill Clinton was campaigning for Hillary within the 150 feet buffer space of polling locations”) and (Petition: “Arrest & prosecute Bill Clinton for Violation of Mass. Election Laws”) and (“Clinton Fatigue“)

Imagine Hillary Clinton wearing an orange prison jumpsuit.

Sweet justice.


5 03 2016

Mr. Naegele,

Even though I don’t comment on everything I read here, I nevertheless (as I am sure I speak for many others) get a great deal from your input and insight.

This is probably the most interesting election cycle in my lifetime, and one in which I hope will result in REAL change. I do sense a very deep resentment (amongst fellow Americans that I speak with) against the “inside the beltway” business as usual, power elite. One very informed gentleman that I spoke with the other day, agreed, that the internet has played a gigantic roll in informing people. We both were of the opinion that unvarnished truth and information are what despotic governments have always feared.

Keep up with the good work you are doing in spreading truthful information. Your efforts, along with many others, are doing a very valuable and patriotic service to our country!

Liked by 1 person

5 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Ray, for your very kind words. I appreciate them greatly.

I have enormous faith in and respect for the collective wisdom of the American people. Sometimes it takes a while for them to come to their conclusions, but the “wait” is generally worth it—and what our democracy is really all about.

Like you, I believe “[t]his is probably the most interesting election cycle in my lifetime.”

The failings of government at all levels are being exposed; and the American people are standing up and saying enough is enough. Whether one is a Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever, it shows a deep love for our wonderful country that is rocking the “establishments” here and everywhere.

As I have written, this is happening in the UK with its upcoming “Brexit” vote to leave the EU; and it is happening in country after country. The people’s collective voices are being heard.

See (“The EU And Brexit”)

Indeed, it would not be a surprise if this happens in Russia and China too, and perhaps even in North Korea. Cuba may be next.

See (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”) and (“The Coming Chinese Crack-Up”)

Lastly, as amazing as it seems, American oil exports may play a significant role in what will be happening.

See (“US Oil Exports Mark Game-Changing Shift in Global Power”)

There is essentially no limit to American dreams, ingenuity, resourcefulness and faith. Once unleashed, they are very powerful forces for good in our lives and the lives of others around the world.


8 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Anti-Trump Savagery [UPDATED]

Donald Trump

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

Narrow victories in the Kentucky caucuses and the Louisiana primary, the largest states decided on Saturday, have moved Donald Trump one step nearer to the nomination.

Primaries in Michigan, Mississippi and Idaho on March 8, and in Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina on March 15, may prove decisive. If Marco Rubio does not win his home state of Florida, he is cooked, as is Gov. John Kasich if he does not win Ohio.

Ted Cruz already looks to be the last man between Trump and a GOP nomination that has gone, in the last seven elections, to George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

All five of those nominees since 1988 seem appalled by Trump’s triumphs, and only slightly less so by the Cruz alternative.

Not in memory has the leadership of a party been so out of touch. The Republican rank and file are in revolt, not only against the failures of their fathers but the policies of their present rulers.

Some among the GOP elites, who have waited patiently through the Obama era to recapture control of U.S. foreign policy, are now beside themselves with despair over Trump’s success.

Fully 116 members of the GOP’s national security community, many of them veterans of Bush administrations, have signed an open letter threatening that, if Trump is nominated, they will all desert, and some will defect – to Hillary Clinton!

“Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin,” says Eliot Cohen of the Bush II State Department. According to Politico’s Michael Crowley, Cohen helped line up neocons to sign the “Dump-Trump” manifesto.

Another signer, Robert Kagan, wailed in the Washington Post, “The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.”

Are they serious?

Victory for Clinton would mean her remaking the Supreme Court, killing all chances that Roe v. Wade could be overturned, or that we could get another justice like Antonin Scalia before 2021.

What are these renegades and turncoats so anguished about?

Trump calls the Iraq War many of them championed an historic blunder. Trump says that, while a supporter of Israel, he would be a “neutral” honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians in peace negotiations, as was Jimmy Carter at Camp David.

Trump says he would “get along very well” with Vladimir Putin, as Richard Nixon got along with Leonid Brezhnev and Mao Zedong.

Trump would launch no new crusades for democracy. He would not oppose Russia bombing ISIS. He would build that wall on the border. He would transfer from U.S. taxpayers to rich allies more of the cost of defending themselves.

Do not most Americans agree with much of this?

Yet this neocon ultimatum about deserting should the voters nominate Trump testifies eloquently to their loyalty.

With every ex-president and ex-nominee repudiating Trump, and foreign policy elites going rogue, the GOP hierarchy is saying: We will cut Trump dead, just as the Rockefeller-Romney crowd cut Barry Goldwater dead.

This is pure my-way-or-the-highway politics.

But it raises anew the question: Can the establishment stop Trump?

Answer: It is possible, and we shall know by midnight, March 15. If Trump loses Florida and Ohio, winner-take-all primaries, he would likely fall short of the 1,237 delegates needed for nomination on the first ballot.

How could the anti-Trump forces defeat him in Ohio, Florida and Illinois? With the same tactics used to shrink Trump’s victory margins in Virginia, Louisiana and Kentucky to well below what polls had predicted.

In every primary upcoming, Trump is under a ceaseless barrage of attack ads on radio, TV, cable and social media, paid for by super PACs with hoards of cash funneled in by oligarchs.

But Trump, who is self-funding his campaign, has spent next to nothing on ads answering these attacks, or promoting himself or his issues. He has relied almost exclusively on free media.

Yet no amount of free media can match the shellfire falling on him every hour of every day in every primary state.

Our Principles PAC, backed by Nebraska’s billionaire Ricketts family, has poured millions into trashing Trump. American Future Fund is dumping $1.75 million in Florida this week; Club for Growth $1.5 million.

Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer is backing the Conservative Solutions PAC, which has dumped millions into anti-Trump ads and plans to spend more than $7 million between March 1 and 15, with $4 million of that going into Florida. The super PAC pile-on is unprecedented.

How well Trump fares in Michigan and Mississippi, measured against how well he was doing in polls last week, will reveal just how successful super PAC savagery has been in changing hearts and minds.

Can millionaires and billionaires who back open borders, mass immigration, globalization and the disappearance of nation states into transnational collectives overwhelm with their millions spent in ads the patriotic movements that arose this year to the wonderment of America and the world?

Has that proud 18th century boast of Americans, “Here, sir, the people rule!” given way to the rule of the oligarchs?

See (“The Oligarchs’ Super-PAC Anti-Trump Savagery“); see also (“Seeing Trump as vulnerable, GOP elites now eye a contested convention”—”Some Republican donors are not on board with trashing Trump, however. ‘There’s a group that thinks, ‘Look, Trump is likely to be in­evitable here, and let’s not tarnish him,’ said Fred Malek, the RGA’s finance chairman”) and (“GOP and Tech Leaders Hold Secret Meeting to Stop Trump”—”Silicon Valley may be a bastion of liberals, but the threat of a Donald Trump presidency had some of technology’s biggest names meeting behind closed doors with members of the Republican elite”—”‘[E]xpressions of hope that he would be defeated,’ Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol wrote in an emailed report that the Huffington Post obtained and that borrowed from unlikely source material — Karl Marx’s ‘The Communist Manifesto'”—”‘The key task now . . . is less to understand Trump than to stop him,’ Kristol continued”—”Attendees included Republican strategist Karl Rove [and] Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell”—”[T]he meeting’s highlight was Rove presenting focus group findings about Trump”) and (Rasmussen Reports: “24% of GOP Voters Are Very Likely to Vote for Trump If He Runs as a Third-Party Candidate”)

Among the people trashing Trump are the neocons and un-American “Israel Firsters” who brought us the Iraq War—in which thousands of Americans lost their lives or were maimed, and trillions of dollars were wasted.

Indeed, this ungodly lot stood in the way of Barack Obama’s deal with Iran, while the murderous Netanyahu has tried to push us into a war with Iran—on behalf of Israel.

See (“Is Israel Doomed?”)

They must be stopped, and driven from the GOP!


11 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Sea Island Conspiracy Neaderthals

GOP Establishment Neanderthals

Minus the word “Neanderthal,” this is the title of an article by Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself:

Over the long weekend before the Mississippi and Michigan primaries, the sky above Sea Island was black with corporate jets.

Apple’s Tim Cook, Google’s Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, Napster’s Sean Parker, Tesla Motors’ Elon Musk, and other members of the super-rich were jetting in to the exclusive Georgia resort, ostensibly to participate in the annual World Forum of the American Enterprise Institute.

Among the advertised topics of discussion: “Millennials: How Much Do They Matter and What Do They Want?”

That was the cover story.

As revealed by the Huffington Post, Sea Island last weekend was host to a secret conclave at the Cloisters where oligarchs colluded with Beltway elites to reverse the democratic decisions of millions of voters and abort the candidacy of Donald Trump.

Among the journalists at Sea Island were Rich Lowry of National Review, which just devoted an entire issue to the topic: “Against Trump,” and Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the Trumphobic New York Times.

Bush guru Karl Rove of FOX News was on hand, as were Speaker Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham, dispatched by Trump in New Hampshire and a berserker on the subject of the Donald.

So, too, was William Kristol, editor of the rabidly anti-Trump Weekly Standard, who reported back to comrades: “The key task now, to . . . paraphrase Karl Marx, is less to understand Trump than to stop him.”

Kristol earlier tweeted that the Sea Island conclave is “off the record, so please do consider my tweets from there off the record.”

Redeeming itself for relegating Trump to its entertainment pages, the Huffington Post did the nation a service in lifting the rug on “something rotten in the state.”

What we see at Sea Island is that, despite all their babble about bringing the blessings of “democracy” to the world’s benighted, AEI, Neocon Central, believes less in democracy than in perpetual control of the American nation by the ruling Beltway elites.

If an outsider like Trump imperils that control, democracy be damned. The elites will come together to bring him down, because, behind party ties, they are soul brothers in the pursuit of power.

Something else was revealed by the Huffington Post — a deeply embedded corruption that permeates this capital city.

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is a 501(c)(3) under IRS rules, an organization exempt from U.S. taxation.

Million-dollar corporate contributions to AEI are tax-deductible.

This special privilege, this freedom from taxation, is accorded to organizations established for purposes such as “religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary … or the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.”

What the co-conspirators of Sea Island were up at the Cloisters was about as religious as what the Bolsheviks at that girls school known as the Smolny Institute were up to in Petrograd in 1917.

From what has been reported, it would not be extreme to say this was a conspiracy of oligarchs, War Party neocons, and face-card Republicans to reverse the results of the primaries and impose upon the party, against its expressed will, a nominee responsive to the elites’ agenda.

And this taxpayer-subsidized “Dump Trump” camarilla raises even larger issues.

Now America is not Russia or Egypt or China.

But all those countries are now moving purposefully to expose U.S. ties to nongovernmental organizations set up and operating in their capital cities.

Many of those NGOs have had funds funneled to them from U.S. agencies such as the National Endowment for Democracy, which has backed “color-coded revolutions” credited with dumping over regimes in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia.

In the early 1950s, in Iran and Guatemala, the CIA of the Dulles brothers did this work.

Whatever ones thinks of Vladimir Putin, can anyone blame him for not wanting U.S. agencies backing NGOs in Moscow, whose unstated goal is to see him and his regime overthrown?

And whatever one thinks of NED and its subsidiaries, it is time Americans took a hard look at the tax-exempt foundations, think tanks and public policy institutes operating in our capital city.

How many are like AEI, scheming to predetermine the outcome of presidential elections while enjoying tax exemptions and posturing as benign assemblages of disinterested scholars and seekers of truth?

How many of these tax-exempt think tanks are fronts and propaganda organs of transnational corporations that are sustained with tax-deductible dollars, until their “resident scholars” can move into government offices and do the work for which they have been paid handsomely in advance?

How many of these think tanks take foreign money to advance the interests of foreign regimes in America’s capital?

We talk about the “deep state” in Turkey and Egypt, the unseen regimes that exist beneath the public regime and rule the nation no matter the president or prime minister.

What about the “deep state” that rules us, of which we caught a glimpse at Sea Island?

A diligent legislature of a democratic republic would have long since dragged America’s deep state out into the sunlight.




12 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

“Black Lives Matter” Thugs In Chicago [UPDATED]

A legitimate campaign rally in Chicago for Donald Trump was just disrupted by “Black Lives Matter” and other thugs, who should be arrested and imprisoned. They are the inheritors of other violent black movements throughout American history. Indeed, our cities have been burned by them.

See, e.g., (“Rioting, Looting And Killing By Thugs And Hoods In American Cities“) and (“Disappointment In Obama Leads Some Blacks To Ask Whether Voting Is Worth It“) and (“The Painful Twilight Of Barack Obama’s Presidency“)

A war against the police is underway, fostered in large part by the hoods, thugs and criminals who have burned, looted and killed innocent people, destroyed their businesses, and engaged in hate crimes. When the police are gone, who will protect the elderly and inner-city blacks?

Today, these ugly “protestors” intended to stop a scheduled presidential political rally, and shut down free speech. It is not the fault of the Trump campaign, but CNN and other far-Left media outlets have predictably blamed Trump.

These thugs should not have been allowed within miles of the event venue. They are the very worst of America. Their lives do not matter!

They are an outgrowth of Barack Obama’s racism, in the city where his racism was so evident. If you have any doubts whatsoever, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his core racist beliefs in his own words.

See; see also (“TERRORIST BILL AYERS PROTESTS DONALD TRUMP IN CHICAGO”—”Obama buddy and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers was seen protesting Donald Trump in Chicago”—”Bill Ayers, a former leader of the Weather Underground, participated in bombings of the New York City police headquarters in 1970. Barack Obama started his political career in Bill Ayers’ living room”)

Groups like “Black Lives Matter” and MoveOn.Org must be banned from America.


12 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Security Scare At Trump Rally

Security scare

Yesterday, hoods and thugs from despicable groups like “Black Lives Matter” and MoveOn.Org—and outright terrorists like Bill Ayers—stopped a rally for Donald Trump in Chicago.

Ayers is a former leader of the Weather Underground, who participated in the bombings of the New York City police headquarters in 1970, and in whose living room Barack Obama started his political career.

They must be arrested; and such groups must be banned from America.

See (“‘Black Lives Matter’ Thugs In Chicago”)

Today, there was a security scare at another Trump rally at the Dayton, Ohio airport where Trump was speaking. In the video below, you will see Secret Service agents rushing to Trump’s protection.

See (“Secret Service Rushes Stage to Protect Donald Trump at Ohio Rally“) and (“Security jumps stage at Donald Trump event“)


13 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

How Then-Governor Of California Ronald Reagan Dealt With Berkeley Protesters In 1969

See also (“Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers“)


15 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Brownshirts And Republican Wimps

Tweedledum and Tweedledee

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

Friday evening’s Donald Trump rally in Chicago was broken up by a foul-mouthed mob that infiltrated the hall and forced the cancelation of the event to prevent violence and bloodshed.

Brownshirt tactics worked. The mob, triumphant, rejoiced.

And the reaction of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich?

All three Republican rivals blamed — Donald Trump.

With his “dangerous style of leadership,” Trump stokes this anger, mewed Rubio, “This is what happens when a leading presidential candidate goes around feeding into a narrative of bitterness and anger and frustration.”

Rubio implies that if Trump doesn’t tone down his remarks to pacify the rabble, he will be responsible for the violence visited upon him.

Kasich echoed Rubio: “Donald Trump has created a toxic environment (that) has allowed his supporters and those who sometimes seek confrontation to come together in violence.”

But were the thousands of Trump supporters who came out to cheer him that night really looking for a fight? Or were they exercising their right of peaceful assembly?

Cruz charged Trump with “creating an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discord,” thus offering absolution to the mob.

Friday night cried out for moral clarity. What we got from Trump’s rivals was moral mush that called to mind JFK’s favorite quote from Dante: The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.

As news outlets have reported, Friday’s disruption at the University of Illinois-Chicago auditorium was a preplanned assault.

Behind it were the George Soros-funded, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, Hispanics hoisting Mexican flags and cop-haters carrying filthy signs to show their contempt for police.

People for Bernie, a pro-Sanders outfit, tweeted, “[This] wasn’t just luck. It took organizers from dozens of organizations and thousands of people to pull off. Great work.”

Now, Sanders did not order this assault on the civil rights of Trump supporters. But has endorsed him and “Bernie” signs and T-shirts were everywhere among the disrupters. Hence, he has a duty to disavow this conduct and those who engaged in it.

If Sanders refuses, he condones it, and is morally complicit.

Can one imagine how the media would pile on Trump if working-class white males in Trump T-shirts invaded a Hillary Clinton rally and shut it down?

Can one imagine how the networks and cable TV channels that host town halls with the candidates would react if hell-raisers snuck into their audiences and shouted obscenities during discussions?

The keening over the First Amendment would not cease for weeks.

Some of us have been here before, and know how this ends.

When the urban riots broke out in the ’60s, Hubert Humphrey declared that, if he lived in a ghetto, “I could lead a pretty good riot myself.”

At his 1968 convention in Chicago, radicals baited and provoked the cops in the front of the Conrad Hilton, and as this writer watched, their patience exhausted after days of abuse, Chicago’s finest tore into the mob and delivered some street justice.

“Richard Nixon,” wrote Hunter S. Thompson, “is living in the White House today because of what happened that night in Chicago.”

Hunter got that one right.

That fall, Humphrey was daily assailed by the kinds of haters now disrupting Trump rallies. Everywhere he went, they chanted, “Dump the Hump!” At times, Humphrey came close to tears.

That fall, Humphrey realized the monster he helped nurture.

My tormentors, he said, are “not just hecklers, but highly disciplined, well-organized agitators … some of them are anarchists, and some of these groups are destroying the Democratic Party and destroying this country.”

In 1970, when President Nixon sent U.S. troops into Cambodia to clean out Viet Cong sanctuaries, and students rioted, Ronald Reagan called them “cowardly fascists,” and declared, “If there’s going to be a bloodbath, let it begin here.”

Not much Cruz-Rubio-Kasich equivocating there.

When radicals stomped down Wall Street desecrating Old Glory, construction workers came down from the building sites they were working and whaled on them.

Union president Peter J. Brennan was soon in the Oval Office — and in Nixon’s Cabinet. “Secretary Bunker,” we called him.

Prediction. Given their “victory” in Chicago, and its allied nasties will try to replicate it, again and again. And as Americans came to despise the ’60s radicals, they will come to despise them.

And, as in the 1960s, the country will take a turn — to the right.

America has changed from the land we grew up in. But she is not yet ready to allow ugly mobs screaming obscenities at Trump and his folks inside and outside that hall in Chicago, or their paragons like socialist senator Bernie Sanders, to take over the country.

Those raising hell in the street in Chicago and that convention hall are unfit to be citizens of this democratic republic.

For as Edmund Burke reminded us, “Men of intemperate minds can never be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

See (emphasis added)

“Little” Marco, “lying” Ted and even John Kasich are a sorry lot. Right when they should have been defending Donald Trump’s freedom of speech and the freedom of his supporters to attend his rallies, they wimped out.

No wonder lots of us left the GOP years ago.


15 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Donald Trump And The Defeat Of An Entire GOP Consulting Class

Donald Trump

Robert Draper has written a fine article in the New York Times Magazine, which national “political junkies” may love:

As hapless as the news media and the Washington establishment have at times appeared as they flail about in the political tempest wrought by Donald Trump, there is another group in the 2016 election cycle that has come off looking at least as bewildered: the campaign gurus of Trump’s Republican opponents.

Since Watergate, each new president has been ushered in by his own personal Rasputin. Jimmy Carter had Hamilton Jordan, whose 80-page memorandum laid out the electoral pathway for the obscure Georgia governor. Ronald Reagan had Michael Deaver, whose acute understanding of campaign atmospherics would cause Reagan to be viewed as the father of the photo-op. George Bush had his alley-fighting operative, Lee Atwater; Bill Clinton had James Carville, the jut-jawed Cajun campaign veteran; George W. Bush had the ingenious and sharp-elbowed adviser, Karl Rove; Barack Obama had his digitally savvy campaign manager, David Plouffe. The Beltway has come to expect such savants and to confer on them a princely status.

Trump has laid to waste this tradition. If, as expected, he prevails in most of the primary elections tonight, the billionaire developer will most likely be the Republican Party’s nominee — and will have shredded a number of strategic master plans drawn up by his opponents’ well-paid advisers. And Trump will have accomplished this feat with a skeleton crew of largely unknown hired hands whose stated operating principle is “Let Trump Be Trump.” (His campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, last worked with Americans For Prosperity, the advocacy group backed by the billionaire Koch brothers, and before that, the losing 2002 re-election race of Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire. His 26-year-old spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, had never worked on a political campaign.)

“I think you can argue that the key to this race is the assumption everyone made that winning a nomination is easy,” said Stuart Stevens, the senior strategist for the Republicans’ last nominee, Mitt Romney. Stevens was principally referring to Jeb Bush’s campaign, which believed it could pre-emptively crush the opposition with money; even before he formally announced his candidacy, Bush boasted of setting a Republican record for fund-raising. But Stevens also pointed to Ted Cruz’s team — which, he said, “has pursued this Lost Tribes of the Amazon theory, where if you paddle far enough, you’ll find all these white voters who have never voted before.”

He also expressed bafflement at the strategy of Marco Rubio’s campaign, which held that the candidate could survive a long war of attrition by not losing badly in the early contests. “History shows it doesn’t matter who comes in second, third or fourth,” Stevens said. “You have to win states. It’s like the prison movies where you go find the bull of the yard and punch him out. That’s the only way you become top dog. It turns out that only one candidate has been focused on winning, and that’s Donald Trump.”

Stevens himself endured considerable criticism — from Trump, among others — for the manner in which the Romney general-election campaign was waged. And, like virtually every other commentator, he failed to forecast Trump’s staying power, predicting after the front-runner’s loss in Iowa that he would not win a single primary. But Stevens worked for the two successful presidential campaigns of George W. Bush; his misjudgments have not been the product of inexperience.

The same could be said for the 2016 roster of errant strategists. Todd Harris, who helped Rubio win election to the Senate in 2010 and is now one of his chief advisers, also ran Joni Ernst’s successful Senate race in Iowa in 2014. Cruz’s campaign manager, Jeff Roe, was previously the senior strategist for David Dewhurst, the establishment Republican candidate whom Cruz beat in the 2012 Senate race in Texas. Roe and Harris understand better than most what it takes to appeal to conservative voters. Understanding how Trump could so radically rewrite the campaign playbook is another matter.

“When you work for a serious person, you can’t go out and say things that are just untrue,” said Danny Diaz, Jeb Bush’s campaign manager. “You can’t go out and say things that completely contradict your body of work and record. And Trump feels completely uninhibited making arguments with no foundation in truth. And if you’re a serious candidate, you offer policy proposals. He is operating under different rules, through sheer force of his persona and the celebrity culture he’s taken advantage of. And look, from the perspective of marketing and branding, he deserves a lot of credit.”

Trump clearly benefited from early low expectations, from the news media’s fascination with his outrageous utterances and from an unusually crowded field of candidates. (“Ten candidates on a debate stage — the person who benefited the most was the guy who could say five crazy things to lock in his 30 percent,” Diaz said.) But he also enjoyed the unique status of being a businessman whose only relationship with politics was his boastful assertion that he had been able to game the system in his favor. “At the end of the day, he’s doing really well because he’s not a politician, and everyone else is,” said Mike DuHaime, the senior strategist for Chris Christie. “Others tried to say they were outsiders. He truly was.”

The single biggest strategic failure of the 2016 campaign so far has been the failure of Trump’s opponents to attack him until the die was already cast. Partly this is because of the preoccupation that Bush, Rubio, Christie and John Kasich had with one another — the antiquated obsession with “winning the Establishment Lane” — and the need to define what they themselves stood for. But the one candidate who did go after Trump, Bush, came off worse for the experience, which no doubt caused the other candidates to think twice before doing so. (That Bush’s “super PAC,” Right to Rise, spent more money on negative ads against Rubio than against Trump will remain one of 2016’s crowning perplexities.)

The hesitancy to attack Trump can also be explained by the fact that much of the resources for doing so remained on the sidelines until very recently. “A lot of the so-called establishment donors didn’t want to commit to anyone, out of fear of offending everyone else,” DuHaime said. “If you’re a friend of Chris Christie, you’re probably also a friend of the Bushes. They all wanted to wait. And waiting ended up hurting all of us.”

But several of Trump’s opponents — most notably Cruz — clearly demurred from attacking the front-runner in hopes of eventually inheriting Trump’s voters. “The calculus was, I’m not going to engage Trump, because tactically it will disadvantage me down the road,” said Steve Schmidt, who was a senior adviser to George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign before becoming John McCain’s senior campaign strategist in 2008. “But they misunderstood the nature of the Trump candidacy and the need to be as big as Trump, in an oppositional sense. None of them rose to the bigness of a moment that has seen a total collapse in institutions — an era of systemic fraud, combined with flat wage growth over a generation, and with no solutions offered. It’s the job of a leader to contextualize all of that and to explain both the struggles today and the possibility of triumph tomorrow. How many speeches of great American leaders like F.D.R. or Eisenhower do you think these candidates read before they ran for president? I think not too many.”

The hour for Trump’s three remaining opponents to be revising their campaign narratives — so as to appear not simply new or anti-establishment or authentically conservative, but presidential — is growing late. Among them, Schmidt said, “Kasich is the candidate nearest to that space.” Then again, until tonight — when the Ohio governor may win his home state — Kasich has never come close to beating Trump. His senior strategist, John Weaver, now says that Trump can be defeated through a contested convention. That arm-twisting delegates is the only option the anti-Trump forces are down to is proof that an entire Republican consulting class has already been defeated.

See (emphasis added)

Probably the worst and most overrated of the consultants is Karl Rove, who regularly contributes to the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, and who has been unrivaled in his non-stop attacks on Donald Trump.


17 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The World Hates Donald Trump, But So What? [UPDATED]

Donald Trump

Sara Miller Llana has written the following article in the Christian Science Monitor:

British lawmakers have debated banning his entry to their country. A former Australian prime minister said the prospect of his presidency made him “tremble.” Piñatas in his image, complete with his signature coif, have become all the rage in Mexico.

The unorthodox march of Donald Trump toward the Republican nomination has transfixed audiences from London to Latin America. The world has looked on with confusion, consternation, and a few congratulations at the prospect that a brash billionaire with no political experience, who says whatever he wants, could possibly find his way to the White House.

Any US presidential race is hot-ticket international news. But this one comes at a time of deep global insecurity. Mr. Trump’s status as an unknown quantity feeds nations’ worries about everything from the continuation of their trade deals to military ties.

Yet the rise of Trump is also seen in many corners as a gauge of Americans’ concerns about their diminishing role on the world stage. In Europe, this is something of a familiar phenomenon as populists gain at the polls, fueled by frustration over migration, globalization, and social change.

If there is an optimistic side, it lies in the hope of many that, whether he wins or not, Trump’s candidacy will have jostled political elites and forced them to address the gap between a widespread sense of malaise and the simplistic, often outrageous solutions of straight-talking populists.

“It is quite clear that people are not happy with the establishment, and they are so unhappy that they are willing to overlook some pretty serious xenophobia,” says Christine Harlen, who teaches US politics and international political economy at the University of Leeds in England. “Maybe it could be a wake-up call that something has to change.”

Like that of other populists gaining footholds around the world, Trump’s rise is seen as first and foremost a protest.

While Trump’s plans to build a wall along the US-Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it, or temporarily bar Muslims from visiting the United States – which prompted the extraordinary debate in Britain’s Parliament – have attracted a fair share of racist voters, his appeal ripples wider. His supporters like his style as the anti-politician: muscular and even vulgar in speech, deriding the political dysfunction in Washington that has allowed everyday problems to mount.

‘A new face and a new force.’

As Zhu Feng, an analyst of South China Sea issues at China’s Nanjing University, puts it: “He is a real American. I do not see Trump as below the standards of American politics. He is a new face and a new force, and he carries a lot of the real hopes of American people.”

The desire for change is apparent to US neighbors north and south, from the industrial hubs in Canada to the towns along the US-Mexican border. “Americans are overall just angry in a lot of ways,” says Brian Hogan, who works in Windsor, Ontario, across the river from Detroit. “There’s a lot of rancor in that country.”

Mr. Hogan says his American friends feel unstable in their jobs and shaken by racially charged violence and gun crime.

“When people have personal challenges they look for answers,” says Hogan, who leads a local teachers union. “If someone is a racist but he’s going to get you a job, you’d be interested.”

But this is more than just a story of disillusioned individuals. To America’s allies, Trump’s appeal is also an expression of a nation that can’t find its way amid new geopolitical currents, from the rise of China to that of the so-called Islamic State to the country’s own isolationist mood.

Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia, says a substantial number of Americans are accommodating the US’s changing place in the world instead of resisting it. But others are angry and resentful about America’s inability to sway the Syria conflict, for example, or what they see as disruptive changes at home, such as the legalization of gay marriage, and a conviction that they aren’t making headway in a system skewed against them.

Trump’s backers, Mr. Hamilton says, feel vulnerable to invasion: “I’m not talking of military invasion. I’m talking of invasion by economic powers, by financial powers, by immigrants coming up from the south and across the seas – a generalized sense of insecurity that’s taken root in the American populace, which is at the heart of the Trump phenomenon.”

In Asia, this can seem like déjà vu. In Tokyo, Trump’s angry words toward Japan have revived memories of the 1980s trade tensions with the US, provoking puzzlement among those who have witnessed Japan’s struggle with economic stagnation and being overtaken by China in the intervening decades.

Trump has also questioned the validity of the US-Japan security alliance, the bedrock of relations between the two countries since World War II. He accuses Tokyo of not paying enough for the protection it receives from the US. “If Japan gets attacked, we have to immediately go to their aid, . . . if we get attacked, Japan doesn’t have to help us. That’s a fair deal?” Trump asked at a rally in Iowa last August.

Many in the world understand his rise through their own country’s political experiences. That includes similar public figures who have made headlines, from former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to businessman Kevin O’Leary in Canada to former Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto in Japan. But it also touches on populism and a desire for a strong, independent – and rich – leader. This has been a feature of public life in Latin America for decades.

Independent, wealthy leaders attractive

“Urbanization, industrialization brought modernization that challenged traditional norms, and that made people feel scared about their position in society,” says Christopher Sabatini, an associate professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs in New York. In the Latin American context, independently wealthy leaders always get a second look from voters who feel they’ll be less prone to corruption by businesses or drug traffickers.

In today’s world, insecurity is fueling what might be described as the global appeal of the “strongman.” Motti Chaimovitz, a Tel Aviv cafe owner, says he has to look no further than home to understand Trump’s gains: It’s like the dynamic that swept Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into office.

“There is a prevailing fear in the Western world. People are looking for strong candidates,” he says. “Those that put [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan and Netanyahu in power are the religious and rural vote.”

Perhaps the most apt comparisons today, however, come from Europe, where populists are gaining from France to Finland – putting some European leaders on the defensive. European-American relations were strained under former President George W. Bush, but the prospect of a Trump presidency has been viewed with a degree of panic.

Germany’s influential weekly magazine Der Spiegel wrote in a Jan. 2 headline that “Donald Trump Is the World’s Most Dangerous Man,” and elaborated in the subhead. “George W. Bush’s America,” it reads, “would seem like a place of logic and reason in comparison.” And The Economist Intelligence Unit ranked a Trump presidency as one of the top 10 risks facing the world, on a par with jihadi terrorism and more threatening than a military conflict in the South China Sea.

The mainstream parties have been faulted for underestimating the appeal of populism. Steven Ekovich, a professor of comparative politics at The American University of Paris, says they continue to denigrate populist supporters instead of looking in the mirror.

“One similarity between the US and France is the French elite have been disdainful and mocking of anyone supporting Marine Le Pen,” he says. “They are essentially verbally spitting on them, which has only reinforced Marine Le Pen’s support.”

Tapping populism

Some of Europe’s populists have publicly supported Trump. Russian President Vladimir Putin has called him “brilliant” – after Trump said he believes he could get along with the Russian leader. From Moscow’s vantage point, such leaders taking hold of Western public imagination is no surprise.

“I think Trump is the product of the same kind of ferment we see happening in Europe. People are disillusioned with the status quo and the standard answers issued by old-line politicians, and they want change,” says Andrei Klimov a member of the Federation Council, Russia’s upper house of parliament. “He obviously appeals to a lot of people out there, who maybe say, ‘I don’t know where Ukraine is. I don’t understand what we’re doing in Syria. I don’t want to feed refugees. Why can’t we just look after our own?’”

While many voters may identify with this sentiment analysts warn that the promises of populism are too simplistic.

Mark Triffitt, a lecturer in public policy at the University of Melbourne in Australia, argues that the insecurity people feel “lends itself to a mind-set that America should retreat and go back to a world which is very difficult to reconstruct, one that is built around a dominant manufacturing sector, one centered on an unambiguous sense of American power.”

No one is predicting the shape that US foreign policy would take under Trump – mostly because he is unpredictable, either not detailing his positions or changing them rapidly. But many are already worried.

Iranians, for example, are eager to know if the landmark nuclear deal painstakingly negotiated for years and finally agreed to last July between Iran and six world powers will be “torn up,” as some Republican candidates have promised.

Kayhan Barzegar, director of the Institute for Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, Iran, says Trump could endanger US interests “considering the reality that US power … requires engaging others [in] solving the world’s common problems.”

Daniel Friedrich, a teacher in Berlin, has faith that if Trump is elected the American democracy would restrict him so that the world order would remain much as it is now.

“In the end, no matter who the president is, the president is constrained in all kinds of ways by other institutional factors,” he says, “so I think that the effect might not be as bad as one might think at first sight, just as the effect of [President] Obama was not as good as one might have hoped for.”

But Josefina Ponce, a waitress and college student of psychology in Mexico City, says Trump is changing her view of the US.

“I have gone from feeling ‘he doesn’t represent all Americans’ to feeling like ‘maybe I don’t understand the US like I thought [I did],’ ” she says.

US global leadership could suffer a similar image problem, which, according to Andreas Schwab, a German member of the European Parliament, would have untold consequences for mutual trust. He goes so far as to say a Trump victory would be “a big blow to the unity of the Western world.

“In comparison to other world powers, this has always been the US’s biggest strength: keeping like-minded countries together with a very soft approach, linking them one to the other. I do not think that it would be the same with Trump,” he says.

See (“Around world, doubts whether Trump could ‘make America great again’“); see also (“Rubio’s Exit Leaves Trump With an Open Path to 1,237 Delegates“) and (“Frontlash for Trump Is Outpacing Backlash,
As Nomination Nears”—”Donald Trump, though a billionaire, had the genius of expressing public grievances in an Archie Bunker style that mocked political correctness and was popularly seen as plain talk from the only candidate not in any way complicit in the terrible blunders of America’s political class since the end of the Cold War”—”Trump saw an opportunity and disclosed the existence of a massive voting bloc that all the experts, led by the Bush-Clinton joint incumbency that held great offices for eight straight terms (1981–2013), missed altogether. Mr. Trump alone recognized the significance of a few basic numbers, such as the percentage of Americans who think government officials are largely crooked – which increased between 2000 and 2015 from 30-something percent to between 50% and 60%, depending on whether they are Democrats, independents, or Republicans”—”Those collectively responsible for governing the country through the last 20 years, as these ominous levels of public discontent accumulated, showed no apparent recognition of the gathering storm”—”Trump pulls in more disgruntled Democrats and newly motivated independents than he loses grumpy Republicans. In Lyndon Johnson’s famous expression, the frontlash is greater than the backlash”—”[M]ost of the country is delighted that he doesn’t truckle to the political press that most Americans regard as part of the corruption and complacency of the elites that have misgoverned the country for decades”—”If he runs into problems, Mr. Trump can trade the vice-presidential nomination for a final push of delegates”—”Mrs. Clinton has not begun to answer for her long record of untruthfulness, evasion, cynical speech-making for exorbitant fees, and influence-peddling through the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state, even if she avoids indictment on Emailgate. It is a bizarre turn and a startling gamble, but the great office is seeking Donald J. Trump, and will probably find him; he’s hard to miss”
) and (“Will Hillary Clinton Fry?”—”Clearly, there is enough already to take down her candidacy. Indeed, there is reason to believe that a grand jury has been impaneled; the dominos will fall one by one; and the only thing that will save her from going to prison is a presidential pardon in the waning days of the Obama presidency”)

Most Americans are very insular in their thinking, and view their country as bounded by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Many have not traveled far from where they were born; and most have never traveled abroad.

They do not care what others think. Having saved Europe from the Nazism, as well as the Orient during World War II—and having been the world’s “policeman” until recently—most Americans want to stay home and leave the rest of the world to its “chaos.”

For many Americans, the loss of lives and vast economic treasures in the Iraq War and Afghanistan was too much, especially after the Vietnam War. Yes, they want America to remain strong and vigilant, but only for the protection of our own nation and its citizens.

This is the tide that Trump is riding, which may carry him into the White House in less than a year.

Also, it is a reaction to Barack Obama’s failed presidency.

To our friends in Europe and elsewhere, many Americans think or say:

If you do not like it, stuff it. We please ourselves; and for most Americans, you do not even register on our radar screens.

The United States remains the strongest country in the world, both economically and militarily. We are the world’s only Superpower. Yet, we yearn for more. The rise of Donald Trump embodies those aspirations.


18 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele



Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

If his poll numbers hold, Trump will be there six months from now when the Sweet 16 is cut to the Final Four, and he will likely be in the finals.”

My prediction, in July of 2015, looks pretty good right now.

Herewith, a second prediction. Republican wailing over his prospective nomination aside, Donald Trump could beat Hillary Clinton like a drum in November.

Indeed, only the fear that Trump can win explains the hysteria in this city. Here is the Washington Post of March 18: “As a moral question it is straightforward. The mission of any responsible Republican should be to block a Trump nomination and election.”

The Orwellian headline over that editorial: “To defend our democracy, the GOP must aim for a brokered convention.”

Beautiful. Defending democracy requires Republicans to cancel the democratic decision of the largest voter turnout of any primaries in American history. And this is now a moral imperative for Republicans.

Like the Third World leaders it lectures, the Post celebrates democracy – so long as the voters get it right.

Whatever one may think of the Donald, he has exposed not only how far out of touch our political elites are, but how insular is the audience that listens to our media elite.

Understandably, Trump’s rivals were hesitant to take him on, seeing the number he did on “little Marco,” “low energy” Jeb and “Lyin’ Ted.”

But the Big Media – the Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times – have been relentless and ruthless.

Yet Trump’s strength with voters seemed to grow, pari passu, with the savagery of their attacks. As for National Review, the Weekly Standard and the accredited conservative columnists of the big op-ed pages, their hostility to Trump seems to rise, commensurate with Trump’s rising polls.

As the Wizard of Oz was exposed as a little man behind a curtain with a big megaphone, our media establishment is unlikely ever again to be seen as formidable as it once was.

And the GOP?

Those Republicans who assert that a Trump nomination would be a moral stain, a scarlet letter, the death of the party, they are most likely describing what a Trump nomination would mean to their own ideologies and interests.

Barry Goldwater lost 44 states in 1964, and the GOP fell to less than a third of Congress. “The Republican Party is dead,” wailed the Rockefeller wing. Actually, it wasn’t. Only the Rockefeller wing was dead.

After the great Yellowstone fire in the summer of ’88, the spring of ’89 produced astonishing green growth everywhere. The Yellowstone fire of the GOP was in ’64, burning up a million acres of dead wood, preparing the path for party renewal. Renewal often follows rebellion.

Republican strength today, on Capitol Hill and in state offices, is at levels unseen since Calvin Coolidge. Turnout in the GOP primaries has been running at levels unseen in American history, while turnout in the Democratic primaries is below what it was in the Obama-Clinton race of 2008.

This opportunity for Republicans should be a cause for rejoicing, not all this weeping and gnashing of teeth. If the party in Cleveland can bring together the Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich forces, the White House, Supreme Court and Congress are all within reach.

Consider. Clinton was beaten by Bernie Sanders in Michigan, and pressed in Ohio and Illinois, on her support for NAFTA and the trade deals of the Clinton-Bush-Obama era that eviscerated American manufacturing and led to the loss of millions of factory jobs and the stagnation of wages.

Sanders’ issues are Trump’s issues.

A Trump campaign across the industrial Midwest, Pennsylvania and New Jersey featuring attacks on Hillary Clinton’s support for NAFTA, the WTO, MFN for China – and her backing of amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants, and for the Iraq and Libyan debacles – is a winning hand.

Lately, 116 architects and subcontractors of the Bush I and II foreign policy took their own version of the Oxford Oath. They will not vote for, nor serve in a Trump administration.

Talking heads are bobbing up on cable TV to declare that if Trump is nominee, they will not vote for him and may vote for Clinton.

This is not unwelcome news. Let them go.

Their departure testifies that Trump is offering something new and different from the foreign policy failures this crowd did so much to produce.

The worst mistake Trump could make would be to tailor his winning positions on trade, immigration and intervention – to court such losers.

While Trump should reach out to the defeated establishment of the party, he cannot compromise the issues that brought him where he is, or embrace the failed policies that establishment produced. This would be throwing away his aces.

The Trump campaign is not a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. It is a rebellion of shareholders who are voting to throw out the corporate officers and board of directors that ran the company into the ground.

Only the company here is our country.

See; see also (“There’s an air of menace about this campaign”—”The political thuggery that shut down a Donald Trump rally in Chicago last week may just be a harbinger. . . . The immediate conventional wisdom was to blame the disturbance on the ‘toxic environment’ created by Trump. Nonsense. This was an act of deliberate sabotage created by a totalitarian left that specializes in the intimidation and silencing of political opponents. Its pedigree goes back to early-20th-century fascism and communism. Its more recent incarnation has been developed on college campuses, where for years leftists have been taunting, disrupting and ultimately shutting down and shutting out conservative speakers of every stripe — long before Donald Trump. The Chicago shutdown was a planned attack on free speech and free assembly. . . . It had all of the spontaneity of a beer-hall putsch”—”[Trump is] the man most likely to be the GOP nominee for president”)

Donald Trump may not have to beat Hillary Clinton in November. She may be gone before then. Indeed, the only thing that may save her from going to prison is a presidential pardon in the waning days of the Obama presidency.

See (“Will Hillary Clinton Fry?“)

Buchanan is correct. Lots of us left the GOP years ago because of its Neanderthal losers. If we come back at all, it will be to vote for Trump and only Trump.

Otherwise, the party is dead to us.


19 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Why Trump? [UPDATED]

Most of us reject categorically the “politically-correct” lexicon of the Left. There is nothing “progressive” about the far-Left.

Whether they are disrupting or stopping rallies for Donald Trump, or pushing the hoax of man-made “global warming,” they must be stopped and “buried.”

A wave of Americans who are angry and have had enough is sweeping this country, and there is no end in sight.

See (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming“)

[Donald Trump Teases a President Bid During a 1988 Oprah Show]


19 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Border Patrol: Trump Is The Only Candidate To Support Agents

The Washington Examiner has reported:

The largest U.S. Border Patrol union local is praising Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for being the “only candidate” to support their tough mission, an almost endorsement that is the latest boost for the front runner’s campaign.

“Mr. Trump is the only candidate that has publicly expressed his support of our mission and our agents. He has been an outspoken candidate on the need for a Secure Border and for this we are grateful,” said a statement from Art Del Cueto, president of Local 2544 of the National Border Patrol Council, the representative of 18,000 agents.

He said that Trump sought the local’s endorsement, though it has a practice of not endorsing.

However, the statement was as close to an endorsement as possible, and was the latest support for Trump given by several influential border state officials.

The statement, issued Friday, in full is below:


“On March 18, 2016, Donald Trump’s campaign reached out to Local 2544 about a potential endorsement. I informed Mr. Trump’s campaign that NBPC had long standing practice of not endorsing Presidential candidates and that as the President of Local 2544, and I would continue to adhere to that practice.

“However, the National Border Patrol Council and Local 2544 are pleased to inform voters that Mr. Trump is the only candidate that has publicly expressed his support of our mission and our Agents. He has been an outspoken candidate on the need for a Secure Border and for this we are grateful.

“The American public has continually called for a secure border and Donald Trump has promised to make this desire a reality. His campaign has expressed an interest in a Border Patrol’s Agent’s perspective and a tour of our border, that we will gladly provide. We do not seek to give tours but if asked we will happily provide a tour that gives a realistic idea of what our Agents face on a daily basis. Donald Trump is the only candidate who has expressed this interest.

“We are confident that the National Border Patrol Council’s longstanding message about the unsecured border and much needed support for our Agents will be received well by Mr. Trump. The American public deserves to be secure in their own country and we encourage all voters to consider [the] candidate that has the political will to make it happen.”

See (emphasis added)


23 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Majority Of Republicans Want Party To Unite Behind Trump

Donald Trump

POLITICO has reported:

A majority of Republican and Republican-leaning voters believe the party should unite behind Donald Trump at a contested convention, according to a national Monmouth University poll released Wednesday.

The New York billionaire won another 58 delegates Tuesday with a decisive victory in Arizona, putting him within 500 delegates of securing the GOP nomination outright. But should Trump fail to accrue the necessary 1,237 delegates, 54 percent of those polled said the party should back Trump for the nomination anyway. More than a third said the delegates should nominate another person, and 7 percent were unsure.

Of those who said someone else should prevail at a contested convention, 33 percent favored Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, and 23 percent said they would like to see Ohio Gov. John Kasich win the nomination. Others receiving support were Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida (10 percent), retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (5 percent), 2012 nominee Mitt Romney (4 percent), former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (3 percent) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (2 percent). Eighteen percent said they didn’t know.

Trump has suggested his supporters would riot if he were to go into the convention just shy of the 1,237 mark and not leave as the nominee. He also predicted his voters would sit out the general election if another nominee were to emerge from the convention.

But 43 percent of Trump supporters said that if someone else were nominated in that scenario, they would still vote for the GOP nominee in November, while 27 percent said they wouldn’t vote in the presidential election if Trump weren’t the nominee. Just 7 percent would support the Democratic nominee, and 13 percent would back a third-party candidate.

The real estate mogul maintains his months-long run atop national polls, garnering 41 percent support in the latest survey. Cruz follows at 29 percent, with Kasich at 18 percent. Four percent are still undecided.

An overwhelming 95 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters have either seen or heard about the front-runner’s confrontations with protesters at his rallies. But voters are divided on who’s to blame — 44 percent place equal blame on Trump supporters and protesters, while 26 percent fault protesters and 23 percent put the onus on supporters.

The Monmouth poll of 817 Republican and Republican-leaning voters was conducted via telephone March 17-20 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

See (emphasis added)

One thing that all of us can count on is that the GOP’s so-called “establishment” consists of true Neanderthals, which is why many of us left the party years ago. Others of us left the Dem. Party for similar reasons.

Neither party represents us today. Many of us are Independents, and proudly so.

If Trump is not the GOP nominee, many of us will vote for him as an Independent, or not vote at all, or hold our noses and vote for the Democrats’ nominee to bury the GOP once and for all.

Yes, we are angry, and growing angrier by the day as the GOP Neanderthals seek to scuttle Donald Trump’s triumphant march to the presidency.

See (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents”)


23 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Draws Out 14 Million New Republican Voters

President Trump

Political pundit Dick Morris has written:

Love him or hate him — and mostly they love him — Donald Trump’s candidacy will have increased Republican primary turnout by 14 million votes over the 2012 levels.

With a bit more than half the primaries completed, 19.4 million people have voted thus far in GOP primaries, equal to the total of 19.3 million in all of the 2012 primaries through the end put together. The Republican primary turnout is on a pace to reach 33 million voters, an increase of 14 million over 2012 — a 75% increase in turnout.

The vast new turnout reflects the massive number of voters who are first time participants in Republican primaries, drawn out to vote by the Donald Trump candidacy. In the Michigan primary, for example, the New York Times exit poll showed that half of those who turned out reported never having voted in a GOP primary before.

This huge increase creates both a huge challenge and a major opportunity for the Republican Party in 2016.

Turnout was the key to the Republican defeat in 2012. Turned off by Romney, the total voter turnout among eligible voters dropped from 62.3% in 2008 to 57.5% in 2012 as ten million fewer whites voted (counting increase in population) and four million more blacks and Latinos participated.

Turnout has been the key factor in moving the needle since the turn of the century. Republicans won in 2004 because Bush and Karl Rove [turned out] ten million more largely white voters than came out in 2000.

And they lost in 2008 when Obama turned out ten million more blacks, Latinos, and single white women than voted in 2004.

But the process went into reverse in 2012 when more voters — more Republicans — stayed home and turnout dropped.

That’s why Trump’s success in increasing turnout is key to Republican prospects should be be the nominee. His demonstrated ability to bring people out in the primaries presages just the kind of star power that turned the elections of 2004 and 2008 as they did.

Conversely, should the Republican Party ignore the wishes of the 33 million of its members who voted in the primaries and resort to a boss-controlled convention, it will permanently alienate those whose votes it needs most.

The Trump voter is exactly the type that stayed home in 2012. In Michigan, for example, the exit polls show that his voters were disproportionately men who had not been to college. These blue collar white male voters have long been the jump ball in our politics.

It was they who deserted the party of their fathers to join Nixon’s Silent Majority in the 60s and 70s. And they were the Reagan Democrats of the 80s. Now they are becoming the Trump Republicans and our party alienates them at our peril.

See (emphasis added)

If the GOP Neanderthals turn their backs on Trump, and deny him the party’s nomination, lots of us will turn our backs on the GOP and NEVER come back.

Many of us left the party years ago, but nominally vote for GOP candidates. This will cease permanently if Trump is denied.

We have no love for the GOP, and would just as soon see it buried, forever.

See (“Majority Of Republicans Want Party To Unite Behind Trump“)


23 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Has Been Correct All Along About Belgium

Donald Trump

American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist and lawyer, Ann Coulter, has written:

Immigration is the new “No Nukes/Save the Whales” movement, only with more body bags.

After the mass murder committed by Muslims in San Bernardino, which came on the heels of the mass murder committed by Muslims in Paris, Donald Trump proposed a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

Explaining the idea on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he talked about how Muslim immigration was infecting Europe: “Look at what happened in Paris, the horrible carnage. . . . We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives. We have to be very smart and very vigilant.”

Trump’s reference to London’s no-go zones was met with a massive round of sneering, which is what passes for argument in America these days. Jeb! said Trump was “unhinged,” Sen. John McCain called him “foolish,” and former vice president Dick Cheney said Trump’s remarks went “against everything we stand for and believe in.” (Based on Trump’s crushing primary victories, Cheney is no longer qualified to say what “we” believe in.)

To prove Trump wrong, reporters called British authorities and asked them: Are you doing your jobs? They responded, Why, yes we are! The head of London’s police said, “Mr. Trump could not be more wrong,” and London mayor Boris Johnson called Trump’s comments “utter nonsense.”

Within days, however, scores of rank-and-file London policemen begged to differ with their spokesmen, leading to the following headlines:

UK Daily Mail: ‘TRUMP’S NOT WRONG — WE CAN’T WEAR UNIFORM IN OUR OWN CARS’: Five Police Officers Claim Donald Trump Is Right About Parts of London Being So ‘Radicalised’ They Are No-Go Areas

The Sun: ‘THERE ARE NO-GO AREAS IN LONDON’: Policemen Back Trump’s Controversial Comments

UK Daily Express: ‘TRUMP IS RIGHT!’ Police Say Parts of Britain Are No-Go Areas due to ISIS Radicalisation

Then, in January of this year, Trump talked specifically about the Muslim invasion of Brussels on the Maria Bartiromo show. “There is something going on, Maria,” he said. “Go to Brussels. . . . There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Sharia law . . . There is something bad going on.”

The New York Times headlined a story on the interview: “Donald Trump Finds New City to Insult: Brussels.” News is no longer about communicating information; it’s about imparting an attitude. Trump is rude, so whether he’s right is irrelevant. As the saying goes, “Better dead than rude.”

Indignant Belgians took to Twitter, the Times reported, “deploying an arsenal of insults, irony and humor, including images of Belgium’s beloved beer and chocolate.” Liberals have gone from not understanding jokes to not understanding English. When Trump talked about unassimilated Muslim immigrants demanding Sharia law, I don’t think he was knocking Belgium’s beer and chocolate.

Rudi Vervoort, the president of the Brussels region (who evidently survived this week’s bombing), rebuked Trump, saying, “We can reassure the Americans that Brussels is a multicultural city where it is good to live.”

After multiculturalism struck this week, Vervoort said, “I would like to express my support to the victims of the attacks of this morning. . . .” Twitter bristled with supportive hashtags, the Belgian flag and professions of solidarity. The Times editorialized: “Brussels, Europe, the world must brace for a long struggle against this form of terrorism.”

All this would be perfectly normal if we were talking about an earthquake or some other natural disaster — something humans have no capacity to prevent. But Muslims pouring into our countries and committing mass murder isn’t natural at all. It’s the direct result of government policy.

It’s as if the government were dumping rats in our houses, and then, whenever someone died of the plague, those same government officials issued heartfelt condolences, Twitter lit up with sympathetic hashtags and the Times editorialized about effective rodent control, but no one ever bothered to say, Hey! Maybe the government should stop putting rats in our houses!

When people are killing in the name of their religion, it’s not an irrelevancy to refuse to keep admitting more practitioners of that religion.

But this is the madness that has seized Europe and America — a psychosis Peter Brimelow calls “Hitler’s revenge.”

Apparently, what we have learned from Hitler is not: Don’t kill Jews. To the contrary, the only people who openly proclaim their desire to kill Jews are . . . Muslims.

What we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Don’t attempt to seize hegemonic control over entire continents. The only people vowing to conquer the world are . . . Muslims.

And what we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Beware violent uprisings of angry young men. The only hordes of violent, angry young men are, again . . . Muslims. (And Trump protesters.)

But instead of learning our lesson and recoiling with horror at this modern iteration of Nazism, we welcome the danger with open arms — because the one and only lesson we’ve learned from Hitler is: DON’T DISCRIMINATE!

See (“Hashtag: We Are Neville Chamberlain!“)

Islamophobia is un-American; and it would be wrong to condemn 1.8 billion followers of Islam for the actions of radicals among them.

At the same time, it is useful to compare Donald Trump’s comments on issues, now and from years ago. There is consistency throughout.

See, e.g., (“Islamophobia Is Un-American“) and (“Why Trump?“)


23 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Hijacking America’s Democracy [UPDATED]

President Trump

Political pundit Dick Morris has written:

2016 has seen the advent of two serious threats to our democratic process of choosing a president. One is from the right, as Republican Party bosses seek to reassert their ability to overrule the voters — and the other from the left, with demonstrators seeking to shout out Donald Trump and goad his all-too-susceptible followers into violence.

The nexus of these twin threats is the same: fear of Trump.

As he marches on toward the presidential nomination, he is sweeping aside the best the Republican Party has to offer. John Kasich hangs on by a thread. And only Ted Cruz stands in his way.

But the fear he engenders has catalyzed the least democratic of our impulses: mob rule by the left and boss rule by the right. While Americans have fought and died for the right to select their leaders in elections, thousands more have been clubbed, gassed, exiled and imprisoned in the fight to get the right to nominate candidates in direct primaries.

Before 1964, party bosses routinely selected the candidates. Primaries were for candidates who had something to prove, a form of auditioning for the party bosses. In 1952 and 1956, Adlai Stevenson won the Democratic nomination without competing in a single primary. In 1960, Kennedy fought in the primaries to prove that a Catholic could win and so he could persuade — but could not compel — the bosses to nominate him.

But in 1964, Barry Goldwater turned the Republican establishment on its head by defeating Nelson Rockefeller in the primaries, leaving in the dust the old Eastern party establishment.

When the left wing of the Democratic Party, animated by opposition to the Vietnam War, tried the trick in 1968, its candidates — Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern — won all the primaries, but the party bosses nominated Hubert Humphrey nonetheless. Chicago, the scene of the convention, was gripped by days of rioting, police brutality, tear gas, billy clubs and arrests. So rent was the Democratic Party that it succumbed to Richard Nixon in the fall.

Stung by the events of Chicago, Democrats — followed by Republicans — changed the rules and required that the delegates who chose the candidates be elected in primaries after making binding and public pledges of support for a candidate.

Now the leaders of the Republican Party, terrified by the prospect of a nominee they cannot control and convinced they will not defeat Hillary Clinton in the fall, are mapping out a strategy to ignore the will of their voters and derail Trump at the convention. Nobody challenges the primary voting or alleges that the billionaire stole his victories. But the bosses would nonetheless have us turn away the candidate that got the most votes and instead nominate someone more to their liking.

This strategy is obscene and a violation of the spirit of our nation and our democracy. Even if a candidate should fall just short of a majority but win the overwhelming plurality, he should not be stymied but must be nominated.

On the left, noisy demonstrators try to disrupt Trump’s rallies. In the spirit of the communist “agents provocateur” of years past, they shove their signs in the face of Trump supporters, challenging them to physical combat. When Trump’s backers respond, they film it and broadcast it throughout the nation, piously decrying Trump’s authoritarian predilections.

Meanwhile, the left-wing mob blocks traffic to stop people from exercising their First Amendment right of peaceful assembly.

These threats to our democratic way of choosing a president must not be allowed to block the path of popular selection of the nominee — especially not when hundreds of thousands of voters are participating in the Republican primaries for the first time. We dare not make them more cynical by showing that their votes didn’t count.

This election is not a question of whether or not you are for Donald Trump. It’s about whether or not you are for democracy.

See (“GOP and left hijack race“); see also (“Trump Draws Out 14 Million New Republican Voters“)

If we truly care about our great nation and its democracy—with respect to which so many Americans have given their lives—we must stand united against (1) the GOP party bosses (or unelected “Neanderthals”) and their pathetic agents (e.g., the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board and its Peggy Noonan and Bret Stephens, Bill Kristol, Karl Rove, George Will), and against (2) the vicious thugs of the Left, who are throwbacks to Hitler’s Storm Troopers and SS.

Both Dick Morris and Pat Buchanan are correct. Indeed, as Buchanan has written:

Those Republicans who assert that a Trump nomination would be a moral stain, a scarlet letter, the death of the party, they are most likely describing what a Trump nomination would mean to their own ideologies and interests.

. . .

After the great Yellowstone fire in the summer of ’88, the spring of ’89 produced astonishing green growth everywhere. The Yellowstone fire of the GOP was in ’64, burning up a million acres of dead wood, preparing the path for party renewal. Renewal often follows rebellion.

. . .

The Trump campaign is not a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. It is a rebellion of shareholders who are voting to throw out the corporate officers and board of directors that ran the company into the ground.

Only the company here is our country.



25 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele


Obama tangos as Belgium is attacked
[Barack Obama tangos as Belgium is attacked by terrorists]

Former Pat Buchanan adviser starts petition: “We Will Walk from the GOP”:

Let it be understood that if Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party power brokers steal the Republican nomination from Donald Trump at the convention — when Trump is the clear leader — we will walk out of the Republican party and not support its nominee. Trump’s support transcends his personality and is a movement that if the Republican Party was open, would welcome and leverage to the country’s advantage, instead of impeding, obstructing and destroying. Further, we will not return to the Republican Party but will go about the task of consolidating Trump’s political gains and reform the corrupt political system that cares more about itself than the interest of the United States. Karl Rove and company, never ones to lack hubris, are very mistaken if they think that humpty dumpty (the Republican Party) can be put back together. We are prepared for the next stage of this battle, engaging our foes from George Patton’s maxim, “Never let the enemy pick the battle site.”

See; see also (“Former Pat Buchanan Adviser Starts Petition: We Will Walk from the GOP“)

Please sign the petition if you agree.

Liked by 1 person

26 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Is Lyin’ Ted Cruz A Serial Cheater? [UPDATED]

Lyin' Ted Cruz

Does anyone believe this man about anything? Would you buy a dog or a used car from him?

At the very least, Ted Cruz comes across as a phony, and not likable. He is too plastic for words. Yes, he is smart. But there are reasons why essentially none of his colleagues in the U.S. Senate support him.

Having worked there, I know a collegial spirit exists that cuts across political party lines, even in the worst of times. It is an exclusive club, and its members treat each other with respect if not genuine affection and admiration.

But not so in the case of Cruz. His colleagues seem to loathe him, which speaks volumes.

Lyin’ Ted’s latest and most vicious attacks have been directed at Donald Trump, for having planted rumors and stories about Cruz’s infidelities. Trump has denied any involvement; and in fact, the media is reporting that Trump is correct. Former presidential aspirant and Cruz’s Senate colleague Marco Rubio is apparently responsible.

For example, the UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Rumors surrounding Ted Cruz and allegations he cheated on his wife with five women are believed to have [stemmed] from Marco Rubio’s camp – not Donald Trump’s, as initially believed.

‘For months and months, anti-Cruz operatives have pitched a variety of #CruzSexScandal stories to a host of prominent national publications,’ The Daily Beast has reported.

Breitbart News claims it was one of those outlets that was pitched a ‘Cruz Sex Scandal’ story.

The news site said the pitch came from a video peddled by a ‘Rubio ally’.

The video shows ‘a compilation video of Cruz and a woman other than his wife coming out of the Capitol Grille restaurant and a hotel on Tuesdays and Thursdays’, according to The Daily Beast.

In the end Breitbart News turned the story down because ‘there was no way to verify the claims’.

However, the video was enough for [the National] Enquirer to run with it.

Cruz believed it was Donald Trump and his ‘henchmen’ who were spreading a smear, prompting a scathing response from the Republican frontrunner.

Cruz publicly denied cheating on his wife Heidi with five woman – described in the National Enquirer as including a ‘hot babe’ and a ‘$1,000 a night call girl’.

And he accused Donald Trump and his henchmen of being behind it saying his rival had acted to ‘enlist’ the Enquirer to spread a smear.

That prompted Trump to issue a lengthy statement denying being involved, but which said of the National Enquirer ‘they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards and many others.’

‘I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz,’ he said.

The extraordinary spectacle of the Christian conservative candidate defending the integrity of his marriage unfolded in the space of hours.

He first found himself facing extraordinary claims of five affairs when a story in the National Enquirer magazine became the subject of Washington gossip on Thursday night, and two women were named as potential mistresses by a Republican operative on Friday morning.

The Enquirer had never named the women with whom it accused Cruz of cheating on his wife Heidi.

But then the Republican behind an attack on Donald Trump earlier this week which featured a naked picture of his wife Melania named two women she said were alleged to be his mistress.

Liz Mair, a respected Republican strategist, used her Twitter to name Amanda Carpenter, a former spokeswoman for Cruz who is now a CNN contributor, and a Trump spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, who is a former Cruz ally.

Both denied the claim robustly – but it lit a fire which Cruz then had to act to put out.

‘Let me be clear. This National Enquirer story is garbage,’ Cruz said this afternoon. ‘It is complete and utter lies. It is a tabloid smear and it is a smear that has come from Donald Trump and his henchmen.’

Then [Cruz] launched into an attack on Trump saying his rival was a ‘rat’ – ‘but I have no desire to copulate with him’.

He blamed Roger Stone, a former Trump aide labeled a ‘ratf****r’ over claims he was involved in dirty tricks for the Nixon administration for the ‘garbage’, saying Stone had ’50 years of dirty tricks behind him’.

‘He’s a man for whom a term was coined for copulating with a rodent. Well, let me be clear. Donald Trump may be a rat but I have no desire to copulate with him.’
Then he used Facebook to blame Trump directly.

‘For Donald J. Trump to enlist his friends at the National Enquirer and his political henchmen to do his bidding shows you that there is no low Donald won’t go,’ he said.

‘These smears are completely false, they’re offensive to Heidi and me, they’re offensive to our daughters, and they’re offensive to everyone Donald continues to personally attack.’

But the claim that Trump had influenced it incensed the National Enquirer.

Its parent company AMI issued a statement saying: ‘No one influence[s] the reporting that the National Enquirer does other than our own reporters and editors.’

By 5pm in the afternoon the rival candidates attacked each other’s mental health.

Jeff Roe, Cruz’s campaign manager tweeted an accusation that Trump was hiding some form of mental illness.

‘MISSING#SleazyDonald Why no events in 4 days; none planned for 8. Ever had psychological eval? What is hiding in medical records! Release!’

Trump’s rapid response was to retweet a suggestion Cruz was having a breakdown.

His message read: ‘@11phenomenon: #LyingTed blames @realDonaldTrump for so many things I am starting to think he is having a mental health crisis.’

Cruz, who has made his Christian faith and family values the centerpiece of his campaign for the White House, using campaign time to deny five affairs, sent shocks through Washington.

On twitter, the hashtag ‘TedCruzAffairs’ was one of the most popular across the nation.

Both women named by Mair denied they had committed adultery with Cruz.

‘Speaking for myself, the article is trash and 100 percent false,’ Pierson told Daily Mail Online.

‘What’s out there is tabloid trash. If someone wants to comment on it, they can talk to my lawyer,’ said Carpenter of the allegations.

Mair had named them both on Twitter this morning. She wrote tweets directed at both Pierson and Carpenter suggesting that they should sue as the allegations are ‘obviously false.’

‘Ted Cruz should sue over [obviously] false allegation he had an affair [with] Katrina Pierson, [though] I’ve heard she may have come onto him. Who knows,’ Mair wrote.

The tweet incensed Pierson, who wrote back earlier this morning.

‘What’s worse? People who actually believe the trash in tabloids, or the ones who know it’s false & spread it anyway? #stupidity on all levels,’ Pierson tweeted.

Pierson, a Dallas-based tea party leader had prominently been a Cruz supporter before switching her allegiance and vocally supporting Trump.

She eventually became a paid member of The Donald’s campaign.

Contacted by email, Mair’s out-of-office reply indicated that had already left for the Easter holiday and would be back next week.

Turning to the Carpenter allegation, Mair had wrote: ‘As for people suggesting Amanda Carpenter slept [with] Cruz, she should sue them.’

‘That is [obviously] false, as anyone who knows Amanda knows,’ Mair continued.

‘It would also be fun to get access to Trump comms staff, Trump Org emails as part of discovery in a defamation suit,’ Mair added in another tweet, tagging Carpenter’s Twitter handle.

Carpenter was forced to respond to the story during a live television segment.

The CNN contributor appeared alongside Trump supporter Adriana Cohen, a columnist for the Boston Herald.

The two women were supposed to be discussing this week’s tiff between the Cruz and Trump camps, but instead Cohen brought the tabloid story up.

‘If we’re going to call Donald Trump’s character into question, I would like Ted Cruz to issue a statement on whether or not the story is true, that he has had affairs with ma[n]y women, including, you were named, Amanda,’ Cohen said, pointing to her co-panelist.

‘Will you denounce this story or will you confirm it?’

Carpenter denounced, with an assist from host Kate Bolduan, who said that CNN had done no reporting to lend credibility to the Enquirer’s account and the subsequent Twitter claims as to who its unnamed women were.

‘It’s categorically false,’ Carpenter said. ‘You should be ashamed for spreading this smut. Donald Trump supporters should be held to account for it.’

Cohen blasted back: ‘I’m not spreading smut,’ she said.

‘I will not be intimated,’ Carpenter replied. ‘I will continue to make my thoughts known about Donald Trump. I am not backing down.’

On her Twitter page, Carpenter retweeted a show of support from prominent conservative pundit, who’s also on CNN, Mary Katherine Ham.

‘I am so with you, Amanda Carpenter & all the other women Trump & supporters casually smear,’ Ham wrote, including a block quote of Carpenter defending herself against Cohen on CNN.

Cruz also railed against the story on his Facebook page.

‘I want to be crystal clear: these attacks are garbage. For Donald J. Trumpto enlist his friends at the National Enquirer and his political henchmen to do his bidding shows you that there is no low Donald won’t go,’ he wrote.

‘These smears are completely false, they’re offensive to Heidi and me, they’re offensive to our daughters, and they’re offensive to everyone Donald continues to personally attack, he continued.

‘Donald Trump’s consistently disgraceful behavior is beneath the office we are seeking and we are not going to follow,’ he added.

The original Enquirer story, which doesn’t appear online, but has been picked up by gossip sites like Gawker, says that political operatives are compiling a ‘dirt file’ on Cruz with private investigators looking into claims that he had affairs with a who’s who of Republican party politics – as well as a ‘sexy Austin schoolteacher’ and a ‘Washington, D.C. call girl.’

Besides Pierson and Carpenter, the third political type worked for a different presidential campaign, which has now aligned itself with Cruz.

The only on-the-record source for the story is Roger Stone, a longtime Trump ally who previously worked for the campaign.

‘These stories have been swirling around Cruz for some time,’ Stone told the tabloid. ‘I believe where there is smoke, there is fire. I have to believe that this will hurt him with his evangelical Christian supporters.’

The attack on the credibility of Cruz’s marriage comes at an interesting time in the campaign as he has spent the week vehemently defending his wife.

Once Trump saw the ad featuring naked Melania, he unleashed on Cruz, even though the spot was produced by Mair’s super PAC.

In his most bold defense of Heidi Cruz yet, the candidate tore into The Donald during a campaign stop yesterday in Wisconsin.

‘Donald, you’re a sniveling coward and leave Heidi the hell alone,’ Cruz said.

While lines seem to be drawn between the Cruz and Trump people in today’s spat, Pierson squarely stayed on team Donald, ripping into Heidi Cruz this morning on MSNBC.

Pierson suggested that ‘spilling the beans’ on Heidi Cruz, a threat that Trump had issued over Twitter, was simply shedding light on her record of working for Wall Street.

‘So spilling the beans on Heidi Cruz simply means that her her entire career has been spent working against everything Ted Cruz says he stands for,’ Pierson said.

. . .


The National Enquirer accused Ted Cruz of five affairs – all of which he denied today.

It did not name the women but said they were:


One worked for Cruz, now associated with another political campaign, said the magazine.

‘”Randy Ted” supposedly had a romp with her in a closet at a Republican state convention.”


Worked for his Senate campaign when they had affair – and it continued as she worked elsewhere.


Caught ‘getting cozy’ on the campaign trail.


Allegedly had ‘fling’ after he was made Texas solicitor general.


‘Ted supposedly had it on with a prostitute,’ the magazine said.

See (“Now the RUBIO camp is implicated in Cruz’s alleged sex scandal: Rumors of FIVE affairs ‘came from an ally of defeated rival,’ claims report as Trump taunts his rival on Twitter“) (emphasis added); see also (“Ted Cruz ‘Affair’ Rumors Peddled by Marco Rubio’s Allies”) and (“How Chris Christie ‘is becoming Trump’s right hand man, debate coach, fundraiser . . . and possible vice president’“) and (“Trump Again Denies Any Involvement in Enquirer Story”—”[Trump] did accuse Cruz of maligning his wife, Melania Trump. Trump slammed rival Cruz for the recent ad produced by an anti-Trump super-PAC featuring a photo of Trump’s wife posing nude. . . . ‘From what I hear, somebody bought the rights to it and [Cruz] was the one or his campaign bought the rights and they gave it to the super PAC”) and (“Cruz jokes about running over Trump with a car“) and (“Ted Cruz insists he’s ‘always been faithful’ to wife Heidi amid claims that he is about to be named in DC Madam PROSTITUTE scandal that began before he was married”)

What goes around comes around. People in glass houses like Cruz should watch what they say . . . and do. If anyone believes Lyin’ Ted, there is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, in which they might wish to invest.

. . .

The Congress has been a “haven” for sexual dalliances; some known, while others are kept under the tightest wraps. As I have written previously:

When I left Capitol Hill after working there for three and a half years, there was one four-letter word that stood out in my mind, and it still does today: “S-I-C-K.” I vowed that neither of my kids would ever work there. I had seen raving narcissists and demagogues who were not nice people—and equaled or surpassed those in Hollywood where I had grown up.

I saw senators and congressman chasing and bedding female staffers between the ages of about 22-26, and wrecking their lives in the process. When the women reached about 28, they were considered “over the hill,” and a new batch of fresh young faces would replace them. I saw attractive young female staffers flock to the politicians like groupies are attracted to rock stars and other celebrities. I saw lobbyists providing women for sex to important committee chairmen.

See (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It“); see also (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead“)

. . .

Also, FOX News‘ respected Geraldo Rivera has accused Cruz of being an anti-Semite.

See (“Ouch! GERALDO RIVERA Accuses Ted Cruz of Anti-Semitic Attack on New Yorkers“)


29 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Wall Street Journal Attacks Both Trump And Obama

Bret Stephens

Once again, the Wall Street Journal‘s resident Islamophobe from Tel Aviv, Bret Stephens, is excreting more psychobabble and drivel, and trashing Donald Trump—and adding Barack Obama too:

Donald Trump is Barack Obama squared. Not as a matter of rhetorical style, where the president is glib and grammatical, while the developer is rambling and coarse. Not as a matter of economic instincts, where Mr. Obama is a social democrat while Mr. Trump is a mercantilist.

And not as a matter of temperament. Mr. Obama is aloof and calculated. Mr. Trump loves to get in your face.

But leave smaller differences aside. The president and The Donald are two epic narcissists who see themselves as singularly suited to redeem an America that is not only imperfect but fundamentally broken. Both men revel in their disdain for the political system and the rules governing it. Both men see themselves not as politicians but as movement leaders. Both are prone to telling fairy tales about their lives and careers.

And both believe they are better than everyone else.

“I think I’m a better speech writer than my speech writers,” Mr. Obama told an aide in 2008. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m . . . a better political director than my director.” Compare that to Mr. Trump earlier this month, when asked on MSNBC who he turns to for foreign policy advice. “My primary consultant is myself.”

Historians may mark the early 21st century as the moment when Americans stopped seeking probity or at least predictability in their leaders and started shopping for ecstasy and transformation; a politics beyond words. Republicans mocked the grandiosity of Mr. Obama’s first run for the presidency—the Doric columns; the pledge to make the seas recede—but is that so different from the pompous iconography of the Trump jet or his manifestly absurd promises to get foreign countries to pay for his political boondoggles?

More to the point, Mr. Obama was a cult-of-personality candidate. His admirers projected on him whatever they wanted to see: passionate liberal; post-ideological pragmatist; philosopher king; cool cat. Politically, he was the equivalent of a non-falsifiable hypothesis. No evidence could disprove his rightness.

Mr. Trump inspires similar fancies among his supporters. Either he’s the Great Negotiator who will know how to bargain with Congress and cut better trade and security deals with the Saudis, Chinese, Europeans and so on. Or he’s the immovable man of principle who will remain unbowed when, for instance, troubles mount with his mass deportation of los ilegales.

Both interpretations can’t be true. But it’s in the nature of cult personalities that followers rarely ask hard questions because they are seeking leaders who square circles.

Non-American readers might also note the ways in which, on foreign policy, Mr. Trump is a magnification of Mr. Obama, rather than his opposite number. The president caused some consternation overseas when he complained, in a recent lengthy interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, that too many U.S. allies are “free riders” mooching off American security guarantees. “We don’t always have to be the ones who are up front,” the president explained. Leading from behind “was part of the anti-free rider campaign.”

Now take Mr. Trump. NATO, he told the New York Times last week, is “unfair” to the U.S., which pays “a disproportionate share” of the defense burden. The U.S.-Japan defense treaty is “not a fair deal.” Across the world, the U.S. is being “systematically ripped off.” On Ukraine, “I would agree with” the president that the country belongs in Russia’s sphere of influence. If Europeans won’t take the lead, Mr. Trump wonders, why should the U.S.?

Both men also share the conviction that the U.S. can’t afford much of a foreign policy anymore. Mr. Obama often faults the high cost of the war in Iraq for “constraining our ability to nation-build here at home.” Mr. Trump complains that “we’re defending the world” despite a national debt nearing $21 trillion.

One man wants to shrink America’s role in the world for the sake of a bigger state; the other man for the sake of shrinking the debt. In either case, the prescription is to put America in retreat. In neither case do they want to address the real driver of the U.S.’s long-term fiscal problems, which are entitlements and welfare (59% of the federal budget), not defense and international security (16%).

Which brings us to the most important way in which Mr. Trump is another version of the president: They both bend reality to suit their conveniences, and their conceits.

In Mr. Obama’s universe, terrorism is a nuisance, climate change is an apocalypse, and economic growth is an inequality problem. In Mr. Trump’s, immigrants are invaders, trade is theft and allies are millstones. For each species of rubbish there’s a sizable political constituency. Maybe it will be large enough to launch Mr. Trump to the White House.

There’s a tendency among pundits to offer high-toned explanations for why Mr. Trump has risen this far, despite political expectations and ordinary good sense. Many of those pundits performed similarly opportunistic services when Mr. Obama’s star was rising. We repeat our mistakes when we think we’re doing the opposite.

See (“Trump Is Obama Squared”) (emphasis added); see also (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens”) and (“More Trash Talk About Donald Trump From Bret Stephens“) and (“Is The Wall Street Journal Islamophobic?“)

Stephens has an obsession with Trump and his presidential candidacy. One must never forget that Stephens is an “Israel Firster” and an avowed Islamophobe.

It is time for this wretched human being to return to Tel Aviv, from whence he came. The Murdochs—who own the Journal and FOX—should put him out of his misery and terminate his services. He is frothing at the mouth about Trump, with every word that he writes.

With respect to Barack Obama, I have been a strong critic and a supporter regarding some issues (e.g., his treatment of Russia’s Putin and Israel’s Netanyahu as moral equivalents).

Politicians are flawed, and imperfect.

See, e.g., (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) and (“The Obama Great Depression“) and (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War“) and (“Is Israel Doomed?“)


29 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Impromptu Donald Trump Press Conference Aboard Trump Jet


30 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Donald Trump Saves Woman

[Donald Trump Emotional Moment With Melissa Ann Young, Former Miss Wisconsin USA Of 2005; see (“Melissa Ann Young”) and (“Former Miss Wisconsin USA thanks Trump in Janesville”)]

For the full speech of Donald Trump at the Town Hall in Janesville, WI (3-29-16), see below:


30 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

If There Is Hope, It Lies With Trump And Only Trump

President Trump

The respected American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist and lawyer, Ann Coulter, has written:

The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?

Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.

If there’s still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it’s with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.

A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it’s impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote — and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he’s right.

Stevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for “the Lost Tribes of the Amazon” hoping to win more white votes: “In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states.”

Apparently, no one’s told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)

Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?

Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama’s white vote in other important swing states — Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).

Increasing the white vote in these states gives Trump any number of paths to victory.

If Trump wins only the same states as Romney, but adds Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois — where Romney’s white vote was below his national average — Trump wins with 280 electoral votes. (Romney wasn’t an ideal candidate in the industrial Midwest.)

Trump could lose any one of those states and make up for it by winning Minnesota and Wisconsin — where Romney actually lost the white vote. Or he could lose two of those states but add victories in places outside the Rust Belt, where Romney’s white vote was also below average, such as Colorado, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire. (In 1992, Ross Perot came in second in Maine, beating George Bush.)

I haven’t even mentioned Florida, where Trump recently trounced Stuart Stevens’ dream candidate, Marco Rubio, a sitting senator — and a Cuban! — in a 20-point rout. Republican primary voters outnumbered Democratic primary voters in that election by more than half a million votes.

If Trump wins Florida, he needs to win only two or three of the 10 states where Romney either lost the white vote outright or won a smaller percentage of it than he did nationally.

Stevens’ analysis assumes that there will be no new voters — and, again, there isn’t a mammal on the North American landmass who knows less about winning presidential elections than Stuart Stevens.

It’s as if we’re only allowed to divvy up the pile of voters from 2012. Unless you voted in 2012, you can’t vote in 2016! Use it or lose it, buddy.

That’s not how it works.

Trump is saying he’ll bring in lots of new people, as he has throughout the primaries. In the Florida GOP primary, for example, Trump got nearly half a million more votes than Romney did in 2012 — about half a million new people voted. Trump may be wrong, but it’s insane to say that it’s impossible for him to bring out new voters.

What’s impossible is for any Republican candidate, other than Trump, to win a single state Romney lost. Ted Cruz’s corny speaking style is creepy to anyone who doesn’t already agree with everything he says. He’s the less likable, more hard-edged version of Romney. Every other Republican is, one way or another, a less attractive version of Romney.

Maybe 50 years of Third World immigration means it’s too late, and even Trump can’t win. But it’s an absolute certainty that any other Republican will lose.

See (“It’s Only Trump“) (emphasis added)

Ann’s last sentence tells it all. Yet, the Neanderthals in the GOP are marching in lockstep like lemmings to the edge of an electoral and national abyss singing Kumbaya.


30 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Donald Trump’s Abortion Comments Spark Furor From Both Sides [UPDATED]


The heavily-biased, anti-Trump Wall Street Journal has reported:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Wednesday said if the law were changed and abortions were made illegal, he would favor punishing women who obtain them, a break with the traditional antiabortion position that drew immediate criticism from rivals in both parties.

In an MSNBC interview, Chris Matthews asked whether women who obtain abortions should be punished, Mr. Trump said, “There has to be some form of punishment,” but declined to provide specifics.

“For the woman?” Mr. Matthews said.

“Yeah, there has to be some form,” he responded.

The candidate added, “Are you going to say, ‘put them in jail’? . . . You’ll go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places, but you have to ban it.”

Mr. Trump also said the men who impregnate women who get abortions should not be punished.

“Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion decision?” Mr. Matthews asked about what Mr. Trump believed such a law should cover.

“Different feelings. Different people. I would say no,” Mr. Trump replied.

His comments were part of a MSNBC program scheduled for broadcast later Wednesday.

Most mainstream antiabortion activists and politicians call for punishing doctors and clinics who provide abortions, not punishing women who have them.

After criticism of his comments began, the Trump campaign reversed his remarks.

“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,” Mr. Trump said in a statement released by his campaign. “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed—like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”

Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, a leading conservative group, said Mr. Trump’s original remarks reflect his lack of understanding of conservative values.

“No one on the antiabortion side advocates any kind of punishment for women who are being exploited by the abortion industry” she said. “No one is in favor of punishing women who are already hurt and broken.”

Mr. Trump’s initial comments also drew swift rebuke from his rivals for the White House.

Presidential candidate John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, told MSNBC he would “absolutely not” punish women who receive abortions and said of Mr. Trump’s remarks, “I don’t think that’s an appropriate response.”

Brian Phillips—an aide to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, another GOP presidential hopeful—tweeted: “Don’t overthink it: Trump doesn’t understand the antiabortion position because he’s not antiabortion.”

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton tweeted his remarks with the caption, “Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse. Horrific and telling.” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted: “Your Republican front-runner, ladies and gentlemen. Shameful.”

Mr. Trump has previously supported abortion rights—a fact he acknowledged Tuesday night during a town hall-style event in Milwaukee hosted by CNN. Asked if he had changed his mind or learned from a mistake, he said, “I’m antiabortion, and I was originally pro-choice.” Later, he added, “I have evolved.”

Mr. Trump already faces a sizable deficit among women voters.

In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 47% of Republican female primary voters said they couldn’t see themselves voting for him, compared with about 40% of male primary voters. Women were much more willing to accept Mr. Trump’s rivals, with only 32% saying they couldn’t imagine themselves backing Mr. Cruz and only 27% saying that about Mr. Kasich.

See (emphasis added)

Politics is a brutal game; and it is not “softball” for amateurs. When it is played at our national level, it is vicious, and seldom are any prisoners taken. Add in the issue of abortions, and it becomes electrified.

Of course Trump was correct, with his first response; and he should not have changed his tune to pacify the spineless with no morals.

When a woman gets pregnant, she relinquishes her rights over the fetus. It has a life and rights of its own from the moment of conception.

Any woman who has an abortion is a killer, period. The argument that she has a right to do with her body as she sees fit is true—a woman’s body is sacred and inviolable—but it does not apply to the fetus.

An abortion is a criminal act: infanticide. Each of the mothers and the doctors and others who have participated—or participate in the future—in the taking of human lives should be arrested, tried, convicted and . . .

Abortion is the taking of a life!

See, e.g., (“55 Million American Babies Killed Since Roe v. Wade“)

There is no question that this is a highly-charged issue, both politically and personally. Years ago, I believed that women had the right to choose; and I never thought twice about it.

Then, I watched a film about the growth of a fetus, from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. I defy anyone to suggest that a fetus is not a human being at each stage of the process.

Also, I read an article about a doctor in Los Angeles who carried out large numbers of abortions . . . until he began to have nightmares; and he stopped doing them.

Both the film and his article began to change my views about abortions. And then along came Ronald Reagan, who championed the sanctity of life.

All three developments changed my views completely.

Imagine the contributions to mankind that might have been made by the 55 million American babies who have been killed since Roe v. Wade. The costs to the world have been truly staggering.

One can only conjecture as to the contributions they would have made, which are forever lost like the contributions of more than 60 million human beings who were killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and their thugs.

See’s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao’s-chinese-holocaust/ (“The Silent Voices Of Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust And Mao’s Chinese Holocaust“)


31 03 2016

I think that all the forces of HELL, are coming down on Mr. Trump. Because he is not a polished politician, that normally sugar coats his answers, or dodges them altogether, sooner or later, somebody is going to trip him up. Yesterday, with Chris Matthews, was an example of Trump wanting to be honest and forthcoming,and having it bite him in the ass. Trump wasn’t at all wrong with his answer however..But, the establishment is constantly looking to pounce on him for even the slightest infraction.

It truly seems, the the GOP would rather have Hilary than Trump. Is Trump that bad for the country, or the world, that the GOP would risk,liberal supreme court judges being nominated by Hilary, changing the landscape of the USA for the next generation..? Timothy, what’s really going on here.Please,explain what the RNC/GOP is using for logic…Why are they doing this, aside from the obvious…

Liked by 1 person

31 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, for your thoughtful comments as always.

I agree completely. The only group that will truly save Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are the American people. The long political knives of the so-called “establishments” are out to get both of them, and paint them as extreme radicals who must be defeated at all costs, if not destroyed.

Trump speaks from the heart and so does Bernie, which is why so many Americans are drawn to each of them. They are real and genuine, which is refreshing—certainly for those of us who have worked in national politics.

I saw the Neanderthals of both political parties on Capitol Hill, in full display, which is why I became an Independent more than 20 years ago—after being a Dem. and then a Republican. The “true believers” of both parties are unreal, which is the only way to describe them. And yes, those on the right would prefer to fall on their swords rather than to see Trump in the White House. Those on the Left feel the same way about Bernie.

As I have written in comments above:

Imagine, just imagine that Hillary is indicted—and it is “game over” for her presidential aspirations—and The Donald continues to sweep the field, and is the GOP nominee.

Imagine Bernie Sanders against Trump.

At the very least, it would pit two gutsy and authentic Americans against each other.

. . .

For those who say it cannot happen, they are naïve.

Both Trump and Sanders are in for the fights of their lives, but so far they have been surviving and prevailing, against all odds. More power to them!


31 03 2016

Are you a betting man Timmothy? What does your gut tell you? Will Hilary be indicted?Will Trump self destruct, or be destroyed from external sources? And can he win against either her or Bernie? Lets have some odds…I am interested to know what you think.

Liked by 1 person

31 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thanks again, Rick.

No, I am not a betting man. Among other things, I was chastened by writing an article here saying that Mitt Romney would win and Barack Obama would not be reelected.

See (“Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who Will Not Be Reelected”); but see (“MITT ROMNEY: NO CLASS!”)

While the readers of this blog have been kind enough not to shove the words and predictions down my throat, I am mindful of the risks of making predictions—much less bets—in a volatile political climate such as this one.

Having said that—and putting a full list of disclaimers upfront—I believe Hillary will be indicted and forced to abandon her aspirations for the presidency a second time. There are too many things against her.

See, e.g., (“Will Hillary Clinton Fry?”)

This would leave Bernie, with the possibility of a late entry by Joe Biden, although I doubt it.

With respect to the GOP, they will be fighting Trump all the way; however, he has the money to fight back. I would be surprised if he and “Lyin’ Ted” reach an accommodation. They have said too many things that are very personal. However, having said that, Cruz might be willing to take the vacant spot on the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than go down in flames.

I would never vote for Cruz if he was the only candidate running. I just do not like him; and apparently his Senate colleagues feel exactly the same way.

See (“Is Lyin’ Ted Cruz A Serial Cheater?”)

To say this is a fascinating—if not bizarre—political year is not to miss the mark. The world must be looking on in total disbelief.

Lastly, the true Neanderthals of the GOP—such as Karl Rove, Bill Kristol and George Will—keep chiming away; and Trump’s position on the abortion issue gives them “fresh meat.”


31 03 2016

I respect your opinion more than most Tim. Trump has said some crazy things the last few days. He has Japan and South Korea nervous, as well as the pro-choicers.. As long as Hilary isn’t elected, I will have some solice. There is John Kasich in the mix. Not sure where he really fits in. The battle for the Supreme Court is the big worry for me… If it goes fully left, this country will have no chance to be great again… Also, have you noticed how bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity, are seemingly pro Trump, yet Megan Kelly is pure Trump bashing? Very odd situation at Fox news..

Liked by 1 person

31 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele


Thank you, Rick, for your kind words.

Trump is shaking up the foreign policy “establishment” and world; and my guess is that he will do it even more if he is elected.

Barack Obama was a “stealth candidate” who did not display his true self until after he was elected in 2008, except in his book “Dreams from My Father” that few Americans ever heard of, much less read.

It is a real shocker, but nonetheless a blueprint with respect to his true beliefs and how he would govern, to this day.

I summarized the book—quoting directly from it, with page cites—in the first article of this blog. Indeed, I started the blog because the article was too long for the Wall Street Journal; I could not figure out the right venue for it; and I was tired of having my articles edited by others. Also, I liked the idea of publishing them the instant that they were ready to go.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”)

I have cited Dick Morris’ take on Kasich in my latest set of comments below.

I agree with you about the Supreme Court being crucial; and I agree too with your assessment of Hannity, O”Reilly and Kelly.

The “odd situation at Fox news” with respect to Kelly is that they cannot fire her, albeit some might like to see her go. Hence, they are giving her more responsibility (e.g., specials), and she seems to be “toning down” a bit.

She has an ego as great as the great outdoors.

Lastly, I tweet all of the articles here and most of the comments. The one below is catching on immediately, especially with women, which has been true of lots of them. However, the abortion comments did not elicit any reaction. It is a “hot potato” issue, as we know.

. . .

Here is the latest with respect to O’Reilly-Kelly rift. She is not a “sweetheart,” and at some point she may move on from Fox.

See (“Megyn: O’Reilly, CNN Should Have Done More for Me”)


31 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

How Kasich Helps Trump

President Trump

Political pundit Dick Morris has written:

Supporters of John Kasich have been peddling the fiction that Kasich’s continued quest for the nomination actually contributes to the stop-Trump movement. But, in reality, it is the Kasich campaign — more than any other factor — that is propelling the Trump campaign.

Of the remaining 839 delegates still to be chosen, most come from winner-take-all state and winner-take-most states where, if Trump wins a plurality, he walks away with all the delegates, or almost all. In these contests, Kasich drains votes from Cruz and lowers the threshold Trump must reach to get a plurality.

What of the argument that Kasich’s votes would have gone to Trump and that he is keeping them from Donald? PPP has just published a poll that shows that shows Trump winning nationally by 42 vs. 32 for Cruz and 22 for Kasich. But when the pollsters asked how voters would vote in a two way Trump-Cruz race, Trump’s margin collapsed to 2 points to 48-46. Trump got 6 points of Kasich’s vote while Cruz got 14 points.

This national trend will make itself felt in primary after primary, possibly giving Donald Trump victories in Delaware (16), Pennsylvania (71), Maryland (38), Indiana (57), Nebraska (36), W. Va. (34), NJ (51), NM (24) SD (28).

In California, Kasich’s candidacy would particularly enable Trump. California selects 159 delegates — three each — from its congressional districts. The plurality winner in each district gets all three delegates and nobody else gets any. And California’s 13 at large delegates go to the plurality winner. Kasich could enable a Trump sweep in California.

But even in states where delegate allocation is based on proportional representation, the rules are really a modified winner-take-all system.

In New York, the situation is similar. Eighty-one of New York’s 95 delegates will be selected from NY’s 27 congressional districts, with each district having 3 delegates. If any candidate gets 51% in a district, he gets all the delegates (here, Kasich helps since his voters could deny Trump a majority). But if no candidate has a majority in any given congressional district, the plurality winner gets two of the three delegates. The second place finisher gets one and the third place finisher gets none. So, in each of the state’s districts, the Kasich vote will sap Cruz’ strength and deliver pluralities to Trump.

Approximately the same situation prevails in CT (28), Oregon (28), Washington State (44), and NM (24).

Fortunately, Kasich may be out of the running and not even be able to get votes on the convention floor.

Rule 40B, adopted in 2012, specifies that you need a majority of the delegates in at least eight states or territories to have your name entered in nomination at the convention. Trump and Cruz have more than satisfied that requirement but Kasich has gotten a majority only in Ohio.

So Kasich’s name may not even be entered into nomination.

But, no matter, he will have done Trump’s work by running in all the remaining states.

It’s very simple. If you want Trump to lose, Kasich must pull out. Now.

See (emphasis added)

It is very unlikely that Kasich will pull out. Quite to the contrary, by helping Trump win the nomination, he puts his hat in the ring to become Trump’s running mate.

Stranger things have happened (e.g., JFK-Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan-George H.W. Bush).


1 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Lock Out The GOP Establishment in Cleveland! [UPDATED]

President Trump

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written another fine article:

The Wisconsin primary could be an axle-breaking speed bump on Donald Trump’s road to the nomination.

Ted Cruz, now the last hope to derail Trump of a desperate Beltway elite that lately loathed him, has taken the lead in the Badger State.

Millions in attack ads are being dumped on the Donald’s head by super PACs of GOP candidates, past and present. Gov. Scott Walker has endorsed Cruz. Conservative talk radio is piling on Trump.

And the Donald just had the worst two weeks of his campaign.

There was that unseemly exchange with Cruz about their wives. Then came the pulling of the woman reporter’s arm by campaign chief Corey Lewandowski, an atrocity being liken by the media to the burning of Joan of Arc.

Then there was Trump’s suggestion, instantly withdrawn, that if abortion is outlawed, then women who undergo abortions may face some punishment.

This gaffe told us nothing we did not know. New to elective politics, Trump is less familiar with the ideological and issues terrain than those who live there. But the outrage of the elites is all fakery.

Democrats do not care a hoot about the right to life of unborn babies, even unto the ninth month of pregnancy. And the Republican establishment is grabbing any stick to beat Trump, not because he threatens the rights of women, but because he threatens them.

The establishment’s problem is that Trump refuses to take the saddle. Again and again, he has defied the dictates of political correctness that they designed to stifle debate and demonize dissent.

Trump has gotten away with his insubordination and shown, with his crowds, votes, and victories, that millions of alienated Americans detest the Washington establishment and relish his defiance.

Trump has denounced the trade treaties, from NAFTA to GATT to the WTO and MFN for China, that have de-industrialized America, imperil our sovereignty and independence, and cost millions of good jobs.

And who is responsible for the trade deals that sold out Middle America? “Free-trade” Republicans who signed on to “fast-track,” surrendered Congress’ rights to amend trade treaties, and buckle to every demand of the Business Roundtable.

The unstated premise of the Trump campaign is that some among the Fortune 500 companies are engaged in economic treason against America.

No wonder they hate him.

As for Trump’s call for an “America First” foreign policy, it threatens the rice bowls of those for whom imperial interventions are the reason for their existence.

If the primary goals of U.S. foreign policy become the avoidance of confrontations with great nuclear powers and staying out of unnecessary wars, who needs neocons?

Should Trump lose Wisconsin, he can recoup in New York on April 19, and the following week in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland.

Yet, a loss in Wisconsin would make Trump’s climb to a first-ballot nomination steeper.

Still, if Trump goes to Cleveland, having won the most votes, the most states and the most delegates, stealing the nomination from him would split the party worse than in 1964.

The GOP could be looking at a 1912, when ex-President Theodore Roosevelt, who won the most contested primaries, was rejected in favor of President Taft. Teddy walked out, ran on the “Bull Moose” ticket, beat Taft in the popular vote, and Woodrow Wilson was elected.

Cruz says the nomination of Trump would mean an “absolute trainwreck” in November. But, Cruz, 45, with a future in the party, would be foolish to walk out as a sore loser, as Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney did in 1964.

A Cruz rejection of a nominee Trump would mean the end of Cruz. The elites would hypocritically applaud Ted’s heroism, publicly bewail his passing, then happily bury and be rid of him.

Cruz, no fool, has to know this.

If the nomination is taken from Trump, who will be 70 in June, he has nothing to lose. And as “Julius Caesar” reminds us, “such men are dangerous.”

Trump and Cruz, though bitter enemies, are both despised by the establishment. Yet both have a mutual interest: insuring that one of them, and only one of them, wins the nomination. No one else.

And if they set aside grievances, and act together, they can block any establishment favorite from being imposed on the party, as was one-worlder Wendell Willkie, “the barefoot boy of Wall Street,” in 1940.

All Trump and Cruz need do is instruct their delegates to vote to retain Rule 40 from the 2012 convention. Rule 40 declares that no candidate can be placed in nomination who has failed to win a majority of the delegates in eight states.

Trump has already hit that mark. Cruz almost surely will. But no establishment favorite has a chance of reaching it.

With Cruz and Trump delegates voting to retain Rule 40, they can guarantee no Beltway favorite walks out of Cleveland as the nominee — and that Ted Cruz or Donald Trump does.

No matter who wins in Cleveland, the establishment must lose.

See (emphasis added)

Yes, indeed, the so-called GOP “establishment” Neanderthals must be buried politically once and for all.

The Karl Roves, Bill Kristols and George Wills of this world are destined for the dustheap of American politics, to be forgotten thankfully.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus has been quoted as saying that he will not turn over the party apparatus to Trump if he wins.

Priebus is a fool, and the Don Knotts/Barney Fife of American politics. He even looks like Knotts.

Trump will roll over him.

See (“Priebus Won’t Turn RNC Over to Trump If He Wins“) and (“Don Knotts“)


2 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

America Will Survive

Bald Eagle and American Flag

What is wonderful for lots of us who left both political parties years ago is that they may be in the process of imploding before our very eyes. This may be a truly historic moment and turning point in American history.

The GOP is imploding; that’s for certain.

And if Hillary is indicted as expected, the Dems are apt to implode too.

A run by Trump against Sanders will represent two Independents—yes, Sanders has run as an Independent before—with real guts running against each other.

And yes, the Trump campaign and the Sanders campaign are genuine movements, just as Barack Obama’s quest for the presidency was one.

Without disparaging Obama, he probably knew less about American politics than either Trump or Sanders. And yes too, America has survived his presidency thus far.


3 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele


Paul Ryan

Julia Hahn of Breitbart has written:

In recent weeks, there has been increasing discussion about the possibility that House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan could emerge out of a brokered convention as the Republican nominee if the donor class is successful in denying Donald Trump the requisite 1,237 delegates.

Just as Paul Ryan’s ascension to House Speaker represented a total repudiation of the GOP electorate by GOP lawmakers, Ryan’s selection as the Party’s nominee would similarly represent the donor class’s silencing of voters and voters’ views on immigration, trade, and foreign policy that have transformed the country and its role in the world.

Regardless, many in the “#NeverTrump” movement have indicated that they would support Ryan against the wishes of the Republican electorate that has voted for Trump.

“If we don’t have a nominee who can win on the first ballot, I’m for none of the above,” said former House Speaker John Boehner, who exited the House shortly after teaming up with Ryan to give President Obama expanded trade powers. “I’m for Paul Ryan to be our nominee,” Boehner said.

“If it’s an open convention, it’s very likely [the nominee] would be someone who’s not currently running,” Ryan’s fellow Wisconsinite Governor Scott Walker said last week. Walker’s declaration follows an earlier pronouncement that he would be “just fine” with leaving his state’s Sanctuary Cities in place.

As conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, who has endorsed Donald Trump, warned in January, “After months of waiting for Trump to self-destruct, the Washington-based Republican Establishment has finally found a way to take back control of the party from the outsiders and grassroots. The plan revolves around the newly empowered House Speaker, Paul Ryan.” Schlafly writes that through a brokered convention, “‘dark horse’ Paul Ryan could become our nominee. Such an outcome could destroy the Republican Party and guarantee a Democratic victory by causing disheartened grassroots voters to stay home.”

Currently speaking, it’s mathematically impossible for Ohio Gov. John Kasich to win the majority of delegates walking into the Republican National Convention in July. Similarly, while not mathematically impossible for Cruz to get there, it’s close— he’d need close to 90 percent of the remaining delegates to win a majority walking into the convention. As such, the strategy both are employing is [to] force a contested convention—and wrest the nomination from Trump there. The risk, however, is that at a contested convention—as the now Cruz-backing Walker acknowledged—there’s no guarantee at all on who may emerge as the GOP nominee at that point. It could even be, as Walker said, someone who isn’t currently running: i.e., Paul Ryan.

As Capitol Hill aides have explained, amongst Washington’s GOP political class Ryan is regarded as the “Republican Jesus.”

Indeed, National Review, which helped put the third world migration enthusiast Paul Ryan into the Speaker’s office, seemed to embrace the idea of nudging him into the Oval Office. National Review’s deputy managing editor penned a piece entitled, “Paul Ryan for President!” writing: “One can imagine a case where Trump and Cruz control 60 to 70 percent of the vote between them, and neither one will budge, and no other candidate or boss will consider helping either one. Then it will be time for a respected and inoffensive candidate to offer a contrast to all the strong personalities in the Republican race, and Ryan is nothing if not Mr. Acceptable.”

Following their endorsement of Speaker Ryan, National Review became the heart and soul of the “#NeverTrump” movement, meaning that the organization has effectively abandoned even the pretense of being concerned about migration. As Breitbart has previously reported, not only will Paul Ryan continue to push for massive increases to the already record-breaking pace of migration, but his commitment to large-scale migration means it’s unlikely legislation will pass the House that would reduce immigration growth by curbing visas, which more than 9 in 10 GOP voters want.

As one conservative political operative told Breitbart News, “The Republican convention is the GOP establishment’s prom, and Paul Ryan is their Prom Queen.” The operative explained that in the event of a brokered convention, “Ryan would ‘somehow’ surface as the nominee, the same way he ‘somehow’ surfaced as the Speaker, despite explicitly saying he did not want the job.”

Although Sen. Ted Cruz’s political ideology is in line with Ryan’s brand of Washington think-tank conservatism—whether it’s Cruz’s record of pushing for expanded foreign worker programs or offshoring trade policies—party leaders seem to prefer Paul Ryan’s presentation, and are likely to use Cruz’s gains to ultimately throw delegates towards Ryan.

“You don’t really think they [GOP establishment figures] want Ted Cruz, do you? I mean they’re using him to stop Trump, that’s there view of this,” Pat Caddell said on Thursday’s program of Breitbart News Daily. “I believe they are using Cruz as a cat’s-paw. . . . I don’t think they’re going to nominate him. I think they will then move to nominate, to try to nominate an Establishment figure, someone who hasn’t run.”

Revealingly, Paul Ryan has yet to endorse Cruz for President. If Ryan were to endorse Cruz, it would arguably make it much more difficult for Ryan to accept the nomination over a candidate he had previously endorsed— suggesting that Ryan’s ultimate aim is to use Cruz’s victories to pave his own path to the nomination.

However, in order to emerge as the donor class’s savior, Ryan needs to win Wisconsin’s primary election on Tuesday—putting Ryan Republicanism on trial. This effectively means that voters are not casting a ballot between Trump and Cruz, but rather the philosophy of Donald Trump versus Ryanism.

Indeed, Ryan has postured himself as the “Republicans’ anti-Trump.”

“Speaker Paul Ryan is emerging as the Republican’s biggest counterweight to Donald Trump,” The Hill wrote in January.

Since Trump’s philosophy is so opposite of Ryan’s, if Trump were to win Wisconsin, it would be seen as a wholesale rejection of Ryan Republicanism. Losing Wisconsin would be politically devastating for Ryan and would make it exceedingly difficult for him to emerge out of the contested convention. As such, Wisconsin is a must-win for Ryan via a proxy of his policy viewpoints, Ted Cruz.

Paul Ryan and corporate media have sought to frame the GOP Civil War of voters versus donors and donor proxies (i.e. Fox News, Republican publications, and various corporate-owned radio networks) as a battle waged over something as frivolous as candidates’ “tone” rather than the substantive policy divisions between the electorate and the Party’s corporate funders.

The media is correct in that voters are currently facing an election between Trump and anti-Trump, but the media has failed to articulate the policies differences between them.

Ryan Republicanism consists of four core tenets, which are:

Population Replacement

Since Wisconsin voters sent Paul Ryan to Washington nearly two decades ago, the U.S. has imported a population of immigrants that is nearly three times larger than the entire population of Wisconsin, which now stands at 5.7 million. Each year the U.S. issues more green cards than the collective population of the 13 colonies the year George Washington was born. This year, the U.S. will issue five times more green cards than there are members of Daughters of the American Revolution.

Yet Paul Ryan believes those numbers should be even larger. For the past two decades there has been perhaps no greater advocate for the donor class’s agenda of mass migration than Paul Ryan.

As Roy Beck, president of the immigration control group NumbersUSA, told Breitbart last October, Ryan “has spent his entire adulthood ideologically connected to the open borders crowd. Open Borders is in his ideological DNA. That’s the terrifying thing. He’s an ideologue and has spent his whole life working for ideologues. Open borders seeps out of every pore of his being. This isn’t personal, it’s just who he is. . . . Paul Ryan is the heart and soul of crony capitalism.”

Dating back to his time as a Capitol Hill staffer in the mid-90s, Ryan was in part responsible for derailing the immigration curbs championed by Civil Rights leader and late-Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. “Ryan is part of the group that created the massive immigration problem facing the nation today,” Beck said, noting that today, “As a direct result of Paul Ryan and [his then-boss] Sam Brownback, there are an additional 10 million immigrants in the country [than we otherwise would have].”

In 2013, Ryan joined forces with open-borders advocate Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to campaign for Sen. Marco Rubio’s amnesty agenda. Gutierrez has previously said, “I have only one loyalty. . . . and that’s to the immigrant community.”

While stumping for amnesty with Gutierrez, Ryan repeatedly made the case for open borders, declaring that: “America is more than just a country. . . . It’s more than our borders. America is an idea. It’s a very precious idea.”

This statement is significant because, while a country has borders, “ideas” do not. If America is an “idea” rather than a “country,” then recent refugees from Somalia have as much of a “right” to a job in the United States as do children whose ancestors fought in the American Revolution.

Ryan’s belief that America is “an idea” has similarly been articulated by open borders ideologue—and rejected Presidential candidate—Sen. Lindsey Graham, who recently endorsed Ted Cruz.

In 2007, Graham gave an address to La Raza in which said, “An American is an idea. No group owns being an American. Nobody owns this. It’s an idea that’s unique to the planet and one of the center pieces of this idea is that you come here trying it knock it out of the park as a person.”

In a 2011 speech to the Alexander Hamilton Society, Ryan similarly suggested that America’s culture does not belong to any one group— i.e. its foundation was just as much the legacy of Britain as it was the legacy of Somalia: “America’s ‘exceptionalism’ is just this – while most nations at most times have claimed their own history or culture to be exclusive, America’s foundations are not our own – they belong equally to every person everywhere. The truth that all human beings are created equal in their natural rights is the most “inclusive” social truth ever discovered as a foundation for a free society. “All” means “all”! You can’t get more “inclusive” than that!”

The notion that being American is “an idea” without any cultural legacy and that America’s foundations “are not our own,” but instead “belong equally to every person everywhere” suggests that Ryan believes that merely stepping onto U.S. soil somehow has the magical transformative effect of turning recent migrants into an automatic Jeffersonian Democrats with a perfect understanding of Constitutional governance.

Ryan perhaps best demonstrated his commitment to this idea in a 2014 radio interview in which Ryan explained why “immigrants from the third world” make “some of the best Americans.”

“Some of the best Americans are the newest Americans,” Ryan declared.

Ryan suggested that it’s the job of Republicans to import more of them and then try to convince them of their conservative principles. “This is a challenge that conservatives have to answer, ” Ryan said.

In this regard, Ryan has certainly done his part. As House Speaker, Ryan funded visas for more Muslim migrants this year alone than there are Paul Ryan voters in his own district. According to Pew, only 11% of Muslims in the United States are Republican or lean Republican.

Working Class Communities “Deserve To Die”

Throughout his career, Ryan has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to offshoring U.S. jobs in the name of maximizing corporate efficiencies, regardless of the economic devastation it has on American workers and communities.

National Review recently provided a pitch-perfect explication of Ryan Republicanism in explaining their own views about the economic status of these working-class towns.

“The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible,” writes National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson. “The white American under-class is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.”

Williamson insists that the destruction of these communities was not a result of our nation’s immigration or trade policies: “It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that.”

Polls show that among the American electorate, Republican voters are the group most skeptical of free trade—with a nearly five-to-one margin of Republican voters believing that free-trade deals slash wages rather than raise them. Only a minuscule 11 percent of GOP voters, according to Pew, believe that so-called free-trade deals will be good for wages.

As Pat Buchanan has explained, Trump’s success represents a repudiation of the “free trade” idolatry that has allowed China “to cart off what was once the greatest manufacturing base the world had ever seen. Compare Detroit and Shanghai today — to see the fruits of ‘free trade’.”

While Donald Trump has said that his presidency is the only way to kill Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, Paul Ryan was Obama’s partner in crafting the TPP.

As CNN’s Dana Bash wrote in a piece entitled, “Paul Ryan’s New Partner: Obama,” Ryan “allied with the President he tried to defeat [in 2012]. As chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, he’s muscling a controversial trade bill through the House that could shape President Barack Obama’s legacy — and his own.”

In an op-ed with Ted Cruz published in the open borders Wall Street Journal, Ryan outlined the Ryan Republicanism trade agenda. In their op-ed, Cruz and Ryan describe the TPP as an “historic” agreement that “would mean greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers, farmers and ranchers.”

According to the Economic Policy Institute, between 2001 to 2013, the U.S. lost 3.2 million jobs to China— including more than 68,000 jobs in Wisconsin.

Military Adventurism

Paul Ryan subscribes to the donor class orthodoxy on military adventurism.

As Larry Sabato has explained, “Ryan is just a generic Republican on foreign policy.”

“On foreign policy, Paul Ryan is truly a product of the era of George W. Bush,” Daniel Larison wrote in 2012.

Ryan is “an internationalist of the old school,” wrote the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens. “He supports the ‘arduous task of building free societies,’ even as he harbored early doubts the Arab Spring was the vehicle for building free societies.”

As CNN reported:

During the administration of former President George W. Bush, Ryan was a reliable supporter of the administration’s foreign policy priorities, having voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. He also supported the 2007 surge of U.S. troops to Iraq. . . . During his time in Congress, the Middle East has been an area of interest for Ryan. He formed the Middle East Caucus in the early 2000s, and from his position on the Ways and Means Committee, he took the lead on pushing free trade agreements with Middle Eastern and Gulf countries that called for countries to enshrine the rule of law and women’s rights in their governments.

Ryan Republicanism promotes policies that would start foreign wars in the Middle East and then would bring the refugees of those wars into the United States. In this sense, Ryan Republicans are launching a Democratic experiment on two fronts: not only do they seek to nation build and make the world safe for Democracy abroad, but they also seek to import large flows of migrants, who have no history of Democracy and limited government, into the country to see if they can seamlessly integrate into our Democracy here.

Wealth Redistribution

Ryan Republicanism also includes a unique vision of wealth redistribution in which income is transferred out of the middle class and into the pockets of both wealthy business owners and poor migrants. This is accomplished through trade deals that shift wealth to the owners of capital and away from laborers, as well as immigration policies that eliminate workers’ ability to bargain for higher wages. This also comes in the form of a greater emphasis on cutting Social Security and Medicare rather than reducing welfare benefits to migrants and foreign workers.

During the 2012 election in which Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney managed to lose what had been described as a “gimme election” against Barack Obama, Ryan sought to make the election a mandate on reducing Medicare payments.

As the New York Times reported at the time, Ryan’s budget plan became of “political focal point” of 2012. The New York Times correctly predicted that Ryan’s plan would “become the standard by which Republican candidates for the House, Senate and White House are measured.”

Indeed, Ryan’s decision to put Medicare cuts at the forefront of the GOP agenda— rather than welfare benefit cuts for migrants or job placement efforts for welfare recipients— cost Republicans heavily in what was immensely favorable year in which Democrats were on defense.

During the election, Ryan said he was determined to message on Medicare cuts: “We want this debate. We need this debate, and we will win this debate,” Ryan said. It was unclear why Ryan wanted the election to be a referendum on Medicare cuts, which even for those who believe such cuts are fiscally necessary often view them as something that can only be done after winning an election rather than a rallying cry before the election is held.

Ryan and Romney not only lost the election, but Ryan failed to win his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin.

While Ryan has demonstrated his constant focus to reign in entitlements for American citizens as part of his previous framing of the “makers and takers,” Ryan has shown no such impetus to stop the government from giving benefits to non-citizens who are not entitled to them. For instance, Ryan was responsible for a widely-panned strategy to cut veterans’ benefits for American citizens instead of cutting welfare benefits for illegal immigrants.

Between 2000 and 2013, Wisconsin’s middle-class households shrunk more than any other state in the country, according to Pew Charitable Trusts. The state has hemorrhaged jobs to China and Mexico. Meanwhile the cost of illegal immigration for Wisconsin taxpayers is approaching $1 billion per year and the total foreign-born population (legal and illegal) has reached 275,000.

If Ryan emerges victorious in Wisconsin, he will be in a strong position to continue pushing to expand migration, pass offshoring trade deals like the TPP, and use American troops and dollars to spread American Democracy in the Middle East.

Wisconsin voters will weigh in on these issues in Tuesday’s election.

See (“Concerns About Paul Ryan Emerging Out of Ted Cruz-Created Contested Convention as Nominee Dominate Wisconsin“) (emphasis added); see also (“Ted Cruz Will Be Knocked Out of Race By April 26th“)

Paul Ryan could not even carry his home state of Wisconsin for the Romney-Ryan ticket in 2012; and as the article states, he even failed to win his hometown of Janesville. Much of America does not know his name.

It is time to end his career once and for all.

The Trump “movement” consists of “Reagan Democrats,” anti-establishment Republicans, and vast numbers of us who left the GOP years ago and have been Independents ever since and proudly so. Donald Trump does not have to kowtow to anyone—least of all is Ryan.

The “#NeverRyan” movement must begin in earnest, by contributing to and supporting his opponent, and making sure Ryan is “Cantored” and gone from Congress in January.

Here is his primary opponent’s Web site, Paul Nehlen.

See; see also (“Sarah Palin will work to defeat Ryan in primary for Trump stance“)

He needs our help to end Ryan’s political career!

Dump Ryan


4 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

If Trump Is Denied The GOP Nomination, His Supporters May Sit Out The General Election [UPDATED]

Donald Trump

Bloomberg has reported:

A series of blazing red billboards with white capital letters rise above the Wisconsin tree line with a dire warning for conservatives: “The Republican Party Started Here. Vote Trump and It’ll End Here, Too.”

But the crisis posed to Republicans on the billboards paid by some of the party’s top financiers may be just as severe if Trump fails to claim the nomination.

That’s because the goal of the anti-Trump movement—beating the New York businessman in a delegate fight at the party’s national convention—risks alienating his motivated base of supporters. This passionate core of true believers has contributed to record turnout numbers in the first wave of primary polls, and, despite a series of missteps from Trump, they’re not wavering in their support for the front-runner.

“If Trump has the most delegates and they go with someone else, I’m out,” said Joe Geiger, a Trump supporter from Kenosha, Wisconsin.

“Whoever has the most delegates should be nominated,” said Don Kleczka of Green Bay. Any other outcome, he said, and “I’ll write his name in” for the general election in November.

Joyce Anzalone, a retired secretary in Racine, said she would be angry if Trump goes into the convention with the lead and doesn’t get the nomination. “What they want to do is fudge the numbers, and I just think that’s wrong,” she said before a Trump rally on April 2.

Tuesday’s primary election in Wisconsin is threatening to shake up the race in both parties. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has lost the last five contests. Another victory for Senator Bernie Sanders would only raise the stakes in the next race in New York, which Clinton represented for eight years in the U.S. Senate. A CBS News poll on Sunday showed a virtual jump-ball in the Wisconsin, with Sanders up by just 2 percentage points.

The same poll showed Trump trailing Senator Ted Cruz by 5 percentage points. A pair of polls last week—one from Fox Business News and another from Marquette University—showed Cruz ahead by 10 points.

Those poll numbers have the #NeverTrump crowd sensing a shift in momentum. “As far as my objective of forcing this into a contested convention, I feel very optimistic about it,” said Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio secretary of state who is working with a pair of anti-Trump groups, including Our Principles PAC, which paid for the Wisconsin billboards. Blackwell is also a board of directors member for Club for Growth, the Washington-based group that is backing Cruz.

Blackwell said the most likely scenario was Trump coming about 150 delegates short of the 1,237 he needs to secure the nomination before the convention. Once that happens, Cruz’s campaign is better organized and will out-hustle Trump’s team to flip delegates and win the nomination on the floor, he said. Trump has started to focus on the delegate battle, bringing on board Paul Manafort, a veteran of the last time the party had a contested convention in 1976.

Blackwell said he wasn’t concerned about a Cruz convention victory splitting the party, as long as the process was “transparent.” He also said the party could afford to alienate new voters Trump is bringing to the party—Blackwell referred to them as “undocumented Republicans”—because the traditional base would be motivated to stop Clinton.

“Folks will get over it,” Blackwell said. “The prospects of Hillary Clinton naming a liberal justice to the Supreme Court, expanding our welfare state and furthering our incompetence in international affairs will drive out the old base that didn’t come out for Romney.”

At a fundraising dinner for Milwaukee Republicans on Friday, Judy Rodaks of Greendale said she didn’t care how close Trump got to the nomination in the primary season. Whoever gets the majority of delegates in Cleveland should win, she said.

“It has nothing to do with popularity. It has nothing to do with the numbers right now,” Rodaks said. “It has to do with 1,237.”

Still, Trump is using the pending delegate fight to motivate his base. He has said that a plurality of delegates—instead of a majority, as stipulated in Republican National Committee rules—should be enough to win.

At a rally in Wisconsin on Saturday—just days after meeting with Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus in Washington to discuss the convention—Trump called the delegate process “crooked as hell.”

“It’s very unfair, the 1,237,” Trump told reporters on Sunday in Wisconsin, referring to the number of delegates needed for the Republican nomination. “When I went to those first primary states, we had many, many people on the ballot. And I won, you know, I could win a basically small number. And the small number is like a phenomenal number that you could get that much.”

On Sunday, Trump told reporters that he pushed the RNC to force one rival, Ohio Governor John Kasich, out of the race. Kasich’s victory in his home state on March 15 is his only win so far this year.

Priebus, who spoke on all five Sunday morning news shows, said Trump’s decision to abandon the party’s loyalty pledge may cause trouble for him among convention delegates.

“Those kinds of comments I think have consequences,” Priebus said on ABC’s This Week. “And so when you make those kinds of comments, and you want people to fall in line for you, it makes it more difficult.”

But Trump isn’t ceding Wisconsin. He’s said that a victory in Wisconsin would all but end the primary race, and he’s digging in, reflected by his decision to add campaign events to his schedule in recent days. Compared to traditional candidates who grind out long days on campaign buses visiting multiple cities, Trump’s typical day on the stump is relatively low-energy; he usually flies into an airport hangar, delivers an hour-long monologue and then, after shaking hands and signing autographs, boards his private 757 and returns home.

Earlier this month, he mocked one rival, Kasich, for spending the night in Michigan while campaigning there. “Kasich was out in Michigan—he stayed there, he slept there,” Trump told reporters on March 21. “He was so sure of Michigan, and he lost Michigan to me.”

In Wisconsin, Trump stayed overnight in the Green Bay area last week. He had three rallies in the state on Saturday, and another three scheduled for Monday.

“If I feel they stole it, I will stay home in November,” said Keith Duston, a Trump supporter from Brantwood, Wisconsin. “If he’s ahead, he should get it. … What’s the point of having an election?”

See (“Republican Crisis May Deepen Even If Trump Loses Wisconsin“); see also (“FINANCIAL ARMAGEDDON?“)

The same thing is true of Bernie Sanders’ supporters. They may stay home on Election Day 2016 if he is denied.


5 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Melania Trump Speaks at Donald Trump Rally in Milwaukee

See also (“Melania Trump MSNBC Interview“) and (“Melania Trump CNN Interview With Anderson Cooper“)

Beauty Queen with Terminal Illness Pleads with WI Voters to Vote for Donald Trump

See also (“Donald Trump Saves Woman“)


5 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump: America First [UPDATED]

Bald Eagle and American Flag

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

As Wisconsinites head for the polls, our Beltway elites are almost giddy. For they foresee a Badger State bashing for Donald Trump, breaking his momentum toward the Republican nomination.

Should the Donald fall short of the delegates needed to win on the first ballot, 1,237, there is growing certitude that he will be stopped. First by Ted Cruz; then, perhaps, by someone acceptable to the establishment, which always likes to have two of its own in the race.

But this city of self-delusion [Washington] should realize there is no going back for America. For, whatever his stumbles of the last two weeks, Trump has helped to unleash the mightiest force of the 21st century: nationalism.

Transnationalism and globalism are moribund.

First among the issues on which Trump has triumphed — “We will build the wall — and Mexico will pay for it!” — is border security.

Republican candidates who failed to parrot Trump on illegal immigration were among the first casualties.

For that is where America is, and that is where the West is.

Consider Europe. Four months ago, Angela Merkel was Time’s Person of the Year for throwing open the gates to the “huddled masses” of the Middle and Near East.

Merkel’s Germany is now leading the EU in amassing a huge bribe to the Turks to please take them back, and keep them away from the Greek islands that are now Islam’s Ellis Island into Europe.

Africa’s population will double to 2.5 billion by 2050. With 60 percent of Africans now under 25 years of age, millions will find their way to the Med to cross to the Old Continent where Europeans are aging, shrinking and dying. Look for gunboats in the Med.

If immigration is the first issue where Trump connected with the people, the second is trade.

Republicans are at last learning that trade deficits do matter, that free trade is not free. The cost comes in dead factories, lost jobs, dying towns and the rising rage of an abandoned Middle America whose country this is and whose wages have stagnated for decades.

Economists who swoon over figures on consumption forget what America’s 19th-century meteoric rise to self-sufficiency teaches, and what all four presidents on Mount Rushmore understood.

Production comes before consumption. Who owns the orchard is more essential than who eats the apples. We have exported the economic independence that Hamilton taught was indispensable to our political independence. We have forgotten what made us great.

China, Japan, Germany — the second, third and fourth largest economies on earth — all owe their prosperity to trade surpluses run for decades at the expense of the Americans.

A third casualty of Trumpism is the post-Cold War foreign policy consensus among liberal interventionists and neoconservatives.

Trump subjects U.S. commitments to a cost-benefit analysis, as seen from the standpoint of cold national interest.

What do we get from continuing to carry the largest load of the defense of a rich Europe, against a Russia with one-fourth of Europe’s population?

How does Vladimir Putin, leader of a nation that in the last century lost its European and world empires and a third of its landmass, threaten us?

Why must we take the lead in confronting and containing Putin in Ukraine, Crimea and Georgia? No vital U.S. interest is imperiled there, and Russia’s ties there are older and deeper than ours to Puerto Rico.

Why is it the responsibility of the U.S. Pacific Fleet to defend the claims of Hanoi, Manila, Kuala Lumpur and Brunei, to rocks, reefs and islets in the South China Sea — against the claims of China?

American hawks talk of facing down Beijing in the South and East China Seas while U.S. companies import so much in Chinese-made goods they are fully subsidizing Beijing’s military budget.

Does this make sense?

Patriotism, preserving and protecting the unique character of our nation and people, economic nationalism, America First, staying out of other nation’s wars — these are as much the propellants of Trumpism as is the decline of the American working and middle class.

Trump’s presence in the race has produced the largest turnout ever in the primaries of either party. He has won the most votes, most delegates, most states. Wisconsin aside, he will likely come to Cleveland in that position.

If, through rules changes, subterfuge and faithless delegates, party elites swindle him out of the nomination, do they think that the millions who came out to vote for Trump will go home and say: We lost it fair and square?

Do they think they can then go back to open borders, amnesty, a path to citizenship, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and nation building?

Whatever happens to Trump, the country has spoken. And if the establishment refuses to heed its voice, and returns to the policies the people have repudiated, it should take heed of John F. Kennedy’s warning:

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”

See (“What Trump Has Wrought”) (emphasis added); see also (“FINANCIAL ARMAGEDDON?“)

Make America great again!

Trump is mistaken, however, with respect to the murderous Putin, who—like Hitler and Mussolini before him—must be terminated. We are in the process of doing that; and it must be continued until he is gone, like the cancerous growth that he is.

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush set their sights on destroying the USSR, and it is gone, without a shot being fired. Putin must be terminated like Benito Mussolini, not coddled.

See (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War“)


7 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The GOP Died Years Ago [UPDATED]

R.I.P. G.O.P.

For lots of us, the Republican Party died years ago.

We left because of Neanderthals like Karl Rove, and will never come back except to vote for Donald Trump, and only Trump.

Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan must be rolling over in their graves, angry at what the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board and the likes of Rove, Bill Kristol, George Will and others have done to their once-great and respected Grand Old Party.

Large swaths of the American electorate are very angry, and rightly so. If Hillary Clinton is not indicted, many Americans may reject the nation’s political and judicial processes, as unfair and unjust.

If Trump is denied the GOP presidential nomination, a majority of his supporters will leave the party en masse, and never look back. If Bernie Sanders is shunted aside by the Democrats, his supporters—especially new and young voters whom he has drawn into the American political process for the first time—are likely to bolt as well.

2016 is a year of movements; and anger and turmoil; and changes that may be historical and breathtaking.

Hold on tight. We have not seen anything yet!

. . .

Indeed, never mentioning his own criminality or that of his wife, Bill Clinton has spoken of putting “the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us.” This is what Donald Trump’s campaign and movement are all about.

See; see also (“Will Hillary Clinton Fry?“)


8 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Coming GOP Train Wreck, While Trumpism Remains Resistant To Cosmic Disturbances [UPDATED]

GOP train wreck

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

After winning only six delegates in Wisconsin, and with Ted Cruz poaching delegates in states he has won, like Louisiana, Donald Trump either wins on the first ballot at Cleveland, or Trump does not win.

Yet, as that huge, roaring reception he received in his first post-Wisconsin appearance in Bethpage, N.Y., testifies, the Donald remains not only the front-runner, but the most exciting figure in the race.

Moreover, after the New York, New England, mid-Atlantic and California primaries, Trump should be within striking distance of the 1,237 delegates needed for the nomination.

He will then have to persuade uncommitted delegates to back him, and perhaps do a deal with one of the defeated candidates, Marco Rubio or John Kasich, to win the remaining few needed to go over the top.

In 1976, Ronald Reagan, shy of the delegates he needed to defeat President Ford, offered second place on his ticket to Sen. Richard Schweiker, a moderate from Pennsylvania.

This brainstorm of Reagan campaign manager John Sears did not produce the required delegates, and Reagan received an envelope from a conservative Congressman with 30 dimes in it — 30 pieces of silver.

Still, Reagan was right to roll the dice.

But assume Trump reaches 1,237 on the first ballot.

Would the GOP establishment accept his leadership, back his ticket, and help to bring together all the elements — nationalist, Tea Party, conservative and moderate — of a grand coalition to defeat Hillary Clinton?

Or would the establishment refuse to endorse Trump, ensure his defeat, and hoping to pick up the pieces of a shattered party, as Govs. Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney assumed they would do after they deserted Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Prediction: If the GOP establishment does collude to steal the nomination from the candidate who has won the most states, most delegates and most votes, not only could the party be crushed in November, but that establishment could be discredited in perpetuity.

For those who have come out for Trump, and have given the GOP the largest turnouts of any party in a primary season in history, will not [] give their allegiance to a Beltway elite that cheated them of the prize they had won.

Sullen and angry, they will be going home, not soon to return.

An establishment embrace of a rule-or-ruin course — Better to lose, than win with Trump! — seems irrational. But it is not irrational if one’s preeminence and position are the summum bonum of one’s political existence.

To avoid the Hobbesian choice — back Trump or abandon Trump — the establishment must block him from a first-ballot victory. And indispensable to the Anybody-But-Trump coalition is Ted Cruz, whom the establishment, if possible, detests even more than Trump.

One testament to the esteem in which Cruz is held is that only two of his 53 Senate GOP colleagues have endorsed him, and one of these, Lindsey Graham, did so as the lesser of two evils.

Here is the second peril for the GOP elites.

If Trump is stopped on the first ballot, the delegates who leave him on the second ballot may go to Cruz, and the stampede could be on.

Yet, it is hard to see how a Cruz nomination is better for the party than a Trump nomination.

For Cruz cannot win in Cleveland, unless the man with the most votes and delegates is deprived of a nomination to which he has a far stronger claim, if this country remains a democratic republic.

A Cruz victory in Cleveland would likely lead to the angry and bitter departure of the Trump delegates, and, in the fall, to a mass defection of the blue-collar, Middle-American Trump voters, especially above the Mason-Dixon line where Cruz is already weak.

The latest poll of Republicans in New York has Trump above 50 percent, with Cruz running third at 17 percent. Even in the South, which was to be Ted Cruz’s firewall, Trump beat him repeatedly.

And while Cruz can claim to be a more reliable conservative than Trump, how does that translate into electoral votes in the fall?

Is the Republican establishment, having been repudiated in the primaries in a historic turnout by the party base, now engaged in a willful act of self-deception?

Can that establishment believe it can rob Trump of a nomination he has all but won, then hold off a right-wing Cruz surge that would ensue, then trot out of the stable one of its own, Speaker Paul Ryan, crown him at the convention, and then win in November?

This is delusional. And what this tells us is, to borrow from The Gipper, that the Republican establishment is not the solution to the party’s problems; the Republican establishment is the problem.

While the GOP appears headed for a train wreck in Cleveland, the principal ingredients of a Republican victory and a Republican future will all be present there: Cruz conservatives and Tea Party types, Trumpite nationalists and populists, Rubio-Kasich-Bush centrists and moderates.

Political statesmanship could yet bring about unity, and victory.

Unfortunately, the smart money is on ego getting in the way.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Lock Out The GOP Establishment in Cleveland!“) and (“Is Lyin’ Ted Cruz A Serial Cheater?“) and (“GOP TREACHERY AND OPPRESSION!“)

The anti-Trump, Washington Post‘s Charles Krauthammer has added:

Yes, the big Wisconsin story is Ted Cruz’s crushing 13-point victory. And yes, it greatly improves his chances of denying Donald Trump a first-ballot convention victory, which may turn out to be Trump’s only path to the nomination.

Nonetheless, the most stunning result of Wisconsin is the solidity of Trump’s core constituency. Fundamentalist Trumpism remains resistant to every cosmic disturbance. He managed to get a full 35 percent in a state in which:

● He was opposed by a very popular GOP governor (80 percent approval among Republicans) with a powerful state organization honed by winning three campaigns within four years (two gubernatorial, one recall).

● He was opposed by popular, local, well-informed radio talk show hosts whose tough interviews left him in shambles.

● Tons of money was dumped into negative ads not just from the Cruz campaign and the pro-Cruz super PACs but from two anti-Trump super PACs as well.

And if that doesn’t leave a candidate flattened, consider that Trump was coming off two weeks of grievous self-inflicted wounds — and still got more than a third of the vote. Which definitively vindicated Trump’s boast that if he ever went out in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot someone (most likely because his Twitter went down — he’d be apprehended in his pajamas), he wouldn’t lose any voters.

The question for Trump has always been how far he could reach beyond his solid core. His problem is that those who reject him are equally immovable. In Wisconsin, 58 percent of Republican voters said that the prospect of a Trump presidency left them concerned or even scared.

Cruz scares a lot of people, too. But his fear number was 21 points lower. Moreover, 36 percent of Wisconsin Republicans, facing a general-election choice between Hillary Clinton and Trump, would either vote Clinton, go third party or stay home.

Trump did not exactly advance his needed outreach with his reaction to the Wisconsin result: a nuclear strike on “Lyin’ Ted,” as “a puppet” and “a Trojan horse” illegally coordinating with his super PACs (evidence?) “who totally control him.” Not quite the kind of thing that gets you from 35 percent to 50 percent.

Not needed, say the Trumpites. If we come to Cleveland with a mere plurality of delegates, fairness demands that our man be nominated.

This is nonsense. If you cannot command or cobble together a majority, you haven’t earned the party leadership.

John Kasich makes the opposite case. He’s hanging on in case a deadlocked convention eventually turns to him, possessor of the best polling numbers against Clinton. After all, didn’t Lincoln come to the 1860 convention trailing?

Yes, and so what? The post-1968 reforms abolished the system whereby governors, bosses and other party poo-bahs decided things. In the modern era, to reach down to the No. 3 candidate — a distant third who loses 55 of 56 contests — or to parachute in a party unicorn who never entered the race in the first place would be a radical affront to the democratic spirit of the contemporary nominating process.

A parachute maneuver might be legal, but it would be perceived as illegitimate and, coming amid the most intense anti-establishment sentiment in memory, imprudent to the point of suicide.

Yet even without this eventuality, party suicide is a very real possibility. The nominee will be either Trump or Cruz. How do they reconcile in the end?

It’s no longer business; it’s personal. Cruz has essentially declared that he couldn’t support someone who did what Trump did to Heidi Cruz. He might try to patch relations with some Trump supporters — is Chris Christie’s soul still for sale? — but how many could he peel away? Remember: Wisconsin has just demonstrated Trump’s unbreakable core.

And if Trump loses out, a split is guaranteed. In Trump’s mind, he is a winner. Always. If he loses, it can only be because he was cheated. He constantly contends that he’s being treated unfairly. He is certain to declare any convention process that leaves him without the nomination irredeemably unfair. No need to go third party. A simple walkout with perhaps a thousand followers behind will doom the party in November.

In a country where only 25 percent feel we’re on the right track and where the leading Democrat cannot shake the challenge of a once-obscure dairy-state socialist, you’d think the Republicans cannot lose.

You’d be underestimating how hard they are trying.

See (emphasis added)

Many of us are Independents or “Reagan Democrats,” who do not care what happens to the GOP, as long as Donald Trump is elected as America’s next president. He has “slain” GOP hopefuls like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio already; and at best, the GOP is in tatters.

Assuming that Hillary Clinton is indicted and her presidential ambitions end, the Democrats will be in even worse shape as November’s elections loom. If she is not indicted, one of the first official acts of the Trump Administration may be to move forward with her prosecution and indictment—which may prompt Barack Obama to pardon her before he leaves office.

Whether as a Republican or as an Independent, Donald Trump may be America’s next president!

See (“The GOP Died Years Ago“) and (“Will Hillary Clinton Fry?“) and (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents“)


9 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump’s Favorable Rating Rivals Reagan’s In 1980

President Trump

It has been reported:

Seven in 10 people, including close to half of Republican voters, have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump.

. . .

Trump is wildly popular with Middle Class voters but that doesn’t impress the Beltway elites.

Ronald Reagan’s favorable rating was also at 30% back in March 1980.
The GOP elites at the time also worried he could never win.

. . .

Back in March 1980 the establishment said the same thing about Ronald Reagan. They said he could never defeat Jimmy Carter. He was too divisive.

See (emphasis in original)

Like Ronald Reagan before him—who was written off as a “B-movie actor” and far far worse—Donald Trump may continue to surprise and confound his critics, all the way to the Oval Office.

Mark Twain was right when he was quoted as having said: “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” The reports of Trump’s demise are greatly exaggerated too.

If he is not the GOP’s nominee, his supporters may exit the party en masse, and seal its fate for years if not decades to come.

Hillary Clinton may be indicted, which will mean “game over” for her presidential aspirations again, after being trounced by Barack Obama in 2008.

The race may come down to Trump against Bernie Sanders.

See also (“FINANCIAL ARMAGEDDON?“) and (“The Book of Bernie: What is Sanders’ religion?“)


9 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Will Not Be Cheated

President Trump

Efforts are afoot by the so-called GOP “establishment” Neanderthals to prevent Donald Trump from getting the party’s nomination for president. Politico has reported that even though Indiana has not even voted, convention delegates are already lined up against Trump:

Indiana hasn’t cast its ballots for president yet, but Donald Trump is already losing.

Republican Party insiders in the state will select 27 delegates to the national convention on Saturday, and Trump is assured to be nearly shut out of support, according to interviews with a dozen party leaders and officials involved in the delegate selection process. Anti-Trump sentiment runs hot among GOP leadership in Indiana, and it’s driving a virulent rejection of the mogul among likely delegates.

“If Satan had the lead on him and was one delegate away from being nominated as our candidate, and Donald Trump was the alternative, I might vote for Donald Trump,” said Craig Dunn, a local GOP leader who is running to represent Indiana’s 4th Congressional District at the national convention in Cleveland. “I’ve always wanted to own a casino, but he couldn’t give me a casino and have me vote for him.”

Indiana GOP insiders are working to engineer slates of delegates — three from each of nine congressional districts — that will turn their backs on Trump at a contested convention in July. Another 27 will be elected at a state committee meeting next week.

Indiana’s delegates will be bound to the results of the state’s May 3 primary on the first vote in Cleveland, and Trump is expected to be competitive in that contest. (There is no current public polling of the state, but several GOP leaders suggested he’d be competitive in at least a couple of the state’s nine Congressional districts.) But if Trump fails to clinch the nomination, they’ll be free to vote their conscience — and that means a rapid rejection of Trump. The state’s Republican national committeeman, John Hammond, has vocally called to reject Trump as well.

That would mark just another blow to Trump’s chances, should the convention go to a second ballot as expected. Though he’s won more votes and state primaries than rivals Ted Cruz and John Kasich, Trump has failed spectacularly to win separate delegate selection battles to his better-organized rivals. Though in most cases, he’s lost because of Cruz’s superior organization, Indiana appears to be a break from the norm. Most of the hostility to Trump there is homegrown.

“I believe we need a candidate that is likable, and I believe we need a candidate that is electable. And at this point, I have not seen any evidence for a general election that Donald Trump is electable,” said Kyle Babcock, a veteran Indiana GOP insider who’s on the 3rd Congressional District delegate slate. Babcock said Trump is his third choice among the three remaining candidates. He’s leaning toward Kasich, he said, because he prizes electability and reclaiming the White House in November.

Pete Seat, an Indiana GOP consultant whose firm was recently retained by the Kasich campaign, said he would be “shocked” if there were more than a handful of Trump supporters in Indiana’s delegation.

“Donald Trump doesn’t represent what I want my party to represent,” said Tom John, chairman of the Indiana GOP’s 7th Congressional District organization. John is running to be a statewide delegate when the party meets next Wednesday to select a separate set of 27 “at-large” delegates. John said the three delegates from his district are also unlikely to favor Trump.

Dunn, from the 4th District, is technically a delegate candidate, but he’s already guaranteed a slot in Cleveland. He’s the GOP’s district chairman and one of only three applicants for its three seats. All delegate applicants around the state were due to file paperwork by March 15, a deadline that several Indiana GOP insiders said went unnoticed in a handful of districts. But it’s the post-application process that explains why Trump is virtually guaranteed to lose delegate battles.

Local GOP district leaders have picked slates of favored candidates from among the applicants that will be considered at Saturday’s caucuses — tiny meetings of county leaders that typically ratify the names with which they’re presented. Applicants must promise to furnish $2,000 to participate after they’re selected, a requirement that tilts the process away from newcomers and outsiders. Among the delegate applicants who made it on to recommended slates: several district GOP leaders, State Treasurer Kelly Mitchell, Secretary of State Connie Lawson, Congresswoman Susan Brooks, Carmel, Indiana, Mayor James Brainard and Portage, Indiana, Mayor James Snyder.

“One of my criteria for filtering out folks was whether or not they support Donald Trump,” said one district GOP leader. “I didn’t care whether they supported Ted Cruz or John Kasich.”

Several delegate candidates said they’re even likely to support an effort to draft their former governor, Mitch Daniels, as an alternative candidate before giving Trump a look.

“I am supporting the Draft Mitch Daniels for President at the convention,” said Nick Barbknecht, a candidate for alternate from the state’s 2nd District, who is also the district GOP vice chairman. Dunn and John agreed that they’d support a Daniels candidacy if it emerged.

Trump’s Indiana chairman, Rex Early, a former state party chairman who just signed on to Trump’s team last weekend, said he hasn’t explored the delegate process enough to see how it will unfold. He said he intends to pursue a slot as an at-large delegate next week, and other GOP leaders said he’s an example of a self-identified Trump backer who could make it through the process, given his stature within the state party.

Informed of the local district’s anti-Trump lean, Early described it as “news to me.”

“I’m sure Trump’s going to have some delegates out there,” he said, adding that he hasn’t spoken to Trump’s district backers to see if they have the pulse of the delegate process. “We’re going to do something, but the Trump people are supposedly coming in this weekend. We’ll have a sit-down and see where we are, they can fill me in on what they’ve done.”

Barbknecht said that like Early, there are sure to be a few other Trump backers that squeak through the process because they’re the rare breed that are also longtime party insiders.

“There’s a couple Trump delegates here and there just by virtue of they’re powerful donors or powerful elected officials who happen to be Trump supporters — and no one would otherwise preclude them from being delegates,” he said.

Reached by POLITICO, Hammond, the Indiana national committeeman, hesitated to repeat his previous criticism of the New York mogul. He agreed that Trump may struggle to win support among Indiana’s delegates, but he said that sentiment will change rapidly if it looks like Trump can win in November — or if he’s able to personally persuade delegates.

“Donald Trump would likely have a steep hill to climb in persuading delegates to him, depending on who’s selected between now and next Wednesday,” said Hammond. “It doesn’t mean people aren’t persuadable. The most important factor for any delegate would be, is this a person who can win back the White House.”

He added, that there’s a strong emphasis on conducting a “fair” delegate selection process for all three campaigns. “Hoosier Republicans are going to aim to be fair and they will,” he said.

One potential bastion of Trump support is in the state’s 1st Congressional District, where local party leaders say the mogul has shown more strength than in the rest of the state. There, the district GOP Chairman Chuck Williams declined to name the three delegates on the caucus slate but said one was an avowed Trump supporter and he’s not sure of the allegiance of the other two. The district saw 30 applicants for delegate slots, which he said were about evenly split between Trump and Cruz, with a couple stray applicants for Kasich.

“Donald Trump has his share of support in our district,” he said.

But Williams, who’s running to be an alternate, added that he, too, is on a mission to draft Daniels at the convention.

“We need to start it nationally,” he said.

Mark Wynn, chairman of the 6th Congressional District GOP, said his district received a flurry of last-minute delegate applications before the March 15 deadline, an apparent effort by Trump allies to insert supporters in the delegation. But Wynn said he hadn’t checked with any delegate aspirants about their leanings in the primary and that the district’s slate, like all the others, would consistof longtime party hands.

Wynn joins several district chairmen in remaining publicly neutral among the three candidates. The 5th District’s Kyle Hupfer and the 8th District’s C. Rick Martin are also on their local delegate slates and declined to rule out any of the three candidates.

John, the 7th District chairman, said pro-Trump forces attempted to mobilize grass-roots delegate candidates with an email blast encouraging supporters to run. Though he said it resulted in a “handful of people who were sort of unknown to the local party” filing papers, John said none were added to the party’s slate. Instead, the local party recommended district Vice Chair Jennifer Ping, Indianapolis businessman and state Senate candidate Jefferson Shreve, and 34-year state Sen. Pat Miller.

Contacted by POLITICO, a terse Miller agreed that she was not in the Trump camp and had an abrupt response when asked who she’d back instead.

“I’m supporting Tom Selleck,” she said and quickly hung up.

See (“Trump’s getting trounced in Indiana”) (emphasis added)

The Washington Post has reported that 200 people could decide whether Trump gets the GOP nomination:

West Virginia looks perfect for Donald Trump: a struggling working-class state filled with the types of voters who have backed him elsewhere and could deliver one of his biggest victories.

But a sweep there might not matter. That’s because as many as 34 delegates — the entire contingent — may be free to back whomever they want at the Republican National Convention.

Much the same is true in Pennsylvania, home to a hotly contested April 26 primary, where there are 54 uncommitted delegates. Other states and territories, from Colorado to Wyoming to Guam, will also send squads of unbound representatives.

These are the swing voters of the GOP nominating contest, nearly 200 activists and elected leaders beholden to nothing except their personal judgment and empowered to make or break candidacies.

If Trump arrives at the July convention in Cleveland just shy of the 1,237 delegates required to secure the nomination outright, these unbound delegates could decide to push him over the top — or force a contested convention with successive rounds of balloting.

“It’s the wildcatter of delegate selection,” said Ed Brookover, a senior adviser to Trump, who drew an analogy to risk-taking oilmen who drill in unexplored land.

The three remaining candidates are identifying these delegates, researching their proclivities and beginning to cajole them. The law surrounding them is so unclear that Trump could conceivably fly them to Florida for a weekend of luxuriating at Mar-a-Lago, his gold-adorned and palm-lined private club — where, naturally, they could be subjected to personal lobbying to support Trump.

Brookover did not rule out the Trump campaign entertaining delegates at one of Trump’s properties or paying for their travel costs to Cleveland. But he added: “You certainly can’t offer anything which would be considered a bribe. We can’t give them $100,000.”

Charlie Black, who is helping lead Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s delegate strategy, recalled working on Ronald Reagan’s insurgent campaign in 1976 and struggling to court delegates as industriously as then-President Gerald Ford.

“People got to stay at the White House, fly on Air Force One and meet Queen Elizabeth,” Black said.

Federal rules do not provide clear guidance about whether delegates can accept items of value from a campaign, other than reimbursement for their travel expenses. Campaign finance lawyers are divided over whether federal or state anti-bribery statutes would apply to delegates who are not elected officials — and if so, what kinds of perks or inducements could be illegal.

After being outmaneuvered on several early delegate plays by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, his main rival, Trump is getting up to speed on the complicated process. On Thursday, he announced that power to oversee all activities related to the convention and delegates activities would be consolidated under Paul Manafort, a newly hired adviser.

“These unbound delegates are important because they could deny Trump any opportunity to get over the magic number on the first ballot — or they could also push him over the top,” said Jason Osborne, a GOP operative versed in convention procedures who advised Trump’s campaign earlier this year but currently is unaffiliated.

By contrast, Cruz has been preparing for this stage of the race for more than a year, his advisers said. The Cruz campaign has methodically recruited supporters to run as unbound delegates in places such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia and plans an intense push to persuade those who will have a vote on the convention floor.

In Colorado, Cruz has picked up at least 18 delegates this week and could sweep the state’s total slate of 37 at its state convention on Saturday. Volunteers in Colorado have been organizing for Cruz since last summer.

“We’re understanding every delegate in the country, tracking them, understanding where they came from, what their interests are,” said Saul Anuzis, a former Republican National Committee member who is helping the Cruz campaign on delegate outreach.

The arcane rules governing the nominating process mean that in Pennsylvania, a populous state that all three remaining candidates are targeting, the winner will automatically receive only 17 of the state’s 71 total delegates. The other 54 delegates, who are elected on the primary ballot in congressional districts, will be unbound.

“Even if you stood up and said, ‘I’m for Governor John Kasich’ and your district duly elected you based on your word, you can go to the convention and say, ‘Nope, I changed my mind,’ ” Brookover said.

Phil English, a past delegate from Pennsylvania and a former congressman, is among the 162 Republicans running to become delegates. He said he considers himself “a free agent” and is open to nominating someone not currently campaigning, such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.).

“I intend to listen to people in my community, look at how they vote in the beauty contest, and then make my own assessment of what would be the strongest ticket for the Republican Party,” English said.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review recently surveyed Pennsylvania’s delegate candidates and found that 61 of the 110 respondents said they would cast at least their first ballot for the presidential candidate who wins the state’s primary. Thirty-two of the respondents said they already are committed to a candidate, while the remainder were undecided.

“They, in effect, become the Republican Party’s superdelegates, just like the Democrats have,” Anuzis said, referring to the hundreds of delegate slots on the Democratic side not chosen by voters. “They could do whatever they want to do.”

Many delegates have been active in their state parties for years, so the campaigns have tasked local surrogates — such as former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge on Kasich’s behalf — to help make personal appeals.

For instance, Brookover said, if a delegate cares about the issue of religious liberty, he or she may get a call from Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. vouching for Trump.

Delegates could be persuaded more than regular voters by ­process-oriented political arguments. “Primary voters don’t care about electability,” Black said. “But delegates do care about it. . . . They want to elect a president, but they also want to save their senators, their congressmen and Republicans down the ballot.”

First, though, the delegates have to be selected. In West Virginia, that means winnowing a field of more than 300 to 31 open slots, which will happen during the May 10 primary. Some delegate hopefuls run aligned with a presidential candidate, meaning they must vote for that candidate in the first ballot at the convention, while others run as uncommitted.

The Trump campaign recently opened an office in Charleston and is trying to persuade more delegate candidates to commit to Trump. Allies are arguing that Trump would be best to guide coal country out of its chronic economic despair.

“In the last 48 hours, some of our candidates for delegates to the national convention have been called by the Trump folks,” said Kris Warner, an RNC member from West Virginia. “They’re leaning pretty heavily on folks.”

See (emphasis added)

Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of what the GOP has become.

It is time to reform the party completely, or let it atrophy and form a third-party—the “People’s Party”—which will bury it once and for all.


11 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Will Trump Be Swindled In Cleveland Too? [UPDATED]

President Trump

This is the title of an article by Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—who has written:

In the race for the Republican nomination, Donald Trump would seem to be in the catbird seat. He has won the most states, the most delegates and the most votes – by nearly 2 million.

He has brought out the largest crowds and is poised for huge wins in the largest states of the East, New York and Pennsylvania.

Yet, there is a growing probability that the backroom boys will steal the nomination from him at a brokered convention in Cleveland.

Over the weekend, Colorado awarded all 34 delegates to Ted Cruz. The fix had been in since August, when party officials, alarmed at Trump’s popularity, decided it would be best if Colorado Republicans were not allowed to vote on the party’s nominee.

After all, these poor folks might get it wrong.

In South Carolina, where Trump swept the primary, a plot is afoot for a mass desertion of Trump delegates after the first ballot.

The Republican Party in Georgia, another state Trump won, is also talking up delegate defections.

In state after state, when Trump wins, and moves on, the apparatchiks arrive – to thieve delegates for Cruz.

“This is a crooked system, folks,” says Trump. “The system is rigged. . . . I go to Louisiana. I win Louisiana. . . . Then I find out I get less delegates than Cruz because of some nonsense. . . . I say this to the RNC. I say it to the Republican Party: You’re going to have a big problem, folks, because the people don’t like what’s going on.”

Something rotten is also going on in the Democratic race.

Bernie Sanders is on a roll, having won seven straight primaries and caucuses. Yet, he keeps falling further behind.

“I watch Bernie. He wins. He wins. He keeps winning, winning,” said Trump in Rochester. “And then I see, he’s got no chance. They always say he’s got no chance. Why doesn’t he have a chance?

“Because the system is corrupt.”

Sanders seems to be shorted every time he wins a primary or caucus. And the insurmountable hurdle he faces was erected against folks like Sanders some time ago – the 700-plus superdelegates.

These are Democratic congressmen, senators, governors and party officials. By more than 10-to-1, close to 500 of these superdelegates have lined up to back Hillary Clinton and stop Sanders.

The Democratic Party believes in democracy, up to a point – that point being that Democratic voters will not be permitted to nominate a candidate to whom the party elites object.

Richard Nixon’s 49-state triumph in 1972 cured the Democrats of their naive belief in democracy. Henceforth, the George McGoverns and Bernie Sanderses can run. But they will not be allowed to win.

Yet, since it is Trump and Sanders who have stirred the greatest passion and brought out the biggest crowds, if both are seen as having been cheated by insiders, then the American political system may suffer a setback similar to that caused by the “corrupt bargain” of 1824.

Andrew Jackson ran first in the popular vote and the Electoral College, but was short of victory. John Quincy Adams, who ran second, got Speaker Henry Clay to deliver the House of Representatives, and thus make Adams president. Clay became Adams’ secretary of state.

In 1828, Jackson got his revenge, winning the presidency. Clay would never make it. On his deathbed, Jackson confided that among the great regrets of his life was that he did not shoot Henry Clay.

While the turnout in the Democratic primaries and caucuses has not matched the Obama-Clinton race of 2008, Sanders has rallied the young and working class, turned out the biggest crowds and generated the greatest enthusiasm.

But on the Republican side, the party has had the largest turnout in American history. And the reason is Trump.

And if, after having won the most votes and delegates, Trump is seen as having been swindled out of a nomination he won, by intra-party scheming in Cleveland, the GOP could suffer a self-inflicted wound from which it might not recover.

Another matter that could prevent a return to national unity? The deepening split over trade and foreign policy, both between the parties, and within the parties.

Sanders, last week, was saying that what disqualifies Clinton as president is her support for free trade deals that gutted American industry and cost millions of jobs, and her support for an Iraq war that was among the costliest, bloodiest blunders in U.S. history.

On both issues, Trump agrees with Sanders. Cruz, an uber-hawk and free trader, is more aligned with Clinton.

If the “America First” stance on foreign and trade policy, close to a majority position today, is unrepresented by either party this fall, and we get a free trade, War Party president, the divisions within the country will widen and deepen.

If Sanders and his revolution are sent packing in Philadelphia, and Trump is robbed in Cleveland of a nomination Americans believe he won, political disillusionment, and political realignment, may be at hand.


Buchanan is correct as far as he goes. But even he does not recognize fully the deep anger of the Trump and Sanders supporters toward government at all levels, including the American judiciary.

Their supporters are likely to walk from the two major parties, and never look back. The GOP is on tenterhooks already, and it will not take much to tip it overboard. Indeed, Presidents Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan would be ashamed of what their party has become.

Lots of Americans left both parties years ago, and became Independents, whose ranks are likely to swell even more.

See (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents“)

If any Republican thinks that Lyin’ Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney or some other hand-picked “establishment” candidate will waltz in and dethrone Trump, they are likely to see the GOP suffer staggering defeats in the coming election. Trump’s supporters may express their anger and rage in ways that no party officials can envision today.

The same is true of Sanders’ supporters—albeit if Hillary Clinton is indicted, it will likely be “game over” for her presidential aspirations; and Bernie Sanders may have smoother sailing to his party’s nomination.

Whatever happens, this November’s elections are likely to be historic and chaotic; and the world may look on with utter amazement and disbelief.

As I have written above, it is time to reform the GOP completely; or let it atrophy and form a third-party—the “People’s Party”—which will bury it once and for all.

Either way, today’s GOP is dead and not worth resuscitating.

See also (“Colorado GOP Leader to Disgruntled Trump Supporter: Go Ahead and Burn the Party Down”)


12 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Donald J. Trump: The Long Road to the White House: 1980-2015 [UPDATED]

See also (“Trump’s Favorable Rating Rivals Reagan’s In 1980“) and (“FINANCIAL ARMAGEDDON?“) and (“If There Is Hope, It Lies With Trump And Only Trump“) and (“Melania Trump Speaks at Donald Trump Rally in Milwaukee“) and,_2016 (Wikipedia: “List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016”) and (“Will Trump Be Swindled In Cleveland Too?“)

Piers Morgan: The Trump Interview, March 25, 2016

See also (“The Trump Presidency“)


12 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Who Are The Trump Voters? [UPDATED]

President Trump

First, they are Americans who are angry about the direction of our great nation, and the lack of leadership in both political parties. They are fed up; and Donald Trump has captured their spirt, hopes and aspirations.

He is not a “Johnny-come-lately.” He has been saying the same things for years, as interviews stretching back over several decades demonstrate. The difference today is that his views resonate with a growing number of Americans.

See, e.g., (“Donald J. Trump: The Long Road to the White House: 1980-2015“)

Second, he is not alone. He has been endorsed by a growing list of prominent Americans from all walks of life. Moreover, if Presidents Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan were alive today, they would be ashamed of what the GOP has become.

See, e.g.,,_2016 (Wikipedia: “List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016”)

Third, Trump’s supporters consist of (1) “Reagan Democrats”; (2) Republicans; and (3) Independents whose ranks are swelling, as Americans desert both political parties.

See, e.g., (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents”) and (“Karl Rove-backed PAC warms to Trump”—”The strategist publicly questions Trump’s electability, but privately his PAC tells donors Trump can win”)

Fourth, Trump supporters and voters are American patriots, from all walks of life. They are the colors of a beautiful rainbow, and believers in the American promise and destiny. In short, they are the very best of America.

Fifth, if Trump is cheated out of the GOP nomination, his supporters are likely to leave the party en masse and never return. The so-called “establishment” Neanderthals are sufficiently stupid that they are willing to commit political suicide rather than see him succeed, inter alia, because their power structure is at stake.

Again, Presidents Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan must be turning over in their graves, watching their party destroy itself.

Yet, each of these great Presidents put America first, which is why our country remains a beacon to the world.

Bald Eagle and American Flag


15 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Why The GOP Can’t Take The Nomination From Trump [UPDATED]

President Trump

Will Rahn—managing director, politics, for CBS News Digital—has written:

Is it me, or does the argument that the Republican nomination can be taken from Donald Trump at a contested convention make almost no sense?

It’s not that it would be unfeasible for Ted Cruz or some other candidate to win a majority of delegates after the first ballot is cast at the convention. If anything, it seems more and more likely that Cruz, given his shrewdness at delegate selection, would be able to pull this off as early as the second ballot.

However, if Trump arrives in Cleveland having won the most votes, the most contests, and the most delegates — all of which is very likely — depriving him of the nomination would be an unprecedented move in the modern political era. And doing so would likely end in disaster not only for the GOP as a whole but its anti-Trump wing in particular.

The argument we’re seeing out of the Cruz camp and the Republican National Committee essentially boils down to this: convention delegates choose the nominee, and that this is how it’s always been done. This argument has the benefit of being technically true because a majority of delegates do, of course, select the nominee at the convention.

But the major reason conventions have been such bloodless affairs over the last few decades is that we’ve always known how the delegates were going to vote — that they have, in practice, been virtually powerless, and are just reflecting the will of the primary voters.

Since 1976, the nominee chosen by the respective parties has always been the candidate that wins the most contests and/or the most number of votes. The Republican nominee has always been the candidate who won both, while the Democrats nominated Walter Mondale in 1984 even though he won fewer contests than Gary Hart (Mondale had the most votes and a plurality of delegates) and nominated Barack Obama in 2008 even though he had won slightly fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. Still, both of these outcomes broadly reflected the will of primary voters, and both eventual nominees had won the most number of delegates.

Should the Republican nomination be awarded to Cruz or John Kasich, it would be wildly out of step with the tradition of letting primary voters decide in practice who their candidate should be. Moreover, explaining this outcome would be enormously difficult to explain to the already dwindling number of voters willing to register Republican.

Trump’s argument, in this scenario, will be simple, clean, and easy to understand: I won the most delegates, the most votes, the most contests, and they stole the nomination from me.

The argument from the other side will be much more complicated and obtuse: You may not have known this, but the guy who wins the most of everything is ultimately at the mercy of a faceless mass of delegates, some of whom can be essentially bribed, and therefore giving the nomination to another candidate is fair game. Millions of Republicans will be told that their vote did not matter, and that the GOP, in its wisdom, has settled on a candidate that has been rejected by its electorate.

The obvious result of such a strategy will be that Trump and many of his supporters will reject the GOP nominee as illegitimate — according to an AP poll out his week, 58 percent of Republicans think the person with the most delegates should get the nomination. That GOP nominee, most likely Cruz, will limp out of Cleveland as the leader of a severely divided party, and will probably lose the election in November.

So the nomination will have been taken from Trump, in part because he is widely seen as unelectable, and given to someone else who loses. Who would the blame naturally fall on in such a catastrophe? Why, the people who “robbed” Trump and his supporters, a group that would conceivably include everyone from grassroots anti-Trump conservatives to local party bosses to Paul Ryan, who’s made his anti-Trump sympathies known, and Reince Priebus. The entire infrastructure of the party, in other words, would be implicated in an undemocratic scheme that ended in failure.

Then there will be the rumors that this or that delegation was bribed by Cruz or Karl Rove or the Koch Brothers; the convention itself might actually end in a Chicago ’68-style riot. And after all that, the GOP will be left with Cruz as their nominee, a man much of the party leadership despises, who most of the GOP electorate didn’t vote for, and who probably can’t win the general.

This outcome will also vindicate a central thesis of the pro-Trump wing of the party: that a GOP establishment exists, that it works against the interests and desires of GOP voters, and that it is fundamentally incompetent, having won the popular vote in a presidential election only once since 1988. In fact, it would be hard for anyone, be they pro-Trump or anti-Trump, to disagree with that analysis, and the GOP will spend the next few years not only at war with itself, but trying to justify its very existence in a two-party system where it seems unable to compete at a national level.

This is all a long way of saying that if Trump, as expected, goes into the convention with the most votes, the most delegates, and the most contests won, it will be in the ultimate interest of the GOP to hand him the nomination regardless of whether he’s secured a majority.

It’s important to remember here that Trump is, in so many ways, his own brand, one separate and distinct from the wider Republican Party. And this is a distinction the rest of the party could strive to emphasize should he become the nominee; Mitch McConnell has reportedly already authorized senators in tight races to attack Trump should that become necessary. Doing so will allow the anti-Trump wing to concentrate on maintaining its control of congress and contain the damage should he lose in November. And such a loss would likely be lethal to Trump’s existence as a political entity, allowing the anti-Trump wing to resume their control of the party come 2017.

There are a number of caveats here worth pointing out. Neither Trump nor Cruz are necessarily doomed in a general election. Hilary Clinton is a flawed candidate in many ways, and some dramatic external event – a terrorist attack, a financial collapse — could maybe sway the election toward the Republicans. But either candidate would be facing significant headwinds coming out of Cleveland, and would need to quickly scramble together a ground game that could compete with a united Democratic Party.

And then of course there’s the argument frequently made by traditional conservatives opposed to Trump, which is that by nominating him the Party has surrendered to thuggery and embraced white-identity politics. Fair enough, but again, if Trump goes into Cleveland as the front-runner, it would be proof that Trump’s rough tactics and message has already resonated with what amounts to a plurality of the party’s voters. For Republicans interested in purging Trumpism from the GOP, the best way of doing that is not through parliamentary tricks in Cleveland, but to let Trump and his backers fail on their own.

Should he somehow win in November – and, if polling we’re looking at the polls, it’s safe to say that he probably won’t – a decision then can be made about whether the rest of the GOP will work with him or against him.

Until then, Republicans should abandon the idea that depriving Trump of the nomination will do anything but help him and damage their party, perhaps irrevocably.


Much more than simply losing to the Democrats in November, the GOP will likely suffer losses across the board—in state-wide and local elections—and be devastated as a political party if Trump is denied the nomination.

In short, it would be political suicide for the GOP. Vast numbers of Trump supporters would work actively against each and every one of the party’s candidates nationally; and it would likely end in a party blood bath.

Lots of us left the GOP years ago, and we would love this result: the GOP destroyed completely, and a new Independent “people’s party” formed in its wake!

Presidents Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan would be ashamed of what their party has become.

See (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents”)


16 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Trump Presidency

[Published on Feb 15, 2016]


16 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Ronald Kessler: Hillary Indictment On Way, But Obama Could Pardon Her


Newsmax has reported:

Veteran journalist Ronald Kessler tells Newsmax TV that Hillary Clinton will likely be indicted before the general election for using a private email server to conduct classified government business as secretary of state — but will likely be pardoned by President Barack Obama.

“Definitely before November. Possibly in a month or two,” Kessler said Friday on “The Steve Malzberg Show.”

“By definition, putting classified information on an unsecured server is gross negligence. You saw President Obama trying to make excuses for her. I think he’s leading up to giving a pardon to Hillary, but there’s no question. She will be indicted.

“Jim Comey, the FBI director, is a man of great integrity. I think [Attorney General] Loretta Lynch is as well … not political in the way Eric Holder was. No question she will be indicted.”

Kessler — a former Washington Post reporter and author of “The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents,” published by Crown Forum — said that even if Clinton is pardoned, the damage will have been done.

“Either way, she’s going to be besmirched and it’s possible that [Vice President Joe] Biden might step in,” he told Malzberg.

Kessler also praised Donald Trump as a candidate who would be very different operating in the White House than how he appears on the campaign trail.

“People don’t understand about Donald that there are two Donald Trumps. One is the guy you see on TV who makes these provocative comments to get attention,” Kessler said.

“But as we get more into the general election, he’s going to start behaving like the Donald Trump I know … and that is a very competent, reasonable guy who built this great empire. $10 billion in assets, 22,500 employees — he didn’t do that by being a bigot or by being an idiot.”

See (emphasis added); see also (“Will Hillary Clinton Fry?“)

As I have written before, such a development may have profound effects not only on the upcoming American election, but also on the global economy.


Hold on tight. What is coming may not be pretty or nice. Indeed, it may be scary and very disruptive of the lives of many Americans and others globally.


16 04 2016

I would have hoped this alleged indictment would happen much sooner that November.. It would seem prudent for it to come down before the convention.. Is the FBI purposely delaying the outcome? There is a lot of pressure on Comey, from both sides of the political spectrum.. It is known the Comey is a straight shooter and immune to political pressure.

Still, it’s very hard to believe that Clinton will indeed be indicted, as her husband Bill, would also be involved, if the Clinton foundation is also part of the broader investigation..

Liked by 1 person

16 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, as always.

Yes, I agree that Hillary’s indictment should happen much sooner than November, and before the Democrats’ convention.

My understanding is the Comey is being very careful. More than 100 FBI agents have been involved; and he wants an “iron-clad” case against her, so that neither Obama nor Lynch will have a leg to stand on.

Also, I believe he and others at the FBI and DOJ will resign en masse if Hillary is not indicted, which would send shock waves through our political and legal systems, and around the world.

With respect to Bill, apparently he does not use e-mail. Hillary is likely to be “hung” legally and politically. He is not.

Because he is not healthy, this may be the end of the Clintons, once and for all.

See (“Clinton Fatigue“)


16 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Releases More Gitmo Terrorists [Updated]


The following is set forth in a press release issued today:

The Department of Defense announced today the transfer of Ahmed Umar Abdullah Al-Hikimi, Abdul Rahman Mohammed Saleh Nasir, Ali Yahya Mahdi Al-Raimi, Tariq Ali Abdullah Ahmed Ba Odah, Muhammed Abdullah Muhammed Al-Hamiri, Ahmed Yaslam Said Kuman, Abd al Rahman Al-Qyati, Mansour Muhammed Ali Al-Qatta, and Mashur Abdullah Muqbil Ahmed Al-Sabri from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

As directed by the president’s Jan. 22, 2009, executive order, the interagency Guantanamo Review Task Force conducted a comprehensive review of these cases. As a result of those reviews, which examined a number of factors, including security issues, Al-Hikimi, Nasir, Al-Raimi, Ba Odah, Al-Hamiri, Kuman, Al-Qyati, and Al-Qatta were unanimously approved for transfer by the six departments and agencies comprising the task force.

On April 17, 2015, the Periodic Review Board consisting of representatives from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence determined continued law of war detention of Al-Sabri does not remain necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States. As a result of that review, which examined a number of factors, including security issues, Al-Sabri was recommended for transfer by consensus of the six departments and agencies comprising the Periodic Review Board. The Periodic Review Board process was established by the president’s March 7, 2011 Executive Order 13567.

In accordance with statutory requirements, the secretary of defense informed Congress of the United States’ intent to transfer these individuals and of the secretary’s determination that these transfers meet the statutory standard.

The United States is grateful to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its humanitarian gesture and willingness to support ongoing U.S. efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The United States coordinated with government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to ensure these transfers took place consistent with appropriate security and humane treatment measures.

Today, 80 detainees remain at Guantanamo Bay.

See (“Detainee Transfers Announced“) (emphasis added)

Barack Obama is both a racist and un-American. If you have any doubts whatsoever, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his core beliefs and undergirds his presidency.

It is summarized in the first article of this blog, with direct quotes and page cites; and it can be read by clicking on the following link.


Donald Trump is correct: the Guantanamo Bay detention facility should not be closed, ever; and more of our enemies should be sent there, as permanent residents!


16 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Is Right Again: Screw The Saudis Who Gave Us 9/11! [UPDATED]

Obama bows to Saudis

The New York Times has reported:

Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.

Several outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy. But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The administration, which argues that the legislation would put Americans at legal risk overseas, has been lobbying so intently against the bill that some lawmakers and families of Sept. 11 victims are infuriated. In their view, the Obama administration has consistently sided with the kingdom and has thwarted their efforts to learn what they believe to be the truth about the role some Saudi officials played in the terrorist plot.

“It’s stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens,” said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and who is part of a group of victims’ family members pushing for the legislation.

President Obama will arrive in Riyadh on Wednesday for meetings with King Salman and other Saudi officials. It is unclear whether the dispute over the Sept. 11 legislation will be on the agenda for the talks.

A spokesman for the Saudi Embassy did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Saudi officials have long denied that the kingdom had any role in the Sept. 11 plot, and the 9/11 Commission found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.” But critics have noted that the commission’s narrow wording left open the possibility that less senior officials or parts of the Saudi government could have played a role. Suspicions have lingered, partly because of the conclusions of a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks that cited some evidence that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot.

Those conclusions, contained in 28 pages of the report, still have not been released publicly.

The dispute comes as bipartisan criticism is growing in Congress about Washington’s alliance with Saudi Arabia, for decades a crucial American ally in the Middle East and half of a partnership that once received little scrutiny from lawmakers. Last week, two senators introduced a resolution that would put restrictions on American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which have expanded during the Obama administration.

Families of the Sept. 11 victims have used the courts to try to hold members of the Saudi royal family, Saudi banks and charities liable because of what the plaintiffs charged was Saudi financial support for terrorism. These efforts have largely been stymied, in part because of a 1976 law that gives foreign nations some immunity from lawsuits in American courts.

The Senate bill is intended to make clear that the immunity given to foreign nations under the law should not apply in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil. If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, it could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 lawsuits.

Obama administration officials counter that weakening the sovereign immunity provisions would put the American government, along with its citizens and corporations, in legal risk abroad because other nations might retaliate with their own legislation. Secretary of State John Kerry told a Senate panel in February that the bill, in its current form, would “expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.”

The bill’s sponsors have said that the legislation is purposely drawn very narrowly — involving only attacks on American soil — to reduce the prospect that other nations might try to fight back.

In a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on March 4, Anne W. Patterson, an assistant secretary of state, and Andrew Exum, a top Pentagon official on Middle East policy, told staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that American troops and civilians could be in legal jeopardy if other nations decide to retaliate and strip Americans of immunity abroad. They also discussed the Saudi threats specifically, laying out the impacts if Saudi Arabia made good on its economic threats.

John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement that the administration stands by the victims of terrorism, “especially those who suffered and sacrificed so much on 9/11.”

Edwin M. Truman, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said he thought the Saudis were most likely making an “empty threat.” Selling hundreds of billions of dollars in American assets would not only be technically difficult to pull off, he said, but would also very likely cause global market turmoil for which the Saudis would be blamed.

Moreover, he said, it could destabilize the American dollar — the currency to which the Saudi riyal is pegged.

“The only way they could punish us is by punishing themselves,” Mr. Truman said.

The bill is an anomaly in a Congress fractured by bitter partisanship, especially during an election year. It is sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. It has the support of an unlikely coalition of liberal and conservative senators, including Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, and Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas. It passed through the Judiciary Committee in January without dissent.

“As our nation confronts new and expanding terror networks that are targeting our citizens, stopping the funding source for terrorists becomes even more important,” Mr. Cornyn said last month.

The alliance with Saudi Arabia has frayed in recent years as the White House has tried to thaw ties with Iran — Saudi Arabia’s bitter enemy — in the midst of recriminations between American and Saudi officials about the role that both countries should play in the stability of the Middle East.

But the administration has supported Saudi Arabia on other fronts, including providing the country with targeting intelligence and logistical support for its war in Yemen. The Saudi military is flying jets and dropping bombs it bought from the United States — part of the billions of dollars in arms deals that have been negotiated with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations during the Obama administration.

The war has been a humanitarian disaster and fueled a resurgence of Al Qaeda in Yemen, leading to the resolution in Congress to put new restrictions on arms deals to the kingdom. Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, one of the resolution’s sponsors and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Congress has been “feckless” in conducting oversight of arms sales, especially those destined for Saudi Arabia.

“My first desire is for our relationship with Saudi Arabia to come with a greater degree of conditionality than it currently does,” he said.

See (“Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill“) (emphasis added); see also (“FINANCIAL ARMAGEDDON?“)

ALL Saudi assets in the United States should be frozen, and the 28 pages of the report—and other documents relating to the Saudis’ complicity in the attacks on our great nation—must be released immediately.

As many Americans know, there is reason to believe that Franklin D. Roosevelt had advanced warning of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, yet did nothing about it.

The American people must know the truth. Donald Trump is correct, again!

See also (“Obama Is Bowing Again . . . This Time To The Saudis“)

[Sen. Bob Graham + CIA Robert Baer: 9/11 Saudi Connection, published on September 20, 2015]

See also (“Fresh evidence links Saudi government to 9/11: Flight certificate of would-be bomber is found in embassy envelope buried underground as Obama is snubbed by King Salman at Riyadh airport”—”[T]he Saudi government may have been linked to the coordinated attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people”—”President Obama has just arrived in the country amid mounting pressure to declassify a 28-page section of a Congressional report which many believe will point to Saudi involvement in the 9/11 plane hijackings”)


17 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Reince Priebus Is the Don Knotts Of American Politics [UPDATED]

Don Knotts and Reince Priebus

The Hill has reported:

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus said Sunday the GOP likely won’t change a rule that requires candidates to have 1,237 delegates to clinch the GOP presidential nomination.

“Having a plurality of the delegates means the field has the majority. You have to have the majority, it’s the United States of America,” Priebus said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “The majority rules, and that is an American concept I can’t imagine us turning our backs on.”

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump has said repeatedly that he should receive the party’s nomination if he has more delegates than his opponents, even if he hasn’t reached 1,237.

Trump has ramped up his attacks against the RNC in the past week, accusing party officials of “canceling the vote” in Colorado, which had a convention to award delegates instead of a primary of caucus.

Opponent Ted Cruz shut Trump out of delegates in that state, taking all 34. Similarly, the Texas senator won the vast majority of Wyoming’s delegates in its convention during the past month, adding another 23 to his delegate count.

Priebus maintained Sunday that state parties, not the RNC, decide their individual delegate processes, which have been finalized since last October.

“The process has been going on for a month in each of the state’s where there’s been a convention,” Priebus said. “It’s not a matter of party insiders. It’s a matter of 2,400 grassroots activists, and whatever they want to do, they can do.”

See (“RNC chief: No changes to delegate requirement likely“) (emphasis added); see also (“Priebus to Trump: ‘Delegates And Voters Choose The Nominee’; People Don’t ‘Give A Darn’ About Colorado”)

Lots of us left the GOP years ago; and we want to see it destroyed, not reformed!

See (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents”)

Presidents Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan would be ashamed of what their party has become.


18 04 2016

I heard that if Trump gets 1100 delegates, he will almost using the nomination.. Have you heard something similar Timothy?

Liked by 1 person

18 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, as always.

Yes, I agree with you.

See, e.g., (“Why The GOP Can’t Take The Nomination From Trump”) and (“Romney: Trump Will Win Nomination If Nobody Quits”—”A continued three-way race for the GOP nomination will allow Donald Trump to clinch the top spot during the first ballot of this July’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and if that happens, the New York billionaire will lose the White House to Hillary Clinton in the fall, Mitt Romney is warning”)

First, Mitt Romney is a great disappointment; and lots of us are sorry that we voted for him.

Second, if Hillary is indicted, it will be “game over” for her presidential aspirations.

See (“MITT ROMNEY: NO CLASS!”) and (“Ronald Kessler: Hillary Indictment On Way, But Obama Could Pardon Her”)

Third, even Rupert Murdoch—who owns FOX, the Wall Street Journal, and the Times of London—is moving toward Trump.

See (“How Rupert Murdoch warmed up to Donald Trump’s candidacy”—”The most intriguing part about the New York Post’s endorsement of Donald Trump might be what it says about the relationship between the candidate and Rupert Murdoch. The Post, of course, is owned by Murdoch, once a vocal critic of Trump’s presidential campaign. The tabloid’s endorsement comes amid a thaw in tensions between Trump and Murdoch’s media empire”—”Murdoch has apparently come to see Trump not only as a serious candidate with potential, but also as the GOP’s inevitable nominee”—”On Thursday, hours before the Post’s endorsement appeared online, the Journal published an editorial authored by Trump”—”Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said, ‘Mr. Trump is proud to receive the endorsement and has always had great respect for Mr. Ailes and Mr. Murdoch'”)

Fourth, it would be suicidal for the GOP to nominate anyone other than Trump. The defection of his supporters would doom the party nationally, state-wide and locally, as I have written above.

Stupid they may be, but suicidal? Possibly, but I doubt it.


18 04 2016

The best blog, right here 🙂

Liked by 1 person

18 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick.

Because of those who read it and use it, and comment at it, like YOU! 🙂


19 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Rush Limbaugh: GOP Establishment Will Vote Hillary to Keep Their Power [UPDATED]

GOP Establishment Neanderthals

Newsmax has reported:

The Republican establishment would rather put Democrat Hillary Clinton in the White House than Republicans Donald Trump or Ted Cruz because it would keep them in charge of “their fiefdoms,” talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said on Monday.

“The Republican establishment is prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton if it means holding onto their fiefdoms,” Limbaugh said, adding, “The Republican Party is prepared, if Ted Cruz gets the nomination, to not care whether he wins or loses.”

“In fact,” Limbaugh said later, “if Ted Cruz is the nominee and loses the general, the party will be happy. They’ll be able to blame the loss on conservatives and conservatism and be done — once and for all — with conservatism in the party.”

The GOP’s “primary objective” is self-preservation, not winning the White House in this cycle,” Limbaugh said. “Given the vagaries of this cycle, the Republican Party’s primary objective is maintaining its own power structure and base for the current people that occupy it.”

The dead giveaway, he said, is when some in the party openly say they will vote for Clinton over Trump.

“And some of them have even said that they’ll vote for Hillary instead of Cruz,” he said. “It means they don’t think the country’s in crisis. They don’t think anything of the sort.”

See (emphasis added)

It is time for the GOP to be cleansed of these people. As Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

Donald Trump has brought out the largest crowds in the history of primaries. He has won the most victories, the most delegates, the most votes. He is poised to sweep three of the five largest states in the nation — New York, Pennsylvania and California.

If he does, and the nomination is taken from him, the Republican Party will be seen by the American people as a glorified Chinese tong.

Last week, Ted Cruz swept 34 delegates at the Colorado party convention. Attendees were not allowed to vote on whom they wanted as the party’s nominee.

This weekend, Cruz shut out Trump in Wyoming the same way.

What does this tell us? Cruz has a better “ground game.” His operatives work the system better. Ted Cruz is the king of small ball.

But having gone head-to-head in some 30 primaries and caucuses, Cruz has fallen millions of votes behind Trump, and will fall millions further behind after New York, Pennsylvania and California.

Cruz will soon join John Kasich in being mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination on the first ballot. His fallback strategy is to keep Trump just short of the 1,237 votes needed for victory on the first ballot, and then steal the nomination on the second.

How? Poaching and pilfering. In state after state, he is getting Cruz loyalists elected as Trump delegates. After casting an obligatory vote for Trump on the first ballot, the turncoats will go over the hill and vote for Cruz on the second ballot.

Faithless delegates are preparing to switch to give Ted Cruz a nomination that he could not persuade Republican voters to confer upon him.

Like the 1919 World Series, the fix is in.

The rules are the rules, says Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus in defense of what went down in Colorado and Wyoming.

Priebus is correct. The rules are the rules. But what is also true is that the rules have been and are being manipulated by party elites to frustrate the expressed will of a Republican electorate, and to impose a nominee other then the clear winner of the primaries.

Republican elites are engaged in a conspiracy to frustrate and overturn the democratic decision of the Republican electorate.

Prediction: If Trump sweeps the remaining major primaries, comes to Cleveland with millions more votes than any other candidate, and then has the nomination stolen from him, the Grand Old Party will be committing hara-kiri on worldwide TV.

This political race ranks among the most exciting in American history. Seventeen Republicans entered the lists last summer in what party officials hailed as “the strongest Republican field since 1980.”

Then Trump came down the escalator, took them on, and bested them all. Can Republican Party elites think they will be celebrated if they substitute their wants for the will of the voters?

A Cruz nomination would be like taking the gold medal away from the man who won it, and handing it to a runner-up. The GOP elites would be about as popular as those Olympic boxing judges in South Korea.

The deeper problem here is the refusal of party elites to realize that the world has changed.

The Bush dynasty is done. Jeb Bush, the Prince of Wales, understands this. He will not be going to Cleveland.

The primaries have starkly revealed that a new era is upon us.

Even the neocons, the dominant element among the 121 foreign policy experts who declared in an open letter that they will never work for a President Trump, testify to this.

They see Trump’s victories as a repudiation of their legacy, and a Trump presidency as the end of their post-Cold War ascendancy.

And given the disasters they have produced for America, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya and Yemen, the nation would be well rid of them.

Indeed, Trump’s victories, and the energies he has unleashed, are due, not only to his outsized persona but to his issues.

People believe Trump will secure the borders, halt the invasion, embrace tariff and trade policies to reduce imports, and restart the production of goods, Made in the USA, by and for Americans.

In his first inaugural, Woodrow Wilson said, “The success of a party means little except when the Nation is using that party for a large and definite purpose.”

Bush Republicans saw their “large and definite purpose” as creating a “New World Order” and “ending tyranny in our world.”

Trump seems to see repairing, rebuilding and restoring America to greatness as the “large and definite purpose” of the party he would lead. And a new emerging Republican majority seems to agree.

If Trump had been routed, as first expected, then his message could rightly have been regarded as outside the mainstream. But Republican voters rallied to the issues he raised.

To either ignore the clear instructions of its electorate, or renounce their chosen messenger, would be for the Republican Party to forfeit its future, and cling to a discredited and dead past.

See (“Is the GOP Risking Suicide?“) (emphasis added)

If the GOP is to have any future at all, it must focus on purging its ranks of Karl Rove, Bill Kristol and their fellow Neanderthals. Lots of us left the party years ago because of these cretins.

The mindset of these so-called “establishment” Neanderthals is exactly why we will never come back except to vote for Donald Trump—and only Trump.

Republican giants like our former Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of what their once-great party has become, and categorically reject this detestable group and its screed.


19 04 2016

Today, I went to vote, and somehow, I was registered as a democrat!! Never in my life have I registered as a democrat.. What the hell is going on.. ??

Liked by 1 person

19 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick.

In the final analysis, this year may go down as one of the most corrupt elections in American history, with respect to both political parties.

Were you able to register as a Republican? Were you able to vote as one? Have you reported what has happened to the Trump campaign in Albany?

I have sent it on to Matt Drudge.


19 04 2016

I could not vote as a republican.. I argued for ten minutes to no avail.. So, I voted for Bernie, hoping that takes away from Hilary… I am very upset Tim.. I will call the Trump campaign shortly ..

Liked by 1 person

19 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

I am furious, Rick!

What was done to you may be criminal, and constitute voter fraud and disenfranchisement.

Please contact the local Trump campaign people. Also, you may hear from the Federal Elections Commission and/or the DOJ, and from the national Trump campaign.

I am so so sorry. Needless to say, this is what all of us are fighting for today: free and honest elections; government at all levels that works for the people; political parties that serve the voters, not the party functionaries; and the American democracy that we believe in.

My first ancestor came to the States in 1760 from Bristol, England. Others came from Scotland, Ireland and Germany. Indeed, my German ancestors—a husband and wife who had 16 children—landed at your New York on September 18, 1849.

In 1860, the husband served with his fellow Minnesotans in the Union Army. The assimilation had taken only 11 years, but he was proud to serve; and I am sure many other immigrants felt that way who served with the Confederacy.

What has happened to you today should not happen to any American, period!


20 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Serial Cheater, Lyin’ Ted Cruz, Meets With GOP Scum [UPDATED]

Lyin' Ted Cruz

Time magazine has reported:

Ted Cruz has made few friends among Republicans in Washington during his nearly four years in the Senate, but his message to GOP elite as he looks to build support to the party’s presidential nominee is that he would bring more Republicans along with him.

In a private meeting with members of the Republican National Committee, the Cruz campaign’s high command, including campaign manager Jeff Roe, strategist David Polyansky, and delegate-hunters Ken Cuccinelli and Saul Anuzis, made the case for Cruz as the party’s stronger choice for the general election and argued he’d help down-ballot GOP races. Mathematically eliminated from winning the GOP nomination on the first ballot, Cruz is betting on Donald Trump failing to reach the 1,237 delegates required to win the nomination on the first ballot, and plotting to secure as many of the then-unbound votes as possible.

According to multiple people in the room, Roe pitches the members on Cruz’s commitment to grassroots organizing and cited poll numbers showing Cruz as a better candidate than Trump in the general election. Yet Cruz’s own numbers are less than spectacular, trailing Hillary Clinton in nearly every poll, and often by substantial margins.

Cruz made a late addition to his schedule Wednesday to attend the spring meeting of the RNC at a beachside resort in Hollywood, Fla, where his campaign has arranged an afternoon of small-group meetings with RNC members. The Florida meeting represents the largest gathering of known delegates to the convention, and the second largest to the as-yet-elected California delegation’s organizing meeting. Speaking to the heart of the GOP establishment, Cruz rejected the notion that he was trying to appeal to the very “Washington cartel” he has railed against for years.

“The people who are here are elected grassroots activists from the states,” Cruz said of the 168 members of the Republican National Committee in a press conference.

Speaking to reporters after the morning briefing, Roe reinforced the message he delivered privately, saying he believes RNC members are focused on ensuring the continued viability of their state parties, saying if Trump wins the nomination, “It’ll be a white wash. It’ll be a situation where we’d have to rename our party.”

“I think one of the critical components if you’re an RNC member that has worked your life to get Republicans elected in your state is how do you get them re-elected,” Roe told reporters, saying Cruz is pledging to run a national campaign in the general election. “And the Republican nominee—what is the nominee of your party going to do for you as a state party. And that’s where we all came from, to a person on our team we came from the grassroots running a campaign in difficult environments or easy environments, state reps, state senate, congressional, statewide. And so the interaction between a presidential campaign and a local party is critical, it’s crucial, and we don’t believe it’s just a 51 county national race anymore that happens in five states. We just don’t believe that. We believe that this is a national campaign.”

Roe’s argument drew quick snark from GOP rivals and raised eyebrows from operatives, who noted Cruz has endorsed primary challengers to sitting Republican lawmakers, called Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “liar” and faces challenges reaching out to general election moderates, women, and minorities.

Roe added that he doesn’t think Trump can win, and that Cruz “will build an infrastructure that supports the local elected officials running for re-election.”

“I mean with a Cruz at the top of the ballot, you will see records of conservatives coming out to vote and we are building an infrastructure to compete where others haven’t competed: for Hispanics, younger voters, we had a life story that’s compelling to women, that’s compelling to minorities, it’s compelling to younger voters,” he added. “Our opponent in this primary doesn’t have that.”

Speaking to reporters, Cruz argued that despite Trump’s New York victory, the GOP race is set for a contested convention. “I am not going to reach 1,237, and Donald is not going to reach 1,237,” Cruz maintained. He added that he is in the race until the convention. “The only condition under which I’d leave the race were if it was clear there was no path to victory,” Cruz said.

He also refreshed his call for Trump to face him in a head-to-head debate, noting the last such gathering was 41 days ago. “I think their [sic] ought to be a debate before the vote next Tuesday,” Cruz said.”

Ohio Gov. John Kasich and representatives of Trump’s campaign will also be in Cleveland this week to make their pitch to RNC members.

See (“Ted Cruz Seeks to Mend Fences with Republican Elites”) (emphasis added); see also (“Is Lyin’ Ted Cruz A Serial Cheater?“) and (“Reince Priebus Is the Don Knotts Of American Politics“)

Even if Lyin’ Ted was the only candidate on the ballot in November, lots of us would never in a million years vote for him.

He is a wretch is every respect, and the worst of American politics!

His Congressional colleagues know that this is true.


26 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Is Hillary Too Sick To Run?


This issue has been discussed here at length before. However, it is becoming more critical than ever.

See (“Clinton Fatigue“)

Leftist Callum Borchers has written in the Washington Post:

Hillary Clinton has had two public coughing fits in the past week. This is important because … well, it’s not explicitly clear.

The Weekly Standard simply posted video of Clinton’s coughing during a rally on Sunday in Bridgeport, Conn., along with the explanation she offered the crowd: “I have been talking non-stop for weeks now.” The conservative magazine didn’t attempt to get into the significance.

The Washington Free Beacon took a similar approach to Clinton’s coughing during a “Breakfast Club” radio interview last Monday, posting video and recapping the Democratic presidential front-runner’s exchange with the show’s hosts, who joked that she sounded as if she had been smoking medical marijuana and asked if she needed CPR. The conservative newspaper offered no broader implications.

This is typical of coverage by right-leaning news outlets whenever Clinton suffers an on-camera coughing spell, as she has on several occasions in this campaign. The recurring headline might as well be “Hillary Clinton has a coughing problem — just sayin’.”

But they’re not “just sayin’.” There’s a reason the former secretary of state’s ticklish throat is an issue. Fortunately, we can count on a couple of straight-shooters to abandon subtlety and suggestion. “Is Hillary Clinton healthy enough to be president?” wondered the Daily Caller in February. A few weeks earlier, Breitbart News reported that Clinton’s coughing raises “questions about her health and stamina.”

There it is. This is about suggesting that Clinton might be physically unfit to be commander-in-chief. And no one has pushed this idea harder than Matt Drudge, the news aggregator extraordinaire whose highly trafficked Drudge Report website seems to favor Donald Trump.

In another tweet, which he later deleted, Drudge wrote that “no probe into Hillary’s flaring hypothyroidism/Hashimoto’s is top media coverup of ’16. There is a goiter forming!”

Let’s get a few things straight here: Clinton does have a condition called hypothyroidism, which hinders the thyroid’s production of a hormone that regulates metabolism and can cause fatigue. And she is prone to coughing spells when speaking for extended periods of time; according to NBC News, she drinks tea and uses a humidifier to combat the problem. These non-secrets have been noted by Politico, Mother Jones, Salon, the Hill and many other outlets that Clinton haters would like to believe are engaged in a cover-up.

Let’s also say that it is fair to ask whether presidential candidates — especially older ones like Clinton — are up to the physical demands of running the country.

Clinton will be 69 on Inauguration Day; Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders will be 70 and 75, respectively. All three have released doctors’ notes documenting good health. If Clinton actually had a serious medical problem, or otherwise appeared too frail to be president, it would be a big deal.

But mainstream media outlets haven’t made a big deal of Clinton’s coughing because, as Dr. Philip Weintraub explained last fall to an inquiring patient — The Fix’s Philip Bump — it probably doesn’t indicate anything more than a dry throat brought on by prolonged talking.

Also, Clinton’s coughing thing has been a thing for almost a decade now — during which time she has managed to run for president twice and serve four years as secretary of state. If it were really a symptom of some terrible ailment that would prevent her from fulfilling her duties, wouldn’t it have done so by now?

In 2007, a coughing fit interrupted Clinton’s commencement address at Dillard University in New Orleans. Drudge took note of that episode, too, but seemed to give her a pass.

“The campaign trail is long and tough,” he wrote at the time, sounding an awful lot like Clinton herself. Drudge was even more generous on his radio show, according to a profile published later that year in New York magazine.

When Clinton started wheezing and coughing in a speech in New Orleans in May, Drudge expressed genuine concern for her. “Hillary, dear, take care of yourself. We need you. I need you personally … Take a few days off, what’s this frenetic pace?” He added admiringly, “She was professional. She kept going. She finished the speech.” After a left-wing listener IM’d Drudge to say he wanted Hillary to drop dead onstage, Drudge said, “I need Hillary Clinton. You don’t get it. I need to be part of her world. That’s my bank. Like Leo DiCaprio has the environment and Al Gore has the environment and Jimmy Carter has anti-Americanism … I have Hillary.”

Once upon a time, even Matt Drudge thought Clinton’s coughing fits were merely a side effect of giving speech after speech — something worthy of a little sympathy and even admiration, not something that might disqualify her from the White House.

See (“The conservative media’s obsession with Hillary Clinton’s coughing“) (emphasis added)

This is not a minor issue. John F. Kennedy’s life-threatening health issues were hidden from Americans in the 1960 election; and they are hidden even today.

See (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“) (see also the comments beneath the article)


27 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Ted Cruz: How Sweet It Is!


The Gateway Pundit has reported:

As we predicted on April 2nd . . . As of today, April 26, 2016, Ted Cruz is mathematically eliminated from winning the Republican nomination outright.

On April 2nd we predicted that Donald Trump would have 953 delegates as of today (needing only 284 delegates for the nomination) and that Cruz would have 550 delegates as of today (needing 687 to win the nomination).

We also predicted that only 634 delegates would remain and therefore Cruz would need more delegates than would be available.

Ted Cruz is eliminated.

It is clear that Cruz was eliminated tonight.
It is not clear yet [] how devastating the final numbers will be for Ted Cruz.

After winning all five primaries tonight — Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania — Donald Trump has 950 delegates so far.

Ted Cruz finished third in Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware and Rhode Island.

There are fewer delegates remaining than we originally projected because the delegates in Wyoming, Colorado and North Dakota were allocated in shady voter-less elections after April 2nd.

After tonight’s primaries Cruz has — 560 delegates after winning one delegate Tuesday.
Cruz needs 677 delegates to reach 1,237 delegates.
There are only 622 available.
It’s over.

Our April 2nd projections for Trump and Cruz were very close to the actual results.

Ted Cruz is Mathematically Eliminated from winning the GOP nomination outright and has fewer wins than Bernie Sanders.

UPDATE: Cruz wins 1 delegate in Rhode Island.

See (“IT’S OFFICIAL=> Ted Cruz Is Mathematically ELIMINATED from GOP Race – With Chart“) (emphasis in original; chart omitted); see also (“The Serial Cheater, Lyin’ Ted Cruz, Meets With GOP Scum“) and (“Is Lyin’ Ted Cruz A Serial Cheater?“)

How sweet it is!


28 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

John Boehner Calls Lyin’ Ted “Lucifer in the Flesh” [UPDATED]

Ted Cruz is Satan

The Wall Street Journal has reported:

Retirement hasn’t softened former House Speaker John Boehner’s dislike of Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, nor has it affected his penchant for colorful language.

The Ohio Republican, who resigned from Congress last fall, on Wednesday night called the GOP presidential candidate “Lucifer in the flesh,” telling an audience at Stanford University that he wouldn’t vote for him for president even if he were the GOP nominee, according to the Stanford Daily student newspaper.

“I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life,” Mr. Boehner said.

A spokesman for Mr. Boehner confirmed the comments were accurate.

Mr. Cruz, speaking to reporters before a campaign event in Indiana Thursday, said that Mr. Boehner’s attack on him was emblematic of the Washington establishment that he wants to upend and a mindset that would be perpetuated by Mr. Trump.

“He allowed his inner Trump to come out,” Mr. Cruz said. “What made John Boehner mad is that I’ve led a movement of the people to hold Washington accountable.”

Mr. Boehner has never hidden his animosity for Mr. Cruz, who helped stoke enthusiasm for the partial government shutdown in October 2013 that Mr. Boehner had worked to avoid. Mr. Cruz’s plotting with House conservatives over the unsuccessful effort to defund the 2010 health-care law earned him the nickname “Speaker Cruz.” Last summer, Mr. Boehner, in a closed-door fundraiser in Colorado, reportedly called Mr. Cruz a jackass.

Disputing Mr. Boehner’s statement that he had “never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch,” Mr. Cruz said that the two men had never actually worked together. Mr. Cruz said he had “reached out” to meet with the speaker when he was leading the 2013 government shutdown but Mr. Boehner refused.

Supporters of Mr. Cruz have tried to capitalize on Mr. Boehner’s dislike of the GOP candidate and the salty language he has used to express it. In November, a radio ad by a super PAC supporting Ted Cruz for president, took aim at Mr. Boehner, noting that the former speaker referred to Mr. Cruz “as a pain the you-know-what because of his bold actions.”

At Stanford, Mr. Boehner used only slightly less flattering terms for members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, calling them “knuckleheads” and “goofballs.” The conservative lawmakers’ objections over legislation frequently foiled GOP leaders’ plans and helped push Mr. Boehner out of his post.

Mr. Boehner also took aim at Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton. He drew a “negative” reaction from the college crowd when he impersonated her by saying, “Oh I’m a woman, vote for me,” according to the Stanford article. He later praised her as accomplished and smart.

Unflattering impersonations are also not without precedent for Mr. Boehner, who was forced to apologize to House Republicans after mocking some lawmakers’ reluctance to overhaul immigration laws at an event in his Ohio district. “Here’s the attitude: ‘Ohhhh, don’t make me do this. Ohhhh, this is too hard,’ ” Mr. Boehner, pantomiming tears, told the Middletown Rotary Club in April 2014.

In the Stanford interview, Mr. Boehner also discussed his relationship with other GOP presidential candidates. He has played golf and texted with front-runner Donald Trump and said he puts work into his friendship with Ohio Gov. John Kasich, whom he has endorsed for president.

“[Kasich] requires more effort on my behalf than all my other friends . . . but he’s still my friend, and I love him,” said Mr. Boehner.

He said he’d vote for Mr. Trump if the New York businessman is the GOP nominee.

Mr. Boehner’s comments marked a particularly strong contrast with his replacement as House speaker, Paul Ryan. The Wisconsin Republican speaks in carefully-crafted sentences aimed at elevating the GOP discourse at a time when the presidential campaign has often descended into name-calling and insults.

“I have a much better relationship than that with Sen. Cruz,” Mr. Ryan told reporters Thursday, when asked about Mr. Boehner’s comments. “I have a very good relationship with both of these men and I’m going to keep it that way.”

FreedomWorks, a conservative grass-roots group, chided Mr. Boehner Thursday morning for not adopting a more statesmanlike tone in his comments about Mr. Cruz.

“We hope Boehner finds some class as he continues his retirement,” FreedomWorks CEO Adam Brandon said in a statement. “Maybe more time will help him become less bitter.”

See (“John Boehner Calls Ted Cruz ‘Lucifer in the Flesh’“); see also (“Ted Cruz: How Sweet It Is!“) and (“The Serial Cheater, Lyin’ Ted Cruz, Meets With GOP Scum“) and (“Is Lyin’ Ted Cruz A Serial Cheater?“) and (“Donald Trump could amass most primary votes in GOP history“)

Of course Boehner is correct.

Many of us would not vote for Lyin’ Ted if he was the only candidate on any ballot, ever.

He is just not likable, at all, which may be why his congressional colleagues have spurned him en masse.

It is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. Once a pig, always a pig.


28 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele


Bald Eagle and American Flag

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

Whether the establishment likes it or not, and it evidently does not, there is a revolution going on in America.

The old order in this capital city is on the way out. America is crossing a great divide, and there is no going back.

Donald Trump’s triumphant march to the nomination in Cleveland, virtually assured by his five-state sweep Tuesday, confirms it, as does his foreign policy address of Wednesday.

Two minutes into his speech before the Center for the National Interest, Trump declared that the “major and overriding theme” of his administration will be – “America first.” Right down the smokestack!

Gutsy and brazen it was to use that phrase, considering the demonization of the great anti-war movement of 1940-41, which was backed by the young patriots John F. Kennedy and his brother Joe, Gerald Ford and Sargent Shriver, and President Hoover and Alice Roosevelt.

Whether the issue is trade, immigration or foreign policy, says Trump, “we are putting the American people first again.” U.S. policy will be dictated by U.S. national interests.

By what he castigated, and what he promised, Trump is repudiating both the fruits of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy and the legacy of Bush Republicanism and neoconservatism.

When Ronald Reagan went home, says Trump, “our foreign policy began to make less and less sense. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, which ended in one foreign policy disaster after another.”

He lists the results of 15 years of Bush-Obama wars in the Middle East: civil war, religious fanaticism, thousands of Americans killed, trillions of dollars lost, a vacuum created that ISIS has filled.

Is he wrong here? How have all of these wars availed us? Where is the “New World Order” of which Bush I rhapsodized at the U.N.?

Can anyone argue that our interventions to overthrow regimes and erect democratic states in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen have succeeded and been worth the price we have paid in blood and treasure, and the devastation we have left in our wake?

George W. Bush declared that America’s goal would become “to end tyranny in our world.” An utterly utopian delusion, to which Trump retorts by recalling John Quincy Adams’ views on America: “She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”

To the neocons’ worldwide crusade for democracy, Trump’s retort is that it was always a “dangerous idea” to think “we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming Western democracies.”

We are “overextended,” he declared, “We must rebuild our military.” Our NATO allies have been freeloading for half a century. NAFTA was a lousy deal. In running up $4 trillion in trade surpluses since Bush I, the Chinese have been eating our lunch.

This may be rankest heresy to America’s elites, but Trump outlines a foreign policy past generations would have recognized as common sense: Look out for your own country and your own people first.

Instead of calling President Putin names, Trump says he would talk to the Russians to “end the cycle of hostility,” if he can.

“Ronald Reagan must be rolling over in his grave,” sputtered Sen. Lindsey Graham, who quit the race to avoid a thrashing by the Donald in his home state of South Carolina.

But this writer served in Reagan’s White House, and the Gipper was always seeking a way to get the Russians to negotiate. He leaped at the chance for a summit with Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva and Reykjavik.

“Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war,” says Trump, “unlike other candidates, war and aggression will not be my first instinct.”

Is that not an old and good Republican tradition?

Dwight Eisenhower ended the war in Korea and kept us out of any other. Richard Nixon ended the war in Vietnam, negotiated arms agreements with Moscow and made an historic journey to open up Mao’s China.

Reagan used force three times in eight years. He put Marines in Lebanon, liberated Grenada and sent FB-111s over Tripoli to pay Col. Gadhafi back for bombing a Berlin discotheque full of U.S. troops.

Reagan later believed putting those Marines in Lebanon, where 241 were massacred, to be the worst mistake of his presidency.

Military intervention for reasons of ideology or nation building is not an Eisenhower or Nixon or Reagan tradition. It is not a Republican tradition. It is a Bush II-neocon deformity, an aberration that proved disastrous for the United States and the Middle East.

The New York Times headline declared that Trump’s speech was full of “Paradoxes,” adding, “Calls to Fortify Military and to Use It Less.”

But isn’t that what Reagan did? Conduct the greatest military buildup since Ike, then, from a position of strength, negotiate with Moscow a radical reduction in nuclear arms?

“We’re getting out of the nation-building business,” says Trump.

“The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony.” No more surrenders of sovereignty on the altars of “globalism.”

Is that not a definition of a patriotism that too many among our arrogant elites believe belongs to yesterday?

See (emphasis added)

The “neocons” and their fellow travelers should be deported to the country or countries they support, and denied reentry to the United States again.

Among other tragedies, they gave us the Iraq War, in which so many Americans died or were maimed, and which cost our great nation and its citizens trillions of dollars.

They are the enemy, every bit as much as those whom we fought!

Buchanan is so correct when he writes:

Military intervention for reasons of ideology or nation building is . . . a Bush II-neocon deformity, an aberration that proved disastrous for the United States and the Middle East.



29 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

It’s Hillary Who Lives In A Bubble, Not Donald Trump


Political pundit and former Clinton advisor Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have written:

Hillary Clinton has been loudly ranting that Donald Trump doesn’t know anything at all about how ordinary Americans live. She says he just flies his big jet into a venue for a rally and then gets right back on it and flies to his New York penthouse or his Florida mansion.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Hillary does the same exact thing: she hops on her private jet and goes to one of her two mansions — in New York and Washington, with a combined value of close to $10 million. But she thinks that’s somehow different. She’s morally superior.

Hillary’s hypocritical comments show just how out of touch she is with her own life and her own circumstances. Because if anyone lives in a giant bubble with no clue about what’s going on in the real world, it’s Hillary Clinton. Hillary has no more of a feeling of what living in America is all about than the Queen of England does.

That woman couldn’t find her way out of a paper bag by herself. She’s surrounded by and dependent on fawning aides 24/7. They tell her what to say, what to wear, when and where to color her hair — and even how to find the TV programs she wants to watch, but doesn’t know how to find. Yes, she has no idea how to use a TV and no idea whether she had Wi-Fi. Her aides teach her how to use her iPad, arrange for menus for private dinners, and deliver phone chargers when she needs them. They arrange for her clothes, call to wake her in the morning and print out directions for a certain kind of hairdo she wanted. That’s just some of the things the top level people at the State Dept. did for her. Based on what we’ve seen in her emails, Hillary Clinton is incapable of functioning by herself. She exists in a bubble surrounded by layers and layers of protection against the daily encounters, frustrations, and stress that the rest of us experience. She doesn’t have a clue.

Hillary claims that, unlike Trump, she has been touring the country for a year and ‘listening” to people. But to Hillary, “listening” means bringing in a pre-selected audience to say exactly what she wants to hear while she constantly shakes her head in agreement behind closed doors. She’s spent a year “listening” to people she gathers as stage props to pretend she is popular. She keeps the press out because she doesn’t want them to hear her and catch her in one of her many lies.

Occasionally, she will have a photo-op/pretend agenda to show that she’s just like us. Remember her road trip to Iowa. That was supposed to show that she eschewed expensive jets for a thousand mile car ride. But her car trip was chauffeured by the Secret Service. And when the Lady of the People stopped at Chipotle, she never said hello to a single person and stiffed them on a tip. That’s her idea of being among the everyday people.

Donald Trump doesn’t have to search for sympathetic people to fill up his rallies. Thousands stand on line for hours, usually overflowing into adjoining rooms.

Everything about Hillary is scripted — her talking points, her speeches, her interviews. Nothing about her is natural or uninhabited. There’s no such thing as impromptu in Hillary’s world.

Donald Trump is just the opposite; he’s spontaneous and always comfortable with himself; he doesn’t need anyone to tell him what to do or say. He doesn’t use the teleprompter that Hillary is a slave to. Donald Trump engages people. Hillary Clinton hides from them, using her Secret Service protection to keep people at bay. Everything about her is scripted, planned, poll tested, and politically correct. Trump doesn’t [need] anyone to tell him which way he is headed. He’s his own compass.

It’s Hillary Clinton that lives in a bubble — a big one. Let’s let her stay there.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Is Hillary Too Sick To Run?“)

Among the two biggest bubbles that may burst around her, and result in her implosion, involve her health and criminality.

She has serious health problems, which have been hidden from the American people; and she may be indicted, which would mean “game over” for her presidential aspirations.

Then, her great challenge would be to obtain a pardon from Barack Obama before his presidency ends. And there is no love between the Obamas and Clintons.


29 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

California Mob Violence At Trump Rally [UPDATED]

Trump with families of victims
[Trump with families of Americans killed by illegal immigrants]

To its credit, the UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Police clashed with hundreds of protesters outside Donald Trump’s rally in Southern California on Thursday night.

At least one police car was smashed up as hundreds of demonstrators – many of them waving Mexican flags – took to the streets outside the Pacific Amphitheater in Costa Mesa, Orange County where Trump was speaking.

The protesters flooded the street outside the amphitheater with some stomping on cars, hurling rocks at motorists and forcefully declaring their opposition to Trump – bringing traffic to a halt and creating a tense standoff with authorities.

One Trump supporter was pictured with a bloody [face] after clashing with the anti-Trump activists, many of whom were young Hispanic people.

The violence in Southern California where Latinos make up a large segment of the population suggests Trump may face more of this in the days to come, as he campaigns ahead of the state’s June 7 primary.

Early Friday, authorities said there were no major injuries following the ordeal and that crowds dispersed by 11pm.

Traffic came to a stop as protesters gathered and blocked traffic while carrying signs in the intersection of Fair Drive and Fairview Road, The Los Angeles Times reported.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office, which worked to disperse the crowd, was unable to confirm the official estimate of the number of protesters, according to CNN.

Photos from the scene showed a visibly bloodied Trump supporter after he was punched in the face as well as several people being arrested and handcuffed by police.

In the chaotic scenes, some of the demonstrators reportedly carried benches and blocked the entrance to the 55 Freeway along Newport Boulevard.

As they blocked traffic, a group of protesters waved both American and Mexican flags while others had signs with messages including ‘Dump the Trump,’ according to the Times.

At one point, a demonstrator was seen stomping on a police car, causing the car’s windows to smash, while another scrawled an expletive and Trump’s name onto a police cruiser. Some of the protesters also reportedly tossed rocks and debris at cars passing by.

Officers in riot gear from the Costa Mesa Police Department and sheriffs on horseback lined a roadway and told demonstrators to clear the road, but many remained in the street.

The Republican presidential frontrunner was campaigning on Thursday ahead of the state’s June 7 presidential primary, among the last in the nation.

He is vying for votes in the primary election in hope of narrowing the gap to the 1,237 delegates needed to win the Republican presidential nomination.

His rally earlier at the OC fairgrounds attracted a group of supporters who proudly showed their allegiance to him.

Some supporters were seen waving a ‘Gays for Trump’ sign while other signs read ‘Latinos for Trump’ and ‘Black Christian Women for Trump.’

Meanwhile, protesters voiced their opposition to Trump’s campaign which has been criticized for marginalizing women, Latinos and other ethnic groups as well for his policies on immigration and offensive remarks about Mexicans, claiming Mexico was sending rapists over the border.

Earlier in his campaign, he called for a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims’ entering the United States.

The rally on Thursday was set to begin at 7pm but kicked off about a half hour later.

As a large crowd of mostly Trump supporters gathered outside the venue before it started, there were several scuffles between supporters and anti-Trump protesters, according to KTLA.

Trump had kicked off the rally by appealing to conservative California voters with his pledge to crack down on immigration and plans to build a huge wall on the border with Mexico.

He also appeared to take aim at Muslims, sharing a now discredited story about a First World War general who was said to have stopped insurgency by ordering his troops to use bullets dipped in pigs’ blood to kill Muslim terrorists.

‘We’re going to have to get a lot tougher than we are because we have problems,’ he said, according to the LA Times.

He began Thursday’s event at the Orange County Fairgrounds in Costa Mesa, by bringing on the families of people allegedly killed by illegal immigrants.

‘They’re unbelievable, they’ve suffered. These are great people,’ Trump said before handing the mic to Jamiel Shaw whose son, a Los Angeles high school football star, was killed in 2008 by someone in the U.S. illegally.

Shaw, who has spoken at numerous rallies, praised Trump’s calls to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and his calls for deportation.

‘When I saw Trump and what he said, for the first time it gave me real hope, gave me real change,’ he said.

‘They all have a very similar story to tell,’ Trump said after Shaw’s speech.

‘People that shouldn’t have been here, people that should have never been allowed to come over the border and they come here like its nothing, they walk through it like its nothing,’ he said as the crowd chanted ‘build a wall.’

‘We’re going to stop it and we’re going to build a wall.’

Trump also used his speech to criticize former Deputy Chief of Staff and Republican Karl [Rove] who he described as ‘grossly incompetent’ and a ‘bad guy’ who ‘still thinks Romney won.’

See (“[P]rotesters clash with cops at California Trump rally: Hundreds of demonstrators smash up a police car, punch one of the Donald’s supporters and scuffle with officers in angry scenes“) (emphasis added)

California and national media ducked this story, certainly right in the wake of it happening, which is disgusting unto itself. It took the British media to describe it accurately.

California is infamous for its “Free Speech Movement” and anti-Vietnam mob scenes, and the Watts Riots and the Rodney King riots. By not dealing harshly with rioters, others are emboldened to repeat and intensify their violence in the future.

When he was California’s governor, Ronald Reagan dealt sternly with rioters; and then he went on to become our president and crush the Soviet Union.

See (“How Then-Governor Of California Ronald Reagan Dealt With Berkeley Protesters In 1969“)

If necessary, the police should shoot to kill or maim. Out-of-control, dangerous mobs deserve nothing less.


2 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Latest Obama Scandal: Illegal Minors To Receive More Than Social Security Retirees Get [UPDATED]


Writing for the Washington Examiner, Paul Bedard has reported:

President Obama has budgeted $17,613 for each of the estimated 75,000 Central American teens expected to illegally cross into the United States this year, $2,841 more than the average annual Social Security retirement benefit, according to a new report.

The total bill to taxpayers: $1.3 billion in benefits to “unaccompanied children,” more than double what the federal government spent in 2010, according to an analysis of the administration’s programs for illegal minors from the Center for Immigration Studies. The average Social Security retirement benefit is $14,772.

The report notes that the president’s budget, facing congressional approval, includes another $2.1 billion for refugees, which can include the illegals from Central America, mostly Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

What’s more, the administration is also spending heavily on a program with the United Nations to help the illegal minors avoid the dangerous trip by declaring them refugees and handing them a plane ticket to the U.S. where, once here, they get special legal status.

The report, titled “Welcoming Unaccompanied Alien Children to the United States,” is a deep dive into the administration’s evolving efforts to let hundreds of thousands of mostly 16- and 17-year-old males settle in the country.

It said that most of the undocumented minors do not qualify for refugee status or are even in any danger in their native countries. Instead, they are seeking to unify with their family members, commonly parents in the United States illegally.

The report cited Department of Health and Human Services data showing the trend. “New data,” said CIS, “shows that 80 percent of the 71,000 Central American children placed between February 2014 and September 2015 were released to sponsors who are in the United States illegally.”

Author Nayla Rush suggested that the administration’s Central American Refugee/Parole Program with the United Nations that declares minors refugees could have the effect of giving legal status to their illegal parents once in the U.S.

“Children will be able to qualify for refugee status and then be flown to the United States. As a reminder, refugees receive automatic legal status and are required to apply for a green card within their first year following arrival. They can apply for citizenship five years from the date of entry.

“Since parents from Central America illegally present in the United States could not benefit from the CAM program and sponsor their children, perhaps the reverse can take place with children admitted under this new version of the refugee program. Children, acquiring legal status followed by naturalization by the time they reach adulthood, could indeed sponsor their parents,” wrote Rush.

See (“Obama budgets $17,613 for every new illegal minor, more than Social Security retirees get“) (emphasis added; charts omitted)

This is outrageous. Barack Obama is a black racist who should be ridden out of office on a rail!

If you have any doubts whatsoever, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his core beliefs in his own words, and is summarized (including direct quotes and page cites) in the last article cited below.

Many American retirees including our vets live in poverty and are homeless, yet Obama favors illegals, probably in no small part because he is “illegal.” He was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never set forth on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles where he admits to being a druggie.

See (“Hotline To Help Homeless Veterans Is Useless“) and (“The Obama Great Depression“) and (“‘Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man‘”)

Hopefully America never sees the dark and sinister likes of Barack Obama ever again!


4 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

And Then There Was The One: Trump

This is the title of an article by the always-outspoken American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist and lawyer, Ann Coulter:

A guy just won the Republican nomination for president by spending no money, hiring no pollsters, running virtually no TV ads, and just saying what he truly believed no matter how many times people told him he couldn’t say that.

I always hoped I’d see this once before I died. It’s like to going to Mecca, for Americans. Pay attention, because it’s the last time we’re going to see it in our lifetimes.

For those of you not yet on the Trump Train, I know you don’t want to vote for Hillary, but all the pundits have been trying to convince you that Trump’s a complete fraud. (That was between their smug assurances that he wouldn’t make it out of Iowa.)

It’s odd. When Trump launched his campaign by talking about Mexican rapists and the wall, his critics hysterically denounced him, rushing to TV to say he did NOT represent the Republican Party! Only after it became resoundingly clear that large majorities of Americans agreed with Trump did his critics try a new tack: He doesn’t believe it!

That’s what my friend Andy McCarthy at the now-defunct National Review wrote recently. I had to spend the weekend figuring out how to attack a friend without saying, “This is the most retarded argument I’ve ever read.”

Here goes: This was not Andy’s best effort.

Of all the arguments that could be made against Trump, McCarthy settled on: I don’t trust him on immigration. (I’d love to have been a fly on the wall at that pitch meeting.)

He bases this claim on a remark Trump made as a businessman four years ago in which he regurgitated the official GOP line about Romney — and which was being stated as fact 1 million times a day on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.

To wit, Trump told Newsmax that Mitt Romney “had a crazy policy of self-deportation which was maniacal,” adding, “He lost all of the Latino vote … he lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”

It is strange that Trump would denounce “self-deportation,” which is like a chocolate sundae compared to his own plans for illegals.

But to give you the tenor of the interview, Trump went on to promote “Celebrity Apprentice,” note that he had just bought the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C., and boast about his recently acquired Ritz-Carlton Golf Club and Spa in Jupiter, Fla. — “which is a phenomenal area.”

Also, a lot of people didn’t like the phrase “self-deportation.” Why not just say: “They’ll go home the same way they came”?

So is Trump lying about his signature issue, immigration? The countervailing evidence to that 2012 pop-off is:

— Nine months of Trump soaring to the top of the polls and slaying all comers by talking about how he’s going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it;

— His never, ever, ever backing down on the wall, sanctuary cities, anchor babies, suspending Muslim immigration, etc., etc., despite unprecedented attacks from both the liberal and “conservative” media;

— The fact that he talks about immigration at every single one of his massive rallies and always gets the biggest, most sustained standing ovations when he mentions the wall;

— The blizzard of tweets he sent out in 2013 denouncing Rubio’s amnesty bill as it was sailing through the Senate, supported by the entire liberal media, Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, most of talk radio, and every other GOP candidate for president this year, including, for a while, Ted Cruz (whose job was to know about bills being voted on in the Senate, unlike a Manhattan developer);

— Trump’s one and only policy guy is the magnificent Stephen Miller, who was Sen. Jeff Sessions’ main immigration guy.

And so on.

Maybe Trump is the Manchurian Candidate and contrary to his entire life’s work he really just wants fancy people in Manhattan to like him.

Maybe the window into his soul is what he said four years ago about Romney’s phrase “self-deportation.”

Maybe 50 years of Trump’s talking about the working class was all a clever ruse leading to this one shining moment when he would trick Americans into voting for him, so he could sell us out, like any other candidate would.

On the other hand, maybe he’s changed his mind about that 2012 remark.

I’m bitter and cynical enough on immigration that I don’t trust anyone not to betray us. But if there was ever a candidate we could believe will build a wall and stop the mass importation of the Third World, it’s Trump.

See (emphasis added)

[Donald Trump’s Full Indiana Victory Speech]

How sweet it is! 🙂


4 05 2016

I knew that Donald Trump is going to pull this off. I’m very excited about the potential of the Trump presidency. I do believe it will be a tough battle for him against Hillary Clinton unless of course she is indicted. Then again, he may lay her to waste Ike all the others that were in his way.. Indeed, Trump has a huge ego, [but] why not let that ego work for us? I believe he is too proud to fail, and will succeed in forwarding at least most of his promised agenda.

Liked by 1 person

5 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

I agree completely, Rick. Well said.


7 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Slams Hillary Clinton As Nasty, Mean Enabler Of Husband’s Rapes And Affairs [UPDATED]


NBC News has reported:

An unrestrained Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton an “unbelievably nasty, mean enabler” who “destroyed” the lives of her husband’s mistresses during a rally in Oregon on Friday night.

The comments, made during an evening rally in Eugene, Ore., marked the sharpest tone he’s taken against the Democratic frontrunner since becoming his party’s presumptive nominee, and the first time he’s been so direct in referencing Bill Clinton’s affairs in months.

“She’s been the total enabler. She would go after these women and destroy their lives,” Trump said. “She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler, and what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful.”

His comments came as part of a defense against recent attacks from Democrats focused on his controversial comments and stances on women’s issues. Trump told the crowd “nobody respects women more than me,” but in contrast, “nobody in this country, and maybe in the history of the country politically, was worse than Bill Clinton with women.”

“Have you ever read what Hillary Clinton did to the women that Bill Clinton had affairs with? And they’re going after me with women?” he added, incredulously, without citing any specific examples or sources.

While it was his most caustic attack against the presumptive Democratic nominee on Friday night, it was by no means the only line of attack he opened against Clinton. He charged that she would be “sleeping” when national security crises hit at odd hours, tied her to NAFTA, and called her a “tool of Wall Street.” He also said he was the “last person she wants to run against . . . because my attitude is, I don’t care.”

Trump also took sharp aim at Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the liberal darling who’s been the subject of vice-presidential chatter in recent weeks, with whom Trump’s opened up a feud over social media in recent days.

In front of a crowd of thousands on Friday night, Trump unveiled a new nickname for the Massachusetts senator: “Goofus.”

Clinton’s “got this goofy friend Elizabeth Warren, she’s on a Twitter rant, she’s a goofus,” he said.

“This woman, she’s a basketcase. By the way, she’s done nothing in the United States. She’s done nothing.”

He suggested Clinton choose Warren as her running mate because “without that [woman] card she would get nobody voting for her.”

Trump toned down his attacks on members of his own party considerably, but still doled them out to his most recent critics, calling Jeb Bush “low-key — “I wanted to say ‘low-key’ cause its nicer than saying ‘low-energy,'” he joked — and telling the crowd Sen. Lindsey Graham “knows less about the military than my 10 year old son Barron.”

Both Graham and Bush have refused to support Trump in the days since he became the last man standing in the GOP primary, even as other Republicans have fallen in line.

Trump also dismissed House Speaker Paul Ryan’s refusal to back him as Paul simply “trying to be cute,” noting they previously had a very pleasant phone conversation three weeks ago.

But mostly, Trump seemed tickled, if also somewhat chagrined, by the fact that many of the remaining holdouts signed a pledge from the Republican National Committee promising to back the eventual nominee — a ploy initially used by the RNC to ensure Trump wouldn’t launch a third-party bid.

“I signed a pledge, and they’re the ones that are violating it!” he said.

He dismissed, however, the holdouts, telling the crowd he “released” them.

“If somebody doesn’t wanna endorse, I don’t want their endorsement,” he said.

Trump delivered the speech, his second of the day, in deep-blue Oregon to a backdrop of protests bubbling outside and a few scattered protests inside. Despite their best efforts to goad Trump supporters into a confrontation — protesters shouted “Racist!” and “Heil Trump!” at supporters as they walked through the gates — the protests went off peacefully, with police keeping them far away, and blocked off by a fence, from the arena.

But despite the blue tint of the state, Trump promised to win it in the general.

“We are going to carry your state in November,” he said, to cheers from the crowd.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Clinton Fatigue“) and (“It’s a Bad Day for the Clintons When Vox Fairly Explains the Rape Allegation Against Bill“) and (“Bill Clinton rape accuser blasts Hillary for campaigning on platform of women’s issues and claims she knew about alleged hotel room assault and tried to cover it up“) and (“Bill Rape Accuser Blasts ‘Evil’ Hillary: ‘Shame on you!’”)

Click here for a video of Donald J. Trump’s Remarks


7 05 2016

Ahh Tim.. You know I love Trump.. Shall I believe the naysayers, and assume he could never beat Hillary? I want to believe the polls are not a crystal ball… I have rallied so hard for Trump, and now that he will be the nominee, I worry that the Democrat/Hilary may overcome his awesomeness…

Liked by 1 person

7 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thanks so much as always.

Donald Trump has come a very long way; and he is one step away from living in the White House for four-to-eight years. Also, he is taking off his gloves for some bare knuckle fighting with the Clintons. My sense is that neither of them are in good shape physically.

Just watch Bill. As I have written, he is a mere shadow of his former self. He is not articulate; and his much-touted charisma is gone. Hillary is not in great shape physically either. In a very real sense, they seem to be on their last political and physical legs; they are being pushed to perform by their sycophants; and their audiences are relatively small and not energized like the Trump and Sanders “faithful.”

By attacking Bill as the rapist that he is, and Hillary as the enabler that she has always been, Trump is honing in on exactly what will turn female voters away from them. The two of them have denigrated women, and used and abused them, and yes Bill has even raped them.

I believe Donald Trump will win, possibly in a landslide, in no small part because I believe Hillary’s Achilles’ heel of criminality will bring about her downfall. I believe she will be indicted; and that Comey and his cohorts at the FBI and DOJ will resign en masse if this does not happen.

Thus, however this is sliced and diced, I believe Trump will win. He has slain all of his dragons aka opponents so far; and Hillary may be “easy pickings.”

Having said all of this, I am mindful of the fact that I predicted here that Barack Obama would not be reelected in 2012. I believed in Mitt Romney; and I no longer do, at all.

See (“Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who Will Not Be Reelected”) and (“MITT ROMNEY: NO CLASS!”)


7 05 2016

From your keyboard,to gods eyes.. I agree with you..I just get a little nervous about the entire situation. There is so much riding on this election..Everything really.. Good thing, Trump is no Romney.. That’s for damn sure..

Liked by 1 person

7 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Well said, as always, Rick. 🙂


9 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Bush Republicanism Is Dead And Gone [UPDATED]

President Trump

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

“The two living Republican past presidents, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, have no plans to endorse Trump, according to their spokesmen.” So said the lead story in The Washington Post.

Graceless, yes, but not unexpected. The Bushes have many fine qualities. Losing well, however, is not one of them.

And they have to know, whether they concede it or not, that Trump’s triumph is a sweeping repudiation of Bush Republicanism by the same party that nominated them four times for the presidency.

Not only was son and brother, Jeb, humiliated and chased out of the race early, but Trump won his nomination by denouncing as rotten to the core the primary fruits of signature Bush policies.

Twelve million aliens are here illegally, said Trump, because the Bushes failed to secure America’s borders.

America has run up $12 trillion in trade deficits and been displaced as the world’s first manufacturing power by China, said Trump, because of the lousy trade deals backed by Bush Republicans.

The greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, said Trump, was the Bush II decision to invade Iraq to disarm it of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

The war Bush began, says Trump, produced 5,000 American dead, scores of thousands wounded, trillions of dollars wasted, and a Middle East sunk in civil-sectarian war, chaos and fanaticism.

That is a savage indictment of the Bush legacy. And a Republican electorate, in the largest turnout in primary history, nodded, “Amen to that, brother!”

No matter who wins in November, there is no going back for the GOP.

Can anyone think the Republican Party can return to open borders or new free-trade agreements like NAFTA?

Can anyone believe another U.S. Army, like the ones Bush I and Bush II sent into Afghanistan and Iraq, will be mounted up and march to remake another Middle East country in America’s image?

Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom are history.

What the Trump campaign revealed, as Republicans and even Democrats moved toward him on trade, immigration and foreign policy, is that Bush Republicanism and neoconservatism not only suffered a decisive defeat, they had a sword run right through them.

They are as dead as emperor-worship in Japan.

Trump won the nomination, he won the argument, and he won the debate. The party is now with Trump — on the issues. For GOP elites, there can be no going back to what the grass roots rejected.

What does this suggest for Trump himself?

While he ought to keep an open door to those he defeated, the greatest mistake he could make would be to seek the support of the establishment he crushed by compromising on the issues that brought out his crowds and brought him his victories and nomination.

Given Trump’s negatives, the Beltway punditocracy is writing him off, warning that Trump either comes to terms with the establishment on the issues, or he is gone for good.

History teaches otherwise.

Hubert Humphrey closed a 15-point gap in the Gallup poll on Oct. 1 to reach a 43-43 photo finish with Richard Nixon in 1968.

President Gerald Ford was down 33 points to Jimmy Carter in mid-July 1976, but lost by only 2 points on Election Day.

In February 1980, Ronald Reagan was 29 points behind Jimmy Carter, whom he would crush 51-41 in a 44-state landslide.

Gov. Michael Dukakis left his Atlanta convention 17 points ahead of Vice President George H. W. Bush in 1988. Five weeks later, Labor Day, Bush had an eight-point lead he never lost, and swept 40 states.

What this suggests is extraordinary volatility of the electorate in the modern age. As this year has shown, that has not changed.

How then should Trump proceed?

Unify the party, to the degree he can, by keeping an open door to the defeated and offering a hand in friendship to all who wish to join his ranks, while refusing to compromise the issues that got him where he is. If the Bushes and neocons wish to depart, let them go.

Lest we forget, Congressman John Anderson, who lost to Reagan in the primaries, bolted the party and won 7 percent of the national vote.

Ted Cruz, who won more states and votes than all other Trump rivals put together, should be offered a prime-time speaking slot at Cleveland — in return for endorsing the Trump ticket.

As the vice presidential nominee remains the only drama left, Trump should hold off announcing his choice until closer to Cleveland.

For while that decision will leave one person elated, it will leave scores despondent.

And the longer Trump delays his announcement, the more that those who see themselves as a future vice president will be praising him, or at least holding off from attacking him.

Ultimately, the Great Unifier upon whom the Republican Party may reliably depend is the nominee of the Democratic Party — Director James Comey and his FBI consenting — Hillary Rodham Clinton.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Paul Ryan: I’ll Step Down as Convention Chairman if Trump Asks“)

The Trump revolution has begun!


10 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Islamophobic Bret Stephens And His Un-American, Anti-Trump Blasphemy

Bret Stephens

The following appears in today’s Wall Street Journal, written by Stephens:

The best hope for what’s left of a serious conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic president, held in check by a Republican Congress. Conservatives can survive liberal administrations, especially those whose predictable failures lead to healthy restorations—think Carter, then Reagan. What isn’t survivable is a Republican president who is part Know Nothing, part Smoot-Hawley and part John Birch. The stain of a Trump administration would cripple the conservative cause for a generation.

This is the reality that wavering Republicans need to understand before casting their lot with a presumptive nominee they abhor only slightly less than his likely opponent. If the next presidency is going to be a disaster, why should the GOP want to own it?

In the 1990s, when another Clinton was president, conservatives became fond of the phrase “character counts.” This was a way of scoring points against Bill Clinton for his sexual predations and rhetorical misdirections, as well as a statement that Americans expected honor and dignity in the Oval Office. I’ll never forget the family friend, circa 1998, who wondered how she was supposed to explain the meaning of a euphemism for oral sex to her then 10-year-old daughter.

Conservatives still play the character card against Hillary Clinton, citing her disdain for other people’s rules, her Marie Antoinette airs and her potential law breaking. It’s a fair card to play, if only the presumptive Republican nominee weren’t himself a serial fabulist, an incorrigible self-mythologizer, a brash vulgarian, and, when it comes to his tax returns, a determined obfuscator. Endorsing Mr. Trump means permanently laying to rest any claim conservatives might ever again make on the character issue.

Conservatives are also supposed to believe that it’s folly to put hope before experience; that leopards never change their spots. So what’s with the magical thinking that, nomination in hand, Mr. Trump will suddenly pivot to magnanimity and statesmanship? Where’s the evidence that, as president, Mr. Trump will endorse conservative ideas on tax, trade, regulation, welfare, social, judicial or foreign policy, much less personal comportment?

On Monday, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who savaged Mr. Trump during the campaign, published an op-ed in these pages on why he plans to cast his vote for the real-estate developer as “the second-worst thing we could do this November.” Too much is at stake, Mr. Jindal said, on everything from curbing the regulatory excesses of the Obama administration to appointing a conservative judge to the Supreme Court, to risk another Democratic administration.

Mr. Jindal holds out the hope that Mr. Trump, who admires the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision on eminent domain (the one in which Susette Kelo’s little pink house was seized by the city of New London for the intended benefit of private developers), might yet appoint strict constructionists to the bench. Mr. Jindal also seems to think that a man whose preferred style of argument is the threatened lawsuit and the Twittertantrum, can be trusted with the vast investigative apparatus of the federal government.

The deeper mistake that Mr. Jindal and other lukewarm Trump supporters make is to assume that policy counts for more than ideas—that is, that the policy disasters he anticipates from a Clinton administration will be indelible, while Trumpism poses no real threat to the conservative ideas he has spent a political career championing. This belief stems from a failure to take Trumpism seriously, or to realize just how fragile modern conservatism is as a vital political movement.

But Trumpism isn’t just a triumph of marketing or the excrescence of a personality cult. It is a regression to the conservatism of blood and soil, of ethnic polarization and bullying nationalism. Modern conservatives sought to bury this rubbish with a politics that strikes a balance between respect for tradition and faith in the dynamic and culture-shifting possibilities of open markets. When that balance collapses—under a Republican president, no less—it may never again be restored, at least in our lifetimes.

For liberals, all this may seem like so much manna from heaven. Mr. Trump’s nomination not only gives his Democratic opponent the best possible shot at winning the election (with big down-ballot gains, too), but of permanently discrediting the conservative movement as a serious ideological challenger. They should be careful what they wish for. Mr. Trump could yet win, or one of his epigones might in four or eight years. This will lead to its own left-wing counter-reactions, putting America on the road to Weimar.

For conservatives, a Democratic victory in November means the loss of another election, with all the policy reversals that entails. That may be dispiriting, but elections will come again. A Trump presidency means losing the Republican Party. Conservatives need to accept that most conservative of wisdoms—sometimes, losing is winning, especially when it offers an education in the importance of political hygiene.

See (“Hillary: The Conservative Hope“) (emphasis added); see also (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens”) and (“More Trash Talk About Donald Trump From Bret Stephens“) and (“More Islamophobia From The Wall Street Journal And Bret Stephens“)

Like his other articles, this one by Stephens is total rubbish. Ronald Reagan was disparaged as being a “B-movie actor” and far far worse. Yet, he went on to become one of America’s greatest presidents; and the Soviet Union is gone because of him.

The thoroughly-detestable Islamophobic Stephens’ beliefs about the United States and the American presidency are set forth in clear relief. He is a Democrat, or at least a Clinton sympathizer. And if Trump wins, perhaps he will feel most comfortable in retreating back to Tel Aviv from whence he came.

What is crystal clear is that once the Trump presidency begins, the Murdoch family should sack Stephens unceremoniously, and the Journal‘s editorial board, Karl Rove and others. Day after day, they have used the pages of the once-distinguished publication to campaign against Trump.

Considering themselves to be members of the “establishment” elite, they have failed to realize that Americans are angry at and reject their kind categorically. They and their “neocon” fellow travelers brought us the Iraq War in which thousands of Americans died for nothing, while others were maimed for life and trillions of dollars were wasted.

Stephens and his fellow travelers must be consigned to the dustbin of history and oblivion, in complete humiliation and disgrace.


11 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Whitewater: Hillary Clinton Draft Indictment


Judicial Watch has reported:

New details continue to emerge from Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act fight with the National Archives over the release of draft indictments of Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater case. According to the Archives, release of the indictments—drafted by an independent counsel examining the Clintons’ relationship to a corrupt Arkansas S&L and an alleged cover-up—would violate grand jury secrecy and Mrs. Clinton’s personal privacy. FOIA request denied.

Judicial Watch declined to take “no” for an answer, and so off to court we went. The case is now in the hands of a federal judge.

In the course of litigation, new facts have come to light. Under FOIA, the Archives must produce a “Vaughn Index”—a tantalizing and at times maddening document. A Vaughn Index is the government saying: we are not giving you the documents, but here is an “index” of what we are not giving you, and why we are not giving it to you. Your tax dollars at work.

In the National Archives Vaughn Index for the case, we learn that the government is sitting on at least twelve versions of the the draft indictment of Mrs. Clinton, including one “listing overt acts.” From the public record, we know that the Whitewater case centered around whether Mrs. Clinton, while First Lady, lied to federal investigators about her role in the corrupt Arkansas S&L, concealed documents (including material under federal subpoena), and took other steps to cover-up her involvment. Prosecutors ultimately decided not to indict Mrs. Clinton, concluding that they could not win the complicated, largely circumstantial case against such a high-profile figure.

The draft indictments range from three to forty pages—the former likely excerpts or “scraps” from longer documents, the Vaughn Index indicates. Some of the drafts doubtless are copies but many clearly are not. A total of 451 pages of draft indictments are being withheld by the Archives.

In its final brief in the case, Judicial Watch took a wrecking ball to the Archives’ grand jury secrecy and personal privacy claims. Judicial Watch noted “the truly enormous quantities of grand jury material already made public” in the independent counsel’s final report. Judicial Watch provided the court with a detailed list of grand jury and non-grand jury material that had already been made public. If there ever was a valid claim to grand jury secrecy in this closely scrutinized case, it is long gone.

The Judicial Watch brief noted that the Archives “fails to identify a single, specific privacy interest Mrs. Clinton still has in the draft indictments” following publication of the independent counsel’s report and “hundreds of pages of grand jury materials, non-grand jury materials, and independent counsel legal theories and analysis that are already in the public domain.”

A typical FOIA privacy claim centers on unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. But in Mrs. Clinton’s case, the brief noted, the Archives “makes no claims that disclosure of the draft indictments will reveal any particular personal, medical or financial information about Mrs. Clinton, much less anything intimate or potentially embarrassing.”

Mrs. Clinton of course is one of the most famous women in the world, a former First Lady, senator and secretary of state, and the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for president of the United States. The findings of an investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton told the truth to federal investigators and withheld evidence under subpoena while she was First Lady is clearly matter of public interest as voters weigh her suitability for the highest office in the land.

See (“Whitewater: Twelve Versions of Hillary Clinton Draft Indictment, 451 Pages, Withheld By National Archives“) (emphasis added); see also (“Trump Slams Hillary Clinton As Nasty, Mean Enabler Of Husband’s Rapes And Affairs“)

It is likely that Hillary Clinton will be criminally indicted with respect to her e-mail scandal, which will mean “game over” for her presidential aspirations.


11 05 2016

She’s looking pale and tired. Her voice is coarse and weak. With any luck, her health will take her out of the running, in addition to being indicted… If ever there was a woman that deserved ill wishes, it’s Hilary..

Liked by 1 person

11 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you as always, Rick, for your comments.

Between (1) Whitewater, (2) Benghazi, (3) her e-mail scandal and likely indictment, (4) her enabling of Bill’s rape(s) and trashing of women, (5) her health issues, (6) her lack of Bill’s charm and charisma of yesteryear, (7) whether Americans are willing to vote for their first lesbian president, and (8) a whole host of other matters, my guess is that Bernie Sanders will emerge as the Dems’ nominee—which will send shockwaves around the world.

See (“Clinton Fatigue“)

How sweet it is! 🙂


11 05 2016
atticonline (@atticsonline)

Lizzy Boardman was famous too, doesn’t matter if she is famous or high-profile or not, special treatment is treasonous braking the law is breaking the law.

Liked by 1 person

12 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Michael Reagan: “Lessons My Father Taught Me”

Michael and Ronald Reagan

The former president’s eldest son is the best of the Reagans living today; and he has conducted himself with intelligence, dignity and honor. He is the carrier of his father’s torch.

He has written a new book entitled, “Lessons My Father Taught Me,” which is receiving rave reviews already. It should be read by everyone who cares about the former president and his living legacy.

See (Newsmax announcement of Michael Reagan’s new book, with glowing review by Newt Gingrich); see also (“Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy: A Question of Character“)

Bald Eagle and American Flag


13 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Clinton Decline: Hillary, Hapless, Hopeless [UPDATED]


The Washington Examiner has reported:

Bernie Sanders’ victory over Hillary Clinton in West Virginia was impressive not just for the lack of effort it required — he spent less than 20 cents for each vote — but also for voters’ eagerness to give it to him at this late stage of the Democratic presidential primary.

Isn’t it supposed to be over?

Yet Sanders has now defeated Clinton twice in two weeks, and no one will be greatly surprised if he beats her again in Oregon next Tuesday.

It is nearly impossible for Sanders to catch Clinton, even if he were to win all of the remaining contests. But he’s campaigning as though he doesn’t know it or, more importantly, as though it isn’t really true. When Sanders makes his pitch to the party’s superdelegates in the contested convention he promises, he will be able to say, “Come on, who do you really think has the better chance to beat Donald Trump in the general election?”

Campaign number crunchers and psephologists, the political accountants by whom Clinton is surrounded, say it is she. But what a hapless, lifeless candidate she has proven to be, incapable of exciting anyone. On the other hand, as Sanders can boast without being controverted, here’s a grizzled old socialist who inspires excitement and high turnout. In polls, he beats Donald Trump by bigger margins than she does.

Clinton, the second most unpopular major-party nominee in history, relies heavily on Trump being even more unpopular. Even so, he at least generates excitement. Democrats would feel more comfortable if there were some of that on their side, too.

Clinton is precisely the sort of candidate who could blow an easy win. She has no skill at retail politics, and it isn’t just a technical problem. As hard as she tries, she cannot fake the sincerity she so obviously lacks. This, and not just a lack of rhetorical skill, is why she shouts her way monotonously through her lackluster speeches. Anything more subtle would be even more unconvincing.

Clinton’s abysmal personal corruption is a problem that hasn’t been plumbed in the primaries. Yes, her emails have been brought up from time to time (although not by Sanders). But the fact that she put herself above laws on government transparency and secrecy, apparently to shield herself from the scrutiny of voters and the president, is only one issue among many. Hardly anything has been said about the effortless six-figure payouts that she and her husband have gobbled up from people who had something to gain from her service in government.

If Trump is alarming because he admires Vladimir Putin, what are we to think of candidate Clinton, whose bank account is home to money from Kremlin-linked institutions? If Trump’s finances are shady, what of the candidate whose wealthy donors steered American uranium rights to Russian firms while she served on the panel that approved their activities?

There are countless valid reasons why Clinton is having such a hard time putting away an aging 1960s radical. Sanders has beaten Clinton not just occasionally but again and again, and forced her to embrace positions she previously opposed. Early on, she came out against the free trade agreement that she had helped write as secretary of state. Now she has come out in favor of a government-option health care plan. This may seem tactically astute, but it also underscores her lack of conviction and her weakness as she pursues power. She’ll do anything to get to the Oval Office, and she is doing just about everything.

The relatively low turnout in this year’s Democratic primaries may not mean anything for the fall election. But it does demonstrate that even the party’s die-hards wouldn’t crawl over broken glass to support the establishment candidate. Who can blame them?

See (emphasis added)

If Hillary Clinton is indicted—and there is reason to believe that Comey and the FBI, along with more than 100 agents, are in hot pursuit—it will be “game over” for her presidential aspirations.

If, or rather when this happens, Bernie Sanders will be the Democrats’ presidential nominee. It is too late for Joe Biden to enter the race.

See also (“Clinton Fatigue“) and (“Boehner wouldn’t be surprised if Clinton ‘has to withdraw'”—”[T]he former Speaker suggested that Democrats might have to turn to Vice President Biden to be their 2016 nominee”—”Boehner said anyone who thinks Trump can’t win the White House should ‘just watch. This is going to be a presidential campaign like we’ve never seen before,’ he said”)


13 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump: Mexico Fights Back

President Trump

POLITICO has reported:

Donald Trump has spent his entire presidential campaign warning against the dangers of Mexican immigrants stealing American jobs, raping women and hauling drugs across the border.

Now, Mexico is fighting back.

Mexican officials are pursuing a counteroffensive to Trump’s incendiary rhetoric, reaching out to U.S. business leaders, looking at ways to better use social media, and even encouraging qualified Mexicans to get U.S. citizenship. But they’re also trying to stay sensitive about taking more high-profile steps, such as running TV ads in an already overheated presidential race that promote Mexico as a friendly, vibrant neighbor and not a cesspool of criminals.

“We think that right now, in this phase where there is an electoral process going on, something that we should really do is stay out of it. An advertising campaign at this particular moment could just add confusion,” José Paulo Carreño King, Mexico’s new undersecretary for North America, said in an interview with POLITICO.

Carreño said the decision that Mexico needs to boost its image came after the country, which was being pummeled by Trump but trying to stay restrained, commissioned a series of polls and focus groups in the U.S. late last year.

“What we found out is, again, that the image in general terms of Mexico was quite undervalued or more specifically out of date,” he said. “The image of the contributions of Mexicans and Mexican Americans was damaged and undervalued. And there was no clear image of the importance of the bilateral relationship. That’s when the Mexican government decided that, again, we need to do something.”

There are several public signs of a shift in Mexico’s posture toward Trump, a man many in the Latin American country call “El Payaso” — “The Clown.”

The Mexican embassy in Washington on Thursday issued a sharp statement announcing that Carlos Sada Solana had assumed his role as the country’s new ambassador to the United States and that his “clear and precise” mandate is to defend the interests of Mexico and Mexicans.

In what appeared to be a swipe at the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, the statement went on to say that the new envoy “recognized the need to reposition the image of Mexico in the United States in its just and rightful place.”

For nearly a year, Mexican officials have chafed at Trump’s inflammatory comments, including his pledges to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and to build a “great, great wall” along the southern border — and to have Mexico pay for it. Just last week, Trump drew scorn when he tweeted “I love Hispanics!” along with a photo of himself eating a “taco bowl” on Cinco de Mayo.

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, breaking with the diplomatic tradition of avoiding comment on another country’s internal politics, has slammed Trump’s “strident” tone and compared his rise to that of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

While U.S. lawmakers from southern border states have been trying to reassure their Mexican counterparts (mindful of Mexico’s enormous importance to U.S. trade)[,] officials on both sides of the boundary line feel they now need to take greater action to counter Trump.

Carreño outlined to POLITICO a multi-layered initiative to burnish Mexico’s image. The plans, some of which are already launched, include greater use of traditional and social media, increased cultural outreach through Mexican consulates, and strengthened ties to American business and civil society groups.

The new undersecretary landed in his current position just weeks ago as part of a major Mexican leadership shakeup in apparent response to the Trump phenomenon. Around half of the consuls general at Mexico’s 50 U.S. consulates were reshuffled or replaced. The government also named Sada as the new Mexican ambassador.

Carreño, who has an extensive communications background, pointed out that educational campaigns about U.S.-Mexico relations aren’t new. In the 1990s, when U.S., Canadian and Mexican leaders were promoting the North American Free Trade Agreement (a pact Trump despises), similar efforts helped sell the deal, he said.

Many of the details are still being worked out this time around. Activities promoted by the consulates could include promoting Mexican art and Mexican cuisine, he said. Meantime, Mexican officials are more actively reaching out to U.S. leaders through numerous channels, including grassroots activists and trade organizations, to emphasize the importance of America’s third-largest trading partner.

Already, advocacy groups are pushing Mexicans with legal permanent residency in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship and register to vote in this year’s elections. Mexican consulates have also been promoting U.S. citizenship workshops, though the official government line is that it is not an attempt to influence the election.

Peter Schechter, director of the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center at the Atlantic Council, said Mexicans are stunned to find themselves “the centerpiece of a nativist rhetoric that basically holds them as symbols of all that is wrong with our immigration policy, with our trade policy.”

“Do they feel ransacked? Absolutely. Do they feel this has come out of nowhere? Absolutely. Do they feel that not enough Americans stood up and try to counter-punch and try to explain what the realities of the relationship are? Yes,” said Schechter, who has extensive contacts in the Mexican government.

The Trump-inspired focus on the U.S.-Mexico relationship has led to some uncomfortable moments for U.S. lawmakers from border areas who often deal with Mexican leaders. Some have tried to calm nervous questioners about the limits of what Trump could do if elected.

“I say that the U.S. government is bigger than just one person, and there are a lot of folks, and Congress is an equal branch of government,” said Rep. Will Hurd, a Republican whose Texas district runs some 800 miles along the border.

But many in Mexico, as well Americans with family on both sides of the border, wonder if there are deeper issues at play.

Rep. Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat who represents the major Texas border town of El Paso, said one Mexican lawmaker told him that “what’s alarming is not necessarily what Donald Trump is saying. What’s alarming is that Donald Trump is saying this, and it is resonating with a significant number of Americans.”

O’Rourke and Democrat Rep. Filemon Vela, another Texan, are trying to organize a large-scale visit of border-area leaders to Congress, modeled along what the American Israel Public Affairs Committee does when it takes its activists to the Hill.

The event might not happen before the presidential election, but Vela and O’Rourke said it could go a long way to helping educate their fellow legislators on basic facts about the border and U.S.-Mexico relations, such as how 6 million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Mexico, and how towns such as El Paso are among the safest in the country.

Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar said in his conversations with Mexican leaders it’s clear that they want to present a more up-to-date, positive image of their country to Americans.

He’s suggested they can’t be too subtle about it.

“I just basically said nobody has the bully pulpit like Trump does,” the Democrat said, adding, “I told them to make sure that they work with members of Congress. If he becomes president, you gotta have friends.”

See (“Mexico fights back against ‘The Clown’“) (emphasis added)

Trump will chew them up, just like he chewed up his GOP opponents.

If anything, this will add to his momentum, and galvanize his support among even broader swaths of America—”Reagan Democrats,” Independents and Republicans alike.

Mexico and its American cohorts will be hiring high-paid lobbyists and others, who are the very people that Trump and Sanders supporters have railed against.

Trump genuinely likes Mexicans and other Hispanics; and he has employed vast numbers of them. However, those who are in the U.S. legally find that their jobs are in jeopardy because of the illegals. Hence, they may become Trump supporters before the November election.

The coming economic downturn may solidify this fact, as more and more scramble for fewer and fewer jobs.

Trump, the “clown,” is likely to have the last laugh.

See (“The Obama Great Depression“) (see also the comments beneath the article)


13 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele



This is the title of an article by the always-outspoken American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist and lawyer, Ann Coulter:

In a campaign built on lies, it should not be a surprise that the central theme of Hillary’s campaign is the biggest lie of all.

Someday, it will be the subject for a graduate thesis whether reporters who were in diapers when Bill Clinton was president simply don’t know the truth or, in their zeal to see Hillary elected, are obscuring the truth.

The media portray Bill Clinton as a lovable scamp, a good ol’ Southern boy who just liked to have sex in the back of his pickup. In fact, according to numerous independent accounts, he was a sexual abuser and, the overwhelming evidence shows, a violent rapist.

While we would normally extend our sympathy to his wife, Hillary has forfeited those claims by actively conspiring with him to cover up his sexual assaults and smear the victims, showing absolutely no compunction about destroying women whose stories she knew to be true.

Because Donald Trump is reminding people about Hillary’s brutal rise to power, liberals denounce him for using the “sex scandals of the 1990s” against her. But recall that it was Hillary who used the “sex scandals of the 1990s” to launch her entire political career.

A few weeks ago, Trump stirred up feminists by questioning whether Clinton is the most qualified woman who’s ever walked the planet, by saying, “Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote.”

Of course this is true. Trump wasn’t talking about Sen. Dianne Feinstein. He wasn’t talking about Sens. Claire McCaskill or Elizabeth Warren. Those women climbed the political ladder on their own. Can you even name any of their husbands?

By contrast, Hillary got her positions by virtue of being married to the president, who cheated on her. She played the victim, and suddenly the rest of the world owed her.

Being married to the president did not make for an auspicious beginning to Hillary’s career in politics. She was a grumpy, unpopular first lady, was given control of a health care task force, did a terrible job, and was going absolutely nowhere, when her husband — the president — got caught fooling around with a White House intern, and then committed felony obstruction of justice to cover it up.

Hillary parlayed being the wronged wife into a Senate seat from New York, which was basically an appointed position (she ran against a little-known Republican congressman in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-to-1); and secretary of state, an actual appointed position.

This isn’t about private affairs, the internal dynamic of the Clintons’ marriage or a wronged wife. No one cares about the Clintons’ marriage, least of all the Clintons. In addition to being vastly too byzantine to unravel, Bill’s philandering might affect what we think of him as a husband and father, but it doesn’t reflect one iota on Hillary Clinton.

But to say Hillary is an innocent victim would be incorrect. The overwhelming evidence is that her husband committed repeated predatory sexual acts, in some cases violently, Hillary knew that, and she helped him by muddying up his accusers.

The media worked hand-in-glove with the Clintons’ enablers, Betsy Wright and (future objective journalist) George Stephanopoulos, to conceal Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” — as the campaign called them — as long as they could. But when Paula Jones sued President Clinton for sexual harassment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his treatment of other women became relevant evidence in her case.

That’s when the floodgates opened.

Jones alleged that, when she was an employee of the state of Arkansas, Governor Clinton had state troopers bring her to his hotel room, where he proceeded to drop his pants and tell her to “kiss it” — then warned her that he knew her boss.

Either voluntarily or by legal compulsion, a slew of women attested to sexual encounters with Bill Clinton — Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Monica Lewinsky, and several dozen cocktail waitresses along the interstate corridor between Little Rock and Washington. Many more told their stories, but said they were afraid to use their names.

Highly credible women who don’t know one another have given convincing accounts of Clinton’s unwanted sexual attentions, from groping, to flashing to violent rape. Juanita Broaddrick’s rape allegation convinced NBC News. It also convinced congressmen, who read her testimony, that they should reverse their positions and vote to impeach Clinton.

Hillary knew what her husband was doing and yet, over and over again, she helped him cover it up and destroy the women, portraying them as stalkers, blackmailers and loons. As one of Bill’s mistresses, former Miss Arkansas Sally Perdue, told the Daily Mail (U.K.), Hillary has a “vengeful, spiteful ugliness. . . . And she’s championing women’s causes?”

This patron saint of victims made it her business to inflict more harm on Bill’s marks, specific examples of which will be covered in a future column.

Until then, know that when journalists talk about Bill Clinton’s “sexual peccadilloes” and refer to Hillary as a “victim,” that’s not remotely what it was. He was a sexual predator and she was his willing co-conspirator.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Clinton Fatigue“)

Bill Clinton is a rapist.

And Donald Trump is correct: Hillary Clinton is a very sick enabler, and destroyer of innocent women.

See (“Trump Slams Hillary Clinton As Nasty, Mean Enabler Of Husband’s Rapes And Affairs“)


15 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Hillary And Her Coke Habit


Sally Miller has written in the American Mirror:

Like other men I’ve known, Bill Clinton fantasized about having a covey of females, all with full breasts, shapely long legs, and tight, eager vaginas in bed with him.

After watching his bed-mates kiss and fondle each other for a while, then he’d join the action.

When I asked Bill if he shared his fantasies with Hillary, he laughed.

“What a joke! Sex is a waste of time to Hillary. When we were dating, she talked about making-out with her girlfriends in college because she knew it turned me on. Hillary seemed worldly and more sexually-experienced than me and, at the time, I liked it.”

“Before we married, I got her pregnant and she had an abortion. It bothered me because I didn’t know about it until it was over. Then, several months after the wedding, she slipped up again because she was too lazy to take the pill.

“Hillary hates kids. She was one nasty bitch when she was pregnant. My God, for nine months, she made my life a living hell and blamed me!

“From the beginning, our political advisors warned us that Hillary must take my last name and concentrate on having a child if I was going to have a future in politics. I saw the real Hillary after we got married.

“She’s a damn frigid bitch who prefers women; she won’t even compromise and be bi-sexual. All I hear is how much she despises penises; she thinks they are fucking ugly, like snakes.”

Bill mentioned, “The only time Hillary gets aroused or agree to ‘play sexy’ is after she snorts coke. But, even then, she’s rigid and frigid. Hillary goes ape-shit crazy–I mean screams, hits, and cusses–if I touch her breasts! Right after we started fooling around, she warned me to stay away from her tits, even telling me: ‘If you want to nurse–go home to your momma!’”

Hillary Clinton despised Bill’s brother Roger but, she had to be nice to him since he supplied her coke habit.

(Roger Clinton was charged with and convicted of a cocaine-related offense in 1985 and pardoned by Bill in 2001.)

Bill talked about Hillary taking off work lots of times, desperate to find Roger. She cursed Roger but, at the same time, she had to be nice since he was her only source of coke.

She smoked weed but coke was her addiction.

I recall Bill saying, “Everyone, including my staff, people at the law firm, even friends, knows Hillary is a cokehead but that’s okay. We tolerate Hillary on coke cause without it, Hillary’s a raving maniac.

“My God, we’ve had to borrow money to replace lamps, chairs, all kinds of valuable shit in the governor’s mansion just because of Hillary’s temper! I’ve had to take Chelsea outside many times to keep her out of Hillary’s ‘line of fire.’ Without her ‘fix’ Hillary’s Hell on Wheels.”

All these years later, I think Hillary is completely selfish and unstable; she’s a façade when it comes to dependability, commitment, and dedication.

Hillary has an attitude of entitlement; she believes anything and everything she does is okay and no one can question her. She never stops talking out of both sides of her mouth.

I continue to ask Hillary supporters, “What has Hillary accomplished other than keeping herself in politics, garnering enormous sums of money—all for her, and, like a rock star, maintaining a presence in the media? What has Hillary Rodham Clinton EVER done for anyone, other than herself?”

I may not know men but I know women. I speak from experience: Hillary Clinton is a FAKE. If you can prove otherwise, I’ll kiss Hillary’s caboose!

See (emphasis added); see also (“Bill Clinton snorted cocaine off my coffee table, former lover says“) and (“Clinton Fatigue”)

Liked by 1 person

15 05 2016

Wow.. Is this true? Bill actually said this about Hilary? Where else is this published??

Liked by 1 person

15 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, for your questions.

I have seen similar reports, and have included many at the following comment (with sources):

See (“Clinton Fatigue”)

All of this is likely to unfold ad infinitum, unless of course she is indicted and drops out of the race. Many have speculated that this will happen, including former House Speaker John Boehner.

See (“Boehner wouldn’t be surprised if Clinton ‘has to withdraw’”—”[T]he former Speaker suggested that Democrats might have to turn to Vice President Biden to be their 2016 nominee”—”Boehner said anyone who thinks Trump can’t win the White House should ‘just watch. This is going to be a presidential campaign like we’ve never seen before,’ he said”)


15 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Bill Clinton Ditched Secret Service On Multiple “Lolita Express” Flights

Bill Clinton and Sharon Stone
[Bill Clinton and Sharon Stone]

Douglas Ernst of the Washington Times has reported:

An investigation into official flight records of financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” are once again dragging former President Bill Clinton into the national spotlight.

Flight logs obtained by Gawker in January 2015 put Mr. Clinton on the billionaire’s infamous jet more than a dozen times — sometimes with a woman whom federal prosecutors suspect of procuring underage sex victims for Mr. Epstein. Fox News reported Friday that records show Mr. Clinton declined Secret Service protection on at least five flights.

The network’s investigation reveals Mr. Clinton flew on the Boeing 727 “Lolita Express” 26 times, more than doubling the previously reported 11 trips.

“Bill Clinton … associated with a man like Jeffrey Epstein, who everyone in New York, certainly within his inner circles, knew was a pedophile. Why would a former president associate with a man like that?” said Conchita Sarnoff of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking, Fox reported. Ms. Conchita also authored a book on Mr. Epstein titled “TrafficKing.”

Mr. Epstein was arrested in 2005 and signed a plea agreement in 2007 with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, accepting a single charge of soliciting prostitution. He agreed to a 30-month sentence, registered as a “Tier 1” sex offender with the U.S. Virgin Islands and paid dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse.

A Clinton spokesperson did not return the network’s emails requesting comment. Martin Weinberg, Mr. Epstein’s attorney, declined multiple inquiries into the flights.

Fox News said that the U.S. Secret Service declined to answer multiple Freedom of Information Act requests on the trips.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Clinton Fatigue”)

A colleague with one of this nation’s most prominent media organizations was covering an economic summit in Vancouver, at which he related that Bill Clinton and Sharon Stone spent more than one night together.

However, clearly, she does not quality as a “Lolita.”


16 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Trump Revolution

Donald and Melania Trump

Will Rahn, managing director, politics, for CBS News Digital, has written:

A Trump victory, meanwhile, will undoubtedly lead to profound upheaval in our political system. The policies he’ll pursue in office are still something of a mystery, but due to his lack of a real, grounding political philosophy, we can assume that he’ll embrace positions to both the right- and left-of-center.

In effect this would be something like a third party in American politics, and one in control of the White House no less — a Party of Trump, which will find itself at odds with both stalwart conservatives like Ben Sasse and progressives like Elizabeth Warren. Occasionally he’ll find common cause with one side, and sometimes with the other. You could even see him putting together odd bedfellows like Sherrod Brown and Jeff Sessions to pass new restrictions on trade. Any way you look at it, he would scramble everything we know about American politics.

You can argue that the changes that Trump would bring to this country would be disastrous, or that he’s morally and intellectually unfit for the office. But the one safe bet we have about a Trump presidency is that it would provoke a realignment in our politics and bring about an end to the elite governing consensus of the last several decades. America’s many establishments — Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative – would all suddenly find themselves on the outs.

The Democrats have signaled that they’ll run on the idea that a Trump presidency is just too “risky” and “dangerous.” But that shows a real misunderstanding of his appeal as a candidate. The subtext of every Trump rally is basically take this risk, take this gamble — it may all end in tears, but it’s worth a shot.

America isn’t working anymore, his argument goes. It’s not working for Americans, Americans know that, and all those smug elites are to blame. How do we fix that? Hard to say: Trump, remember, has a habit of contradicting himself within the same sentence when answering questions about his policy specifics. But step one is blowing up the system, and that’s exactly what Trump is promising to do.

Is it childish to want the political system to be completely upended even if the consequences might be disastrous? Maybe. But in a country where a plurality of Americans think that “people like them” were better off 50 years ago, at least according to a recent Pew survey, it should also be expected. We can dismiss Trump’s voters as low-class, knuckle-dragging racists who deserve, in some sense, to suffer. But that wouldn’t be wise from a governing standpoint or, for Trump’s opponents, a tactical one.

If you think that Trump’s voters don’t get what’s best for them, then it’s up to you to sell them on why they’re wrong — to make the case that free trade leads to cheaper, better goods for everyone, that immigration greatly benefits the economy, that a “Muslim ban” is immoral and would only help groups like ISIS. That the system, for all its faults, can still be reformed, and that allowing Trump to raise hell in Washington will only make his supporters’ lot worse.

But to just dismiss them as “idiots” is, well, stupid. It plays into his hands; it justifies the anti-elite impulse he’s exploited. The consensus among all the poll-watchers and data-heads who have consistently underestimated Trump from the onset is that Hillary is all but certain to win in November. And they might be right. But if Trump pulls off the upset, the smugness and lack of empathy that defines too many of his detractors will be in large part to blame.

See (“Donald Trump, candidate of change“) (emphasis added); see also (“Centrist Democrats: We can work with President Trump“)

First, there is no such beast as a “progressive” in American politics. The Democrats have tried to co-opt the word; whereas, if it means anything at all, it refers to the far-Left in the United States. They are anything but “progressive.”

Second, a third party is exactly what many of us want. Formerly, we were Democrats and/or Republicans, and we left both parties because neither represented us. Many of us feel most comfortable registering as Independents, whose ranks have been swelling.

See (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents“)

Indeed, many of us do not care what happens to either political party: and we would just as soon see both disappear. They do not represent us. Having worked on Capitol Hill and seen both up close and personal, I have felt that way for many years.

Third, those in the Trump “movement” or yes, revolution, consist of so-called “Reagan Democrats,” Independents, and Republicans. It is an alliance that is shaking the political foundations of America’s two-party system, which is long overdue.

Republican presidential giants from Abraham Lincoln to Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would be proud of what is happening.

Fourth, the naysayers and Neanderthals in the GOP—such as Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol and George Will—should be banished from the new Trump GOP. They and the so-called “neocons” brought us the Iraq War in which thousands of Americans died for nothing, while others were maimed for life and trillions of dollars were wasted.

Fifth, it is unlikely that Hillary Clinton will be the Democrats’ nominee in November, much less elected. Instead, she may be indicted, and spend the balance of Barack Obama’s presidency trying to get a pardon from him, to avoid time in prison.

See (“Clinton Fatigue”)


17 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Mitt Romney Is Pathetic, Cowardly, Un-American And Hated

Romney is hated

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

“It’s a suicide mission,” said the Republican Party Chairman.

Reince Priebus was commenting on a Washington Post story about Mitt Romney and William Kristol’s plot to recruit a third-party conservative candidate to sink Donald Trump.

Several big-name Republican “consultants” and “strategists” are said to be on board. Understandably so, given the bucks involved.

With the kind of cash that sloshes around in a presidential campaign, there should be no shortage of super PAC parasites at the enlistment office.

Still missing, however, is the kamikaze pilot who gets just enough fuel to make it out to the fleet. Efforts to recruit Sen. Ben Sasse, loudest of the “Never Trump” leaders, appear to have foundered.

Second thoughts set in this weekend when the Nebraska State Republican Convention voted thunderously to chastise Sasse for persisting in his anti-Trump antics, now that the Republican nominee has been decided by the voters.

Among others sounded out for the mission are ex-Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, retired Marine Corps General James Mattis, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Mark Cuban of the Dallas Mavericks. All have begged off.

Apparently, Romney, the Republican Party’s 2012 nominee, personally sounded out both Sasse and Gov. John Kasich, who will be hosting the Cleveland Convention where the coronation of the Donald is to be held.

How Kasich could expect to beat Trump in November, when he lost every state primary to Trump, save his own, is unexplained. And, indeed, Romney’s recruitment of Kasich raises a question.

If Romney believes that Trump is an unacceptable nominee and would be an intolerable president, and that Republicans have a moral obligation to prevent this, why does Romney not man up and take on the assignment himself?

Now, admittedly, Cranbrook in Bloomfield Hills, where Romney attended, does not have a long tradition of producing suicide bombers. Yet, Romney is asking others to undertake a mission that will kill their careers and make them pariahs in their party, but will not do it himself.

His father shared Romney’s mindset: If the voters have made a mistake, you are not obligated to support it. Just days after Sen. Barry Goldwater locked up the Republican nomination in the California primary, Gov. George Romney was at the Cleveland governors conference plotting to stop him.

Richard Nixon arrived to encourage Romney to step out onto the tracks in front of the Goldwater express. Romney thought better of taking Nixon’s counsel. But he did join Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in denouncing his own party for coddling extremists, and refused to endorse Goldwater, as son Mitt is refusing to endorse Trump.

It was after that Cleveland Convention that Nixon ruefully told me, “Buchanan, whenever you hear of a group forming up to stop X, be sure to put your money on X.”

In 1968, George Romney was so far behind Nixon in the early polls he dropped out, two weeks before New Hampshire. Though he quit the race, at the Republican Convention in Miami Beach, he allowed his name to be put in nomination for vice president, to protest Nixon’s selection of Spiro T. Agnew.

Agnew crushed him. But whatever you say about the political savvy of George Romney, he was stubborn as a bull in his convictions, and he had the courage to go down to defeat fighting for them.

Son Mitt, however, is pushing others into doing what he will not do.

Why is Priebus right when he calls the entry of a third-party conservative in the presidential race a “suicide mission”?

Such a candidate would siphon off votes that would otherwise go to Trump, bring down the ticket, and result in Hillary Clinton becoming the 45th president.

That would mean the next three justices on the Supreme Court would be in the tradition of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. And that would mean Roe v. Wade would never be overturned, affirmative action would be forever, and the social revolution that declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right would roll on.

A Clinton presidency would also mean Obamacare is forever.

The Romney-Kristol collusion thus overlaps nicely with the interests of the Clinton campaign and the agenda of the Beltway media elite.

By scheming to divide the Republican base, they are colluding to bring about the defeat of the Republican Party. And that means Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the White House.

In 1980, Republican Congressman John Anderson, defeated by Ronald Reagan in the primaries, refused to endorse him, and ran as a third-party candidate.

As of June, Anderson had 24 percent of the vote and Reagan was losing to President Carter. Fortunately, as Anderson moved left, he began to sink and draw as much from Carter as from Reagan.

What the Never Trump folks refuse to face is this transparent reality:

Either Trump or Clinton is going to be the next president. To the degree they succeed in wounding or killing Trump’s candidacy, they advance Clinton’s chances of succeeding Obama.

The Romney-Kristol cabal is Hillary Clinton’s fifth column inside the Republican Party.

See (“Is Mitt on a Suicide Mission?“) (emphasis added); see also (“MITT ROMNEY: NO CLASS!”)

Many of us voted for Romney in 2012, and considered supporting his candidacy again in this year’s election. Now, we are ashamed for having done so.

Bill Kristol is also pure scum, and his Weekly Standard should be boycotted.


18 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Bernie Sanders Destroys Hillary Clinton In Debate On Vermont Gun Laws [UPDATED]

[Video provided by Richard]

If Hillary Clinton is indicted, it will be “game over” for her presidential aspirations; and she will not be the Democrats’ nominee in November, much less elected. Instead, she may spend the balance of Barack Obama’s presidency trying to get a pardon from him, to avoid time in prison.

A Sanders versus Trump election in November would energize America. Both have dedicated supporters who are genuinely excited about their candidate. Hillary and Bill Clinton are “damaged goods,” and yesterday’s news.

See (“Clinton Fatigue”)


18 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

A MUST READ: Treatment Of Women – Trump v. Clintons [UPDATED]

Bill Clinton and Sharon Stone
[Bill Clinton and Sharon Stone]

American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist and lawyer, Ann Coulter, has written:

The New York Times’ front-page article last Saturday on Donald J. Trump’s dealings with women forced me into a weekend of self-examination. As much as I support Trump, this isn’t a cult of personality. He’s not Mao, Kim Jong-un or L. Ron Hubbard. We can like our candidates, but still acknowledge their flaws. No one’s perfect.

I admit there are some things about Trump that give me pause. I’m sure these will come out eventually, so I’m just going to list them.

First — and this is corroborated by five contemporaneous witnesses — in 1978, Trump violently raped Juanita Broaddrick in a Little Rock, Arkansas, hotel room, then, as he was leaving, looked at her bloody lip and said, “Better put some ice on that” — oh wait, I’m terribly sorry. Did I say Trump? I didn’t mean Trump, I meant Bill Clinton.

Hang on — here we go! Knowing full well about Bill Clinton’s proclivity to sexually assault women, about three weeks after that rape, Trump cornered Broaddrick at a party and said, pointedly, “I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him. Do you understand? Everything you do.”

No! My mistake! That wasn’t Trump either. That was Hillary Clinton. . . . But this next one I’m sure was Trump.

In the early 1990s, Trump invited a young female staffer to his hotel room at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, dropped his pants and said, “Kiss it” — WAIT A SECOND!

I don’t know how this keeps happening. That was Bill Clinton. Please bear with me — it’s late at night and my notes are jumbled.

As CEO of an organization, Trump had a female employee, just months out of her teens, perform oral sex on him while he made business calls. That girl’s name was Monica Lewin– No! Wrong again! That was Bill Clinton, too! Please don’t stop reading. Let me find my Trump notes . . .

What I meant was that Trump was the one who later smeared that girl as a delusional stalker. She may have volunteered for the sex — at around age 20 — but Monica Lewinsky didn’t volunteer to be slandered! And yet this fiend, this user-of-women, this retrograde misogynist, Donald Trump, deployed his journalist friends, like Sidney Blumenthal, to spread rumors that Monica was a stalker, trying to blackmail the president.

Oh, boy–this is embarrassing. This must seem very sloppy. That wasn’t Trump either; it was Hillary Clinton.

There must be something here that was Trump . . . Here! I have one.

When an attractive woman desperately in need of a job came to Trump’s office in 1993, instead of helping, he lunged at her, kissed her on the mouth, grabbed her breast and put her hand on his genitals. He later told a mistress that the claim was absurd because the woman, Kathleen Willey, had such small breasts.

Uh-oh — you’re not going to believe this, but — yep, that was Bill Clinton.

This one, I’m sure was Trump. In January 1992, Trump went on “60 Minutes” to slime nightclub singer Gennifer Flowers, knowing full well she was telling the truth. He implied she belonged in a loony bin, telling millions of viewers “every time she called, distraught . . . she said sort of wacky things.”

Dammit! I don’t know how this keeps happening. That wasn’t Trump! That was Hillary, smearing one of her husband’s sexual conquests.

Let’s just go back to the Times’ story, based on months of investigation and interviews with hundreds of women. I’ll give it to you straight: When Trump was at the New York Military Academy as a teenager, one person who knew him said — and this is corroborated by two other witnesses: “Donald was extremely sensitive to whether or not the women he invited to campus were pretty.”

I almost threw up reading that. I am physically ill.

See (“Trump’s Problem With Women”) (emphasis added); see also (“Clinton Fatigue”) and (“Clinton Rape Accuser Juanita Broaddrick: NY Times Should Interview Bill’s Alleged Female Victims”—”Broaddrick said she believes there is a whole generation of Millennials who are unfamiliar with Clinton’s history with women. She further slammed Hillary Clinton as an ‘enabler’ who has allowed her husband to ‘continue on the same path that he did back in the 70’s and 80’s and 90’s'”—”Just like on Twitter I had these young Millennials coming on, saying, ‘Is this is true? Did it really happen?’ Well, yes. It did happen to me”—”‘I feel like [Hillary Clinton] has been the enabler behind him in allowing him to continue on the same path that he did back in the ’70s and ’80s and ’90s. He has absolutely no morals when it comes to women”—”Broaddrick says [Bill] Clinton raped her at a hotel when she was a nursing home administrator volunteering for then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton’s 1978 gubernatorial bid”—”Broaddrick said that within a few weeks after Clinton allegedly raped her, he started to call her repeatedly with the aim of meeting again. The phone calls went on for about six months, she stated. ‘I was shocked to say the least that he would have the audacity to call me after what he did to me’”—”Speaking publicly for the first time in nearly a decade, Broaddrick in November told this reporter that Hillary approached her at a fundraising event three weeks after the alleged rape, and Broaddrick says Hillary implied that Broaddrick should stay quiet about the incident”)

Coulter neglects to mention that Bill Clinton declined Secret Service protection when he flew on convicted pedophile and registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express,” the infamous Boeing 727 that ferried Clinton 26 times with victims of child sexual abuse to Little Saint James, Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

See (“Bill Clinton Ditched Secret Service On Multiple ‘Lolita Express’ Flights”); see also (“Jeffrey Epstein“)


20 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Hillary Clinton Lying For 13 Minutes Straight! [UPDATED]

Lying and deceit undergird Hillary Clinton’s life, and that of her de jure “husband” Bill.

See (“A YouTube video entitled ‘Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight’ has been viewed more than seven million times on the internet”—”The footage included Mrs Clinton saying in 2004 that marriage is a ‘sacred bond between a man and a woman'”—”The video also included her claims that she had once landed in Bosnia under sniper fire, and footage showing she did not”); see also (“Bill Clinton Ditched Secret Service On Multiple ‘Lolita Express’ Flights”) and (“A MUST READ: Treatment Of Women – Trump v. Clintons“) and (“Clinton Fatigue”)


20 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Clinton Rape Accuser Blasts Biased NBC Anchor, Andrea Mitchell, Wife Of Disgraced Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan [UPDATED]

Greenspan and Clinton
[Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton]

WND has reported:

First, GOP presumptive presidential candidate Donald Trump ripped away the “philandering husband” façade from Bill Clinton, publicly charging on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Wednesday that the former president committed “rape.”

Then, on the same day, the victim, Juanita Broaddrick, described for the first time – in a WND exclusive sit-down interview conducted in Broaddrick’s Arkansas home – exactly how the alleged 1978 sexual assault had deeply and permanently scarred her life throughout the intervening decades. And Broaddrick mentioned something else: Of all mainstream journalists, the one she spoke to recently on the phone, seeking an update from Broaddrick on the rape incident and its aftermath, was NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

How ironic, then, when Thursday, Mitchell said on-air that Broaddrick’s rape allegation, first televised by her own network in a sensational “Dateline” segment in 1999, had been “discredited.”

“Lisa Myers actually warned me about Andrea,” Broaddrick told WND today, responding to Mitchell’s comment essentially calling her a liar.

It was Myers, NBC News’ well-respected and recently retired senior investigative correspondent, who in 1999 was so convinced of Broaddrick’s authenticity that she interviewed her for the network’s primetime story.

Indeed, Mitchell’s “discredited” claim clashes directly with Myers, who as recently as 2014 confirmed that “Nothing has come up since that story was reported that in any way undercuts what Juanita Broaddrick said.”

Here’s what Broaddrick said today in response to Mitchell’s claim:

“Nothing has changed from the detailed investigation NBC did into my story in 1999 before airing my Dateline interview with Lisa Myers,” Broaddrick said in a statement to Los Angeles attorney Candice Jackson, who conducted the in-person interview with Broaddrick for WND, having previously authored the acclaimed book, “Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine.”

“And if NBC now thinks my experience has been ‘discredited,’” Broaddrick continued, “why would Andrea Mitchell call me to ask me for any new information about my encounter with Hillary after the assault? And why wouldn’t Andrea Mitchell have written her own news story explaining exactly how I’ve been discredited? Lisa Myers actually warned me about Andrea. Andrea is obviously mad at me for exposing her rudeness and bias when she called me this year. I think being a lapdog for Hillary Clinton discredits Andrea Mitchell and NBC as journalists!

“Rudeness and bias”? Here’s how Jackson reported Broaddrick’s comments about her call with Andrea Mitchell in her interview story:

Juanita created a social media firestorm earlier this year by tweeting that she had been “dreading seeing my abuser on TV campaign trail for enabler wife . . . but his physical appearance reflects ghosts of past are catching up.” One of the many media figures who called her after this tweet was Andrea Mitchell of NBC. Because she’d had a positive experience with Lisa Myers with NBC back in 1999, Andrea Mitchell was one of the few calls Juanita returned in the aftermath of her trending tweets. Andrea Mitchell asked her just one question, listened to her answer, and told Juanita condescendingly, “We’re not going to air anything with you because you have nothing new to add.” Juanita felt bewildered by Andrea Mitchell’s dismissive attitude.

Mitchell’s unprecedented media disparagement of Broaddrick’s rape accusation came in her on-air report on Trump’s “rape” reference.

“Donald Trump using that word unprompted during an interview last night with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, bringing up a discredited and long denied accusation against former President Bill Clinton dating back to 1978 when he was Arkansas attorney general.”

As the Washington Free Beacon pointed out, Mitchell “is correct to say this allegation is ‘long denied,’ but on what basis is she calling it discredited? On the contrary, Broaddrick’s allegation is arguably the most consistent and believable accusation of sexual assault made against Bill Clinton (though not, of course, the only one). For a little perspective here, note that even progressive site Vox says the allegation, ‘has not been definitively refuted.’ Vox also notes that reporter Michael Isikoff’s book contains a reference to a concession by Clinton’s lawyers that he may have had ‘consensual sex’ with Broaddrick.”

Mitchell’s comments on Trump’s “rape” reference came on the heels of a weekend New York Times story on Trump’s treatment of women headlined “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private.” Since its publication, the story has been widely condemned – one could even say “discredited” – by the very women quoted by the Times’ reporters, who say their words were shamelessly twisted to fit the newspaper’s pre-ordained story line.

Trump responded to the Times story on “Hannity” by focusing on Bill Clinton’s serial sexual abuse of women.

Hannity picked up the theme: “For example, I looked at the New York Times. Are they going to interview Juanita Broaddrick? Are they going to interview Paula Jones? Are they going to interview Kathleen Willey?” Hannity asked Trump. “In one case, it’s about exposure. In another case, it’s about groping and fondling and touching against a woman’s will.”

Trump interjected, “And rape.”

“And rape,” Hannity repeated.

In “Their Lives,” Jackson documented the failings in the White House’s denial at the time, a statement that read, “Any allegation that the president assaulted Ms. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false.”

Explained Jackson: “No attempt to argue that Clinton wasn’t even in Little Rock on the day in question, or that he had never been alone with her, or even that they hadn’t had sexual relations. The denial was immediately parsed by some on the press and public wary of Clinton’s overly technical, legalistic use of the English language. Broaddrick wasn’t known as ‘Ms. Broaddrick’ in 1978, some noted – at that time she was ‘Mrs. Hickey.’”

And, Jackson added, “She alleged rape, not ‘assault.’”

The case presented some worrying issues to even those like Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, “no friend of conservatives,” wrote Jakcson.

“Cohen . . . remained troubled by Juanita Broaddrick’s story. ‘Is it possible the president’s a rapist? Am I supposed not to care?’ Cohen wondered.”

On Thursday, Jackson was specific: “‘Not credible’ was never a label anyone was able to throw at Juanita – not even Clinton loyalists like George Stephanopolous. ‘Discredited’ has NEVER been used against Juanita before, and it is an outrageous lie. Journalists confirmed details such as Juanita’s attendance at the nursing home event in Little Rock and the location of the hotel where she met with Clinton. Friends at the time confirmed that she told them about the assault right after it occurred. The only thing that has ever been used against Juanita is the fact that she did sign an affidavit denying she’d experienced unwanted sexual advances from Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s, in an effort to keep her name out of the Paula Jones lawsuit.

“She admitted to Ken Starr in 1998 that she’d lied in that affidavit (that rape had in fact occurred), and she has told the same consistent version of events ever since. That affidavit existed in 1999 when Juanita first told her story to the WSJ and then on NBC’s ‘Dateline’ with Lisa Myers. That affidavit simply didn’t hold up against the overwhelming evidence of the truth of her story of rape.”

On “Hannity,” Trump also cited “big settlements, massive settlements” reached by Bill Clinton with various women who leveled accusations of sexual abuse or worse.

“And lots of other things. And impeachment for lying.”

Trump continued, “You know, he lost his law license, OK? He couldn’t practice law. And you don’t read about this on Clinton.”

Paula Jones charged that Bill Clinton exposed himself to her at a Little Rock, Arkansas, hotel in 1991 and Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her in 1993. Broaddrick, identified as Jane Doe No. 5 during the Paula Jones trial, claimed in 1999 that Clinton had sexually assaulted and raped her in 1978.

And what about Hillary Clinton, who hopes to become president in a few months?

Jackson’s latest interview with Broaddrick reveals Broaddrick’s “haunting” encounter with Hillary Clinton shortly after the alleged rape:

“About two weeks after the rape, Juanita reluctantly showed up at a Clinton for Governor campaign event that she’d committed to attending prior to being assaulted. She hoped to show up briefly and leave before the Clintons arrived, but instead, Hillary Clinton spotted Juanita and walked directly up to her, grabbed her hand, looked her in the eyes and said deliberately, ‘We want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill.’ Juanita tried to step back but Hillary tightened her grip on Juanita’s hand and repeated, ‘Everything you do for Bill.’ The cold look in Hillary eyes still haunts Juanita. ‘Bill Clinton was charming and personable,’ Juanita says, ‘but Hillary never had that – she’s just cold.’ Juanita understood Hillary’s calculated ‘greeting’ as a threat to keep quiet.”

Broaddrick told Jackson she decided to speak out now because of a campaign-season comment from Hillary Clinton.

“It was all because of Hillary’s tweet in December [2015] where she said we all need to ‘believe the victims of sexual assault.’ How can she be so ignorant? Doesn’t she know we’ll all come forward again? She was saying in that tweet that all of us are liars. Has she lost her mind?” she said.

See (emphasis added)

What this article does not report is that Mitchell’s husband was responsible for the economic “crash” of 2008, and the suffering of so many Americans up to and including today.

Indeed, as I wrote in an October 17, 2008 article for the American Banker, the daily newspaper of the U.S. banking industry:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is the architect of the enormous economic “bubble” that has burst globally. No longer is he revered as a “potentate.” His reputation is in tatters. Giulio Tremonti, Italy’s Minister of Economy and Finance, has said: “Greenspan was considered a master. Now we must ask ourselves whether he is not, after [Osama] bin Laden, the man who hurt America the most.” That speaks volumes.

See (“Greenspan’s Fingerprints All Over Enduring Mess“)

Thus—along with Bill and Hillary Clinton—Greenspan and Mitchell are two of the most corrupt and odious people in the nation’s history; and their corruption continues with Mitchell’s distorted interview of Juanita Broaddrick.


24 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Serial Rapist Bill Cosby: To Stand Trial [UPDATED]

Bill Cosby

Earlier, detailed allegations against Cosby were revealed.

See (“The Serial Rapist Bill Cosby“)

As if these revelations were not enough, more is coming out about Cosby.

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Bill Cosby admitted to sexual encounters with teenagers and having an agency send him models on a weekly basis in depositions released just as he learns if his sexual assault case will go to trial.

He admitted in those depositions, given in 2005 and 2006 during Andrea Constand’s lawsuit against him, that he gave quaaludes to 19-year-old Therese Serignese in Las Vegas in 1976 and that he had another teenager, who he met in 2000, masturbate him with lotion.

That second teenager was one of the ‘five to six models’ Cosby said an agency sent to his studio each week. Cosby, 78, said in his deposition that he would give the young women ‘a very, very good meal.’

These new details from Cosby’s depositions come one day before he is scheduled to appear in a Pennsylvania court for a preliminary hearing to determine if his criminal sex-assault case goes to trial.

He was charged in that complaint, made by Constand in 2005, after these depositions were first made public last year.

After admitting to giving Serignese quaaludes during his deposition and acknowledging that they made the teenager ‘high’, Cosby was then asked by Constand’s lawyer Dolores Troiani; ‘She said that she believes she was not in the position to consent to intercourse after you gave her the drug. Do you believe that is correct?’

Cosby responded to that question by saying; ‘I don’t know. … How many years ago are we talking about? 197(6)? … I meet Ms. Picking in Las Vegas. She meets me backstage. I give her quaaludes. We then have sex.’

He also stated that he had never taken quaaludes despite the fact that he gave them to women, claiming they make him sleepy.

Troiana then asked how he could know that they would make him sleepy if he never took any, to which Cosby replied; ‘Quaaludes happen to be a depressant. I have had surgery and while being given pills that block the nervous system, in particular the areas of muscle, the back, I found that I get sleepy and I want to stay awake.’

Serignese said in a 2014 interview that she met Cosby at the Las Vegas Hilton in 1976 and was invited to spend time with him after his show, which is when he gave her two Quaaludes.

‘I took them, didn’t know what they were didn’t even ask. I just was intimidated I guess and I took them,’ Serignese told WPTV.

‘Then my next memory is feeling drugged and him having sex with me.’

Despite this, she ended up staying with Cosby, living in his penthouse for weeks, but eventually she moved out and later married.

She did however take up Cosby on his promise to pay her $500 if she went to school and earned good grades.

After attending nursing school, and doing well, she got word to go down to Western Union. In the end, she got $10,000 from Cosby.

The other teenager Cosby admitted to having a sexual interaction with he first met when she was just 17, though he does not state how old she was when he had her masturbate him with lotion.

After admitting to the sexual act with the teenager, Troiana asked Cosby; ‘[She] used the lotion to rub your penis and make you ejaculate?’

Cosby responded to this by saying; ‘Bingo.’

The deposition also reveals a previously unknown young actress filed a complaint with police in New York City after she claims Cosby tried to force her to have oral sex.

Cosby denied this allegation in the deposition.

The comedian also spoke about trying to hide the money he paid out to Serignese and later Constand from his wife.

In the case of Serignese, he had the money sent through his agent at William Morris.

With Constand, Cosby said he told his wife ‘there is a person I would like to help.’

Constand, the former director of operations for Temple’s women’s basketball team and a one time college basketball star herself, launched the legal suit against Cosby, a man she called her ‘mentor’, in March 2005.

Now 42, she said she first met Cosby, a Temple alum, in November 2002 and the pair became friends and she was a frequent guest at dinner parties at his home.

Cosby is now accused of drugging and sexually assaulting Constand at his mansion in January 2004.

The case against him emerged just days before Pennsylvania’s 12-year statute of limitation deadline for pressing charges was about to run out and despite a previous DA declining to charge Cosby a decade ago.

Cosby previously said under oath that he had consensual sexual contact with Constand.

The criminal complaint alleges that on the night in question Cosby told Constand to take three blue pills that left her feeling weak and then led her to a sofa where the assault took place.

When she woke up the next morning he gave her a muffin and sent her home.

The charge against him is punishable by five to 10 years behind bars and a $25,000 fine.

Steele said at the press conference on Wednesday that Cosby made two failed sexual advances towards Constand before the incident now in question.

The affidavit of probable cause describes both incidents, as well as the night of the alleged assault.

Constand claims that the first time Cosby made an advance at her was after the two shared a meal at his house and were sitting on his sofa having a discussion.

That is when ‘without warning, Cosby reached over and touched her pants, her waist, and her inner thigh’, according to the affidavit of probable cause.

She claims she then excused herself, went to the bathroom, gathered her things and left.

The next time he made an advance at her also occurred at his home in Elkins Park, and this time he ‘unbuttoned her pants and began touching her,’ according to the affidavit of probable cause.

Once again Constand claims she left soon after.

Then, sometime between mid-January and mid-February 2004, the alleged sexual assault occurred.

Constand claims she arrived at Cosby’s home and was greeted by the actor, who was wearing a sweatsuit.

The two spoke about Constand’s future, and she told Cosby she was feeling ‘drained’ and ’emotionally occupied’.

That is when Cosby allegedly went upstairs and returned with three blue pills. telling Constand: ‘These will make you feel good. The blue things will take the edge off.’

Constand claims she then asked if the pills were herbal, to which Cosby replied: ‘Yes. Down them. Put ’em down. Put them in your mouth.’

According to the affidavit of probable cause, Cosby then told Constand to have some wine, and soon after she began to have trouble speaking and seeing.

Cosby then allegedly told her to lie down on the couch, and soon after, according to the affidavit of probable hearing, was ‘fondling her breasts, put his hands into her pants, and penetrated her vagina with his fingers’.

He also allegedly took her hand and placed it on his erect penis.

Constand claims she woke up hours later around 4am and realized her bra was undone and above her breasts and that her sweater was bunched up.

As she made her way to the door she claims Cosby was standing there in a robe and holding a muffin, which he handed to her as she left while saying: ‘Alright.’

Constand later returned to her native Canada, where she reported the incident to police in January 2005.

Authorities in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, followed up with an investigation after she reported the assault, but in February 2005 District Attorney Bruce Castor declined to press criminal charges due to a lack of evidence.

The affidavit of probable cause also details an interview authorities had with Cosby about the alleged assault on January 26, 2005.

Cosby said at that time he had given Constand Benadryl and then, according to the affidavit, ‘they began to pet (touching and kissing) and then he touched her bare breast and private parts.’

Cosby claims that Constand did not ask him to stop at any point.

He then admitted to giving her a blueberry muffin and some tea when she awoke early the next morning.

He also said the two had ‘petted and kissed’ several times in the past, and that he ‘liked the petting and touching’.

When asked if he had ever had sexual intercourse with Constand he said ‘never asleep or awake’.

Constand then launched her civil suit against Cosby, a man she called her ‘mentor’ in March 2005, after no criminal charges were filed against the actor.

Cosby settled that suit for undisclosed terms in 2006.

An attorney for Constand said in a statement when Cosby was charged last December: ‘We have the utmost confidence in Mr Steele, Ms Feden and their team, who have impressed us with their professionalism.’

Through this all, Cosby’s wife Camille has stood by him and even been forced to give her own deposition in a lawsuit filed against her husband by several of his accusers.

Camille married the comedian in 1964 and the couple have three children; Erinn, Evin and Erica.

Their oldest son, Ennis, was shot dead while changing a tire in 1997 at the age of 27.




Q: Did you give her quaaludes?

A: Yes.

Q: What effect did the quaaludes have on her?

A: She became in those days what was called high.

Q: She said that she believes she was not in the position to consent to intercourse after you gave her the drug. Do you believe that is correct?

A: I don’t know. … How many years ago are we talking about? 197(6)? … I meet Ms. Picking in Las Vegas. She meets me backstage. I give her quaaludes. We then have sex.


Q: She says that just days after … she told you that she did not drink, you told her to come over to (your townhouse) and served her amaretto. Do you recall serving her amaretto?

A: No.

Q: That you told her to sit next to you on the couch and that you put your arm around her and began massaging her shoulder and arms suggestively. Did that occur? … This occurred sometime after you met her parents.

A: I need clarification on time.

Q: She’s 17 and I believe throughout the time she knows you she becomes 18 or 19.

Q: On a later occasion you had her masturbate you with lotion. Did that ever happen?

A: Yes.

Q: (She) used the lotion to rub your penis and make you ejaculate?

A: Bingo.


A: I fed her dinner, gave her three drinks. We went then to the living room. We went through acting, elementary moves. We then went to the sofa. We laid down together. I was behind her.

Q: Was she lying down or sitting up?

A: No, she was down.

Q: Did she fall asleep?

A: Yes.

Q: What did you do when she fell asleep?

A: I got up.

Q: Did you engage in any type of sexual contact with her while you were on the couch?

A: No.

Q. Are you aware that the woman’s statement was that on the night of the dinner at your New York townhouse, “At some point Cosby and the woman were sitting on a sofa and Cosby was massaging her back?”

A: Yes.

Q: “Cosby then lowered his pants in an effort to receive oral sex?”

A: “In an effort to receive oral sex,” that did not happen.

Q: “The woman rebuffed Cosby’s advances and was immediately sent home, driven by Cosby’s driver?”

A: And that is not true.

See (“Bill Cosby ADMITS to sexual encounters with teens and says agency sent him young models on a weekly basis in deposition released the day before he learns if sex assault case will go to trial“) (emphasis added)

There is no other way to describe this except as disgusting and criminal. Thus, it is not surprising that right after this article appeared, it was announced that Cosby would stand trial.

See (“Bill Cosby WILL STAND trial on sex assault charges after judge hears rape accuser’s claims actor told her to drink wine and take ‘herbal medication’ to relax before unconscious assault“)

Cosby, Bill Clinton and the fugitive from justice, Roman Polanski—who fled the United States—are three despicable individuals, who should be serving time in American prisons.

See, e.g., (“Bill Clinton Ditched Secret Service On Multiple “Lolita Express” Flights“); see also (“FLASHBACK: Meryl Streep gave Roman Polanski a standing ovation at the 2003 Oscars”) and (“Juanita Broaddrick Rains Hellfire On Meryl Streep — ‘Hollywood Still Doesn’t Get It. . .’”—”‘She supports the wife enabler of a rapist,’ Broaddrick added in reference to Streep’s fervent support for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election”)

Hillary, Chelsea and Bill . . . Cosby
[Hillary, Chelsea and Bill . . . Cosby]


27 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Donald Trump: The Great White Hope

President Trump

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

“Something startling is happening to middle-aged white Americans. Unlike every other age group, unlike every other racial and ethnic group … death rates in this group have been rising, not falling.”

The big new killers of middle-aged white folks? Alcoholic liver disease, overdoses of heroin and opioids, and suicides. So wrote Gina Kolata in The New York Times of a stunning study by the husband-wife team of Nobel laureate Angus Deaton and Anne Case.

Deaton could cite but one parallel to this social disaster: “Only H.I.V./AIDS in contemporary times has done anything like this.”

Middle-aged whites are four times as likely as middle-aged blacks to kill themselves. Their fitness levels are falling as they suffer rising levels of physical pain, emotional stress and mental depression, which helps explain the alcohol and drug addiction.

But what explains the social disaster of white Middle America?

First, an economy where, though at or near full employment, a huge slice of the labor force has dropped out. Second, the real wages of working Americans have been nearly stagnant for decades.

Two major contributors to the economic decline of the white working-class: Scores of millions of third-world immigrants, here legally and illegally, who depress U.S. wages, and tens of thousands of factories and millions of jobs shipped abroad under the label of “globalization.”

Another factor in the crisis of middle and working class white men is the plunging percentage of those who are married. Where a wife and children give meaning to a man’s life, and to his labors, single white men are not only being left behind by the new economy, they are becoming alienated from society.

“It’s not surprising,” Barack Obama volunteered to his San Francisco high-donors, that such folks, “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them…”

We all have seen the figure of 72 percent of black children being born out of wedlock. For working class whites, it is up to 40 percent.

A lost generation is growing up all around us.

In the popular culture of the ’40s and ’50s, white men were role models. They were the detectives and cops who ran down gangsters and the heroes who won World War II on the battlefields of Europe and in the islands of the Pacific.

They were doctors, journalists, lawyers, architects and clergy. White males were our skilled workers and craftsmen — carpenters, painters, plumbers, bricklayers, machinists, mechanics.

They were the Founding Fathers, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Hamilton, and the statesmen, Webster, Clay and Calhoun.

Lincoln and every president had been a white male. Middle-class white males were the great inventors: Eli Whitney and Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.

They were the great capitalists: Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford and J. P. Morgan. All the great captains of America’s wars were white males: Andrew Jackson and Sam Houston, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant and John J. Pershing, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton.

What has changed in our culture? Everything.

The world has been turned upside-down for white children. In our schools the history books have been rewritten and old heroes blotted out, as their statues are taken down and their flags are put away.

Children are being taught that America was “discovered” by genocidal white racists, who murdered the native peoples of color, enslaved Africans to do the labor they refused to do, then went out and brutalized and colonized indigenous peoples all over the world.

In Hollywood films and TV shows, working-class white males are regularly portrayed as what was once disparaged as “white trash.”

Republicans are instructed that demography is destiny, that white America is dying, and that they must court Hispanics, Asians and blacks, or go the way of the Whigs.

Since affirmative action for black Americans began in the 1960s, it has been broadened to encompass women, Hispanics, Native Americans the handicapped, indeed, almost 70 percent of the nation.

White males, now down to 31 percent of the population, have become the only Americans against whom it is not only permissible, but commendable, to discriminate.

When our cultural and political elites celebrate “diversity” and clamor for more, what are they demanding, if not fewer white males in the work force and in the freshman classes at Annapolis and Harvard?

What is the moral argument for an affirmative action that justifies unending race discrimination against a declining white working class, who have become the expendables of our multicultural regime?

“Angry white male” is now an acceptable slur in culture and politics. So it is that people of that derided ethnicity, race, and gender see in Donald Trump someone who unapologetically berates and mocks the elites who have dispossessed them, and who despise them.

Is it any surprise that militant anti-government groups attract white males? Is it so surprising that the Donald today, like Jess Willard a century ago, is seen by millions as “The Great White Hope”?

See (emphasis added)


7 06 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Is Right: Too Many Judges Are Pathetic Hacks

Justice And The Law Do Not Mix

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

Before the lynching of The Donald proceeds, what exactly was it he said about that Hispanic judge?

Stated succinctly, Donald Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a class-action suit against Trump University, is sticking it to him. And the judge’s bias is likely rooted in the fact that he is of Mexican descent.

Can there be any defense of a statement so horrific?

Just this. First, Trump has a perfect right to be angry about the judge’s rulings and to question his motives. Second, there are grounds for believing Trump is right.

On May 27, Curiel, at the request of The Washington Post, made public plaintiff accusations against Trump University — that the whole thing was a scam. The Post, which Bob Woodward tells us has 20 reporters digging for dirt in Trump’s past, had a field day.

And who is Curiel?

An appointee of President Obama, he has for years been associated with the La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which supports pro-illegal immigrant organizations.

Set aside the folly of letting Clinton surrogates like the Post distract him from the message he should be delivering, what did Trump do to be smeared by a bipartisan media mob as a “racist”?

He attacked the independence of the judiciary, we are told.

But Presidents Jefferson and Jackson attacked the Supreme Court, and FDR, fed up with New Deal programs being struck down, tried to “pack the court” by raising the number of justices to 15 if necessary.

Abraham Lincoln leveled “that eminent tribunal” in his first inaugural, and once considered arresting Chief Justice Roger Taney.

The conservative movement was propelled by attacks on the Warren Court. In the ’50s and ’60s, “Impeach Earl Warren!” was plastered on billboards and bumper stickers all across God’s country.

The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents or members of Congress.

Obama himself attacked the Citizens United decision in a State of the Union address, with the justices sitting right in front of him.

But Trump’s real hanging offense was that he brought up the judge’s ancestry, as the son of Mexican immigrants, implying that he was something of a judicial version of Univision’s Jorge Ramos.

Apparently, it is now not only politically incorrect, but, in Newt Gingrich’s term, “inexcusable,” to bring up the religious, racial or ethnic background of a judge, or suggest this might influence his actions on the bench.

But these things matter.

Does Newt think that when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, ex-head of the NAACP, to the Supreme Court, he did not think Marshall would bring his unique experience as a black man and civil rights leader to the bench?

Surely, that was among the reasons Marshall was appointed.

When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said in a speech at Berkeley law school and in other forums.

Translation: Ethnicity matters, and my Latina background helps guide my decisions.

All of us are products of our family, faith, race and ethnic group. And the suggestion in these attacks on Trump that judges and justices always rise about such irrelevant considerations, and decide solely on the merits, is naive nonsense.

There are reasons why defense lawyers seek “changes of venue” and avoid the courtrooms of “hanging judges.”

When Obama reflexively called Sgt. Crowley “stupid” after Crowley’s 2009 encounter with that black professor at Harvard, and said of Trayvon Martin, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” was he not speaking as an African-American, as well as a president?

Pressed by John Dickerson on CBS, Trump said it’s “possible” a Muslim judge might be biased against him as well.

Another “inexcusable” outrage.

But does anyone think that if Obama appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court, the LGBT community would not be demanding of all Democratic Senators that they receive assurances that the Muslim judge’s religious views on homosexuality would never affect his court decisions, before they voted to put him on the bench?

When Richard Nixon appointed Judge Clement Haynsworth to the Supreme Court, it was partly because he was a distinguished jurist of South Carolina ancestry. And the Democrats who tore Haynsworth to pieces did so because they feared he would not repudiate his Southern heritage and any and all ideas and beliefs associated with it.

To many liberals, all white Southern males are citizens under eternal suspicion of being racists. The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.

See (“The Donald & The La Raza Judge“)

Lots of American judges are hacks, who should be removed from the bench permanently.

Americans are angry, and they should be angriest at the depths to which our judiciary has sunk. The proceedings in most American courts today are remarkably close to “Law West of the Pecos by Judge Roy Bean,” the hanging judge.

In Bean’s court, the law was what he said it was, and nothing else mattered. Too often in U.S. courts today, very little has changed. Judges have become the law unto themselves.

They are imperfect at best—and often egotistical, callous, mean-spirited, power-hungry, self-righteous, condescending and, yes, incompetent, arrogant and tyrannical.

They can smile at you, just as easily as they can slit your throat and never think twice about it.

Shakespeare’s famous quotation—“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”—must have been written by the Bard in some light-hearted, clairvoyant moment with the dark and sinister characteristics of judges in mind.

See also (“The State Bar Of California Is Lawless And A Travesty, And Should Be Abolished“) and (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix“) and (“The United States Department of Injustice“) and (“The American Legal System Is Broken: Can It Be Fixed?“)


7 06 2016

I was very surprised by Gingrich.. He has always been in the tank for Trump, but his ‘inexcusable’ comment took me off guard..


7 06 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments as always, Rick.

Newt is just being Newt. Yet, I was surprised too, as I have believed he was the frontrunner for Trump’s VP.

It may have cost him the nod.


7 06 2016

Newt wouldn’t be my first choice for Veep anyway..He is too reminiscent of the past..However, I do think he would be good as secretary of state. He is a brilliant man..

Liked by 1 person

7 06 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Rick.

At the outset, he was not my first choice either, but he has mellowed and knows where the GOP “bodies are buried” on the Hill, and how to deal with the Dems too.

I wonder, however, whether his latest comments have cost him the nod. Again, time will tell.

My guess is that Chris Christie will be offered and will take the AG’s position, and that Dr. Ben Carson will be offered and accept either Education or HHS. Both have been Trump loyalists, and they will be rewarded handsomely.


7 06 2016
Roland Gauthier

Very nice post, glad I got your link through Twitter, there are not enough articles out there backing Trump, I think he is much smarter than they think and I do believe all his insults or calling out individuals are not accidents, meaning he has been planning his moves years ahead of time.They under estimated Trump and the RNC-GOP,DNC and Media never saw it coming, from day one they kept saying Trump will not make the mark or to the convention and here we are today facing a crap load of incidents against Trump and I do believe he rocked their world in a way they did not expected.

The best part why I vote Trump is it’s not his vulgar words he spats at the mainstream whosoever’s, but the way his enemies who America been so fed up with over 30 years or so are doing everything possible to destroy and rid Trump and to date whatever was attempted or said it failed horribly, on that note it failed because they are the system who has failed way before Trump was a public figure.noting good has come from of up till Ronald Reagan and he too was nearly taken out and its in my darkest fears all these Globalists are soon going to take Trump out, but I think first they are banking on Trump failing at the convention and in the meantime all these #NeverTrump fools will keep digging and finding new possible fail plots to take Trump down.

After reading your article it really has opened my mind to a deep sinister plot going on under our very noses and many are too blind to see our Govt. officials and medias are on the train to bring Mexicans in because just maybe we slept too long and never noticed the Latino’s or Hispanics waltzed in and got educated and took many top political positions and now are top key figures taken control of America and now that they most likely have higher commands they are taken steps for a Hispanic takeover, we always been told our worse enemy lies within and boy we are in for a huge surprise if Trump does not win. Obama recently starting from 2013 till now has released dangerous repeating criminals back into our society and the scary part of it a large portion of them are Hispanics, and I do believe many of those criminals will come to light soon as pawns to start even bigger riots and crimes to use against Trump and I just don’t understand why our law is not stopping Obama breaking laws, why our law standing down, why our President is committing these crimes and is still in office doing it. Whatever happened to America The Brave? I sadly believe RNC and DNC are a bird of the same feather, In my own opinion I strongly believe both sides are desperate to destroy Trump at any cost. Trump is a huge threat to something more than a racial threat to illegals or to current parties and medias, you have to admit Trump has exposed so much since his presidential run and I think the Globalists are afraid the real Truth of it all soon will be exposed and I think they can’t afford to allow Trump to win and try to eliminate him, I think they chance the GOP convention and if Trump wins I do believe it’s time to pull out the “WE Need To Physically Eliminate Trump” attempt. I feel he is in grave danger and I hate to feel this way but my gut tells me the Globalists are desperate and Trump just has way too much power that can bring down the NWO Globalist agenda, After the 9/11 recent demands for missing 9/11 papers they fear he may expose every little dark secret and the whole global cabal will crumble before their very eyes and this is why they are desperate to stop Trump at any cost.

You have opened my eyes to a greater danger than I ever imagined and knowing the Bush family having thousands of acres of land in Latin America I would not be surprised during Bush seating at DC they may already plot to take America down because the bush,Clintons and Obamas have a very strong bond with latin america and using them for an American take down. I really hate feeling like this but it seems very obvious so many links are coming to light connecting our leaders to sinister plots especially 9/11. Thank Yu for writing this post. One note I am not racist to any race or religion, I just dont like them using it against us. Our nation is crumbling, our flags are burning and our freedoms and rights are being destroyed, we have to hate, we have to be aggressive and we have to make sure we don’t lose America. American Pride


7 06 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Roland.

I agree completely with your first paragraph.

Second, the #NeverTrump crowd seems to be on their last legs. Many among them have done enormous damage to the United States and the American people.

For example, the “neocons” and their state sponsor pushed us into the Iraq War in which thousands of Americans lost their lives, while others were maimed for life and trillions of dollars were wasted. Now they continue to want an American war with Iran. They are our enemies, not our friends or allies.

Third, you wrote:

I just don’t understand why our law is not stopping Obama breaking laws, . . . , why our President is committing these crimes and is still in office doing it. . . . I sadly believe RNC and DNC are a bird of the same feather, In my own opinion I strongly believe both sides are desperate to destroy Trump at any cost.

I agree. The same “vested interests” lobby both the GOP and the Democrats. It is insidious.

I agree too that “they are desperate to stop Trump at any cost.”

Lastly, I appreciate your comments, and taking time to write them.


8 06 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Is the Trump Judge A Racist?

Justice And The Law Do Not Mix

American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist and lawyer, Ann Coulter, has written:

Annoyed at federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel’s persistent rulings against him in the Trump University case (brought by a law firm that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Bill and Hillary), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that maybe it’s because the judge is a second-generation Mexican immigrant.

The entire media — and most of the GOP — have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he’ll build a wall. Now they’re outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he’ll build a wall.

Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — “La Raza” meaning THE RACE.

Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people — much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.

The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.

Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I’ve done some research and it turns out … THAT’S ALL WE’VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.

Two weeks ago–that’s not an error; I didn’t mean to type “decades” and it came out “weeks” — the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: “All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.”

In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the “perception” of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.

Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck’s entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can’t question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford’s death sentence was the “all-white jury.”

On the other hand, the evidence against Ford included: His two black friends telling police he’d shown them jewelry the day of the murder, another Ford acquaintance swearing he’d had a .38 in his waistband — the murder weapon was a .38 — and the gunshot residue on Ford’s hand. His conviction was overturned many years later, on the theory that his black friends had committed the murder, then framed him.

So we know 1) the “real killers” were also black; and 2) any jury would have convicted Ford on that evidence.

Here’s how the Times described Ford’s trial: “A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Louisiana in 1984 and sentenced to die, tapped into an equally old and painful vein of race.”

I have approximately 1 million more examples of the media going mental about a “white judge” or “all-white jury,” and guess what? In none of them were any of the white people involved members of organizations dedicated to promoting white people, called “THE RACE.”

Say, does anyone remember if it ever came up that the Ferguson police force was all white? Someone check that.

I don’t want to upset you New York Times editorial board, but perhaps we should revisit the results of the Nuremberg trials. Those were presided over by – TRIGGER WARNING! – “all white” juries. (How do we really know if Hermann Göring was guilty without hearing women’s and Latino voices?)

The model of a fair jury was the O.J. trial. Nine blacks, one Hispanic and two whites, who had made up their minds before the lawyers’ opening statements. (For my younger readers: O.J. was guilty; the jury acquitted him after 20 seconds of deliberation.) At the end of the trial, one juror gave O.J. the black power salute. Nothing to see here. It was Mark Fuhrman’s fault!

In defiance of everyday experience, known facts and common sense, we are all required to publicly endorse the left’s religious belief that whites are always racist, but women and minorities are incapable of any form of bias. If you say otherwise, well, that’s “textbook racism,” according to Paul Ryan.

At least when we’re talking about American blacks, there’s a history of white racism, so the double standard is not so enraging. What did we ever do to Mexicans? Note to Hispanics, Muslims, women, immigrants and gays: You’re not black.

Other than a few right-wingers, no one denounced now-sitting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her “wise Latina” speech, in which she said “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

But Trump is a “racist” for saying the same thing.

Six months ago, a Times editorial demanded that the Republican Senate confirm Obama judicial nominee Luis Felipe Restrepo, on the grounds that “[a]s a Hispanic,” Restrepo would bring “ethnic . . . diversity to the court.”

You see how confusing this is. On one hand, it’s vital that we have more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can’t be trusted to be fair. But to suggest that women and Latinos could ever be unfair in the way that white men can, well, that’s “racist.”

The effrontery of this double standard is so blinding, that the only way liberals can bluff their way through it is with indignation.DO I HEAR YOU RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING A JUDGE’S ETHNICITY COULD INFLUENCE HIS DECISIONS? (Please, please, please don’t bring up everything we’ve said about white judges and juries for the past four decades.)

They’re betting they can intimidate Republicans — and boy, are they right!

The entire Republican Brain Trust has joined the media in their denunciations of Trump for his crazy idea that anyone other than white men can be biased. That’s right, Wolf, I don’t have any common sense. Would it help if the GOP donated to Hillary?

The NeverTrump crowd is going to get a real workout if they plan to do this every week between now and the election.

What do Republicans . . . think they’re getting out of this appeasement? Proving to voters that elected Republicans are pathetic, impotent media suck-ups is, surprisingly, not hurting Trump.

See (“Stunning New Development!!! Media Calls Trump Racist”)

Lots of American judges are hacks, who should be removed from the bench permanently.

Americans should be angriest at the depth to which our judiciary has sunk.

Shakespeare’s famous quotation—“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”—must have been written by the Bard in some light-hearted, clairvoyant moment with the dark and sinister characteristics of judges in mind.

See also (“Trump Is Right: Too Many Judges Are Pathetic Hacks“)


10 06 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Hillary Clinton May Be Wearing An Orange Prison Jumpsuit During Trump Presidency


The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Barack Obama’s spokesman described the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s classified email scandal as a ‘criminal investigation’ on Thursday, less than an hour after the president endorsed his embattled former secretary of state to succeed him.

Josh Earnest told reporters during a White House press briefing that Obama was committed to keeping his hands off the investigation, trusting career investigators and prosecutors to follow evidence wherever it leads.

‘That’s what their responsibility is,’ Earnest said. ‘And that’s why the president, when discussing this issue in each stage, has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference.’

A search Thursday through White House briefing transcripts for similar acknowledgements turned up none.

Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short crowed to reporters that ‘the White House’s admission that the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s email server as a “criminal” matter shreds her dishonest claim that it is a routine “security inquiry”.’

‘This is another reminder of her reckless conduct as Obama’s secretary of state, where her attempt to skirt government transparency laws exposed highly classified information and put our national security at risk.’

Obama gave Clinton his official nod Thursday in a video message, saying: ‘I know how hard this job can be. That’s why I know Hillary will be so good at it. In fact, I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.’

In the press briefing that followed, a Fox News Channel reporter challenged Earnest on the question of whether civil servants in the U.S. Department of Justice might see the presidential endorsement as a signal that it was time to wrap up their investigations.

Clinton has been dogged for more than a year by charges that she exposed state secrets to hackers and foreign governments by keeping all her email correspondence on a private homebrew server while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Depending on evidentiary nuances, that could violate the U.S. Espionage Act and subject Clinton to 10 years in prison, even if she put classified documents in an ‘unsecured’ location through simple negligence.

Clinton said Wednesday that she ‘absolutely’ will not face a criminal indictment.

More than 2,000 such documents have been identified in State Department reviews of emails that Clinton turned over in late 2014 – nearly two years after she was supposed to. She also deleted more than 32,000 messages, unilaterally deeming them ‘personal’ in nature.

Earnest insisted that ‘the reason that the president feels confident that he can go out and make this endorsement and record a video in which he describes his strong support for Secretary Clinton’s campaign is that he knows the people who are conducting the investigation aren’t going to be swayed by any sort of political interference.’

‘They aren’t going to be swayed by political forces. They know that their investigation should be guided by the facts and that they should follow the evidence where it leads. The President has complete confidence that that’s exactly what they’ll do,’ he said.

The reporter asked Earnest whether or not Obama had ever discussed the FBI investigation with Clinton, who is now the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee.

‘He has not,’ the president’s spokesman answered.

See (“White House calls FBI probe into Clinton’s classified emails a ‘criminal investigation’ – to glee of Republicans – on the same day Obama endorses her“) (emphasis added)

There is enough dirt on the Clintons to sink her presidential ambitions ten times over.

See, e.g., (“Clinton Fatigue“)


10 06 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Trumpism Seems Everywhere To Be Rising

President Trump

In an article entitled “Why Trump Must Not Apologize,” Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

“Never retreat. Never explain. Get it done and let them howl.”

Donald Trump has internalized the maxim Benjamin Jowett gave to his students at Balliol who would soon be running the empire.

And in rejecting demands that he apologize for his remarks about the La Raza judge presiding over the class-action suit against Trump University, the Donald is instinctively correct.

Assume, as we must, that Trump believes what he said.

Why, then, should he apologize for speaking the truth, as he sees it?

To do so would be to submit to extortion, to recant, to confess to a sin he does not believe he committed. It would be to capitulate to pressure, to tell a lie to stop the beating, to grovel before the Inquisition of Political Correctness.

Trump is cheered today because he defies the commands of political correctness, and, to the astonishment of enemies and admirers alike, he gets away with it.

To the establishment, Trump is thus a far greater menace than Bernie Sanders, who simply wants to push his soak-the-rich party a little further in the direction of Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

But Trump, with his defiant refusal to apologize for remarks about “rapists” among illegal immigrants from Mexico, and banning Muslims, is doing something far more significant.

He is hurling his “Non serviam!” in the face of the establishment. He is declaring: “I reject your moral authority. You have no right to sit in judgment of me. I will defy any moral sanction you impose, and get away with it. And my people will stand by me.”

Trump’s rebellion is not only against the Republican elite but against the establishment’s claim to define what is right and wrong, true and false, acceptable and unacceptable, in this republic.

Contrast Trump with Paul Ryan, who has buckled pathetically.

The speaker says Trump’s remark about Judge Gonzalo Curiel being hostile to him, probably because the judge is Mexican-American, is the “textbook definition of a racist comment.”

But Ryan’s remark raises fewer questions about Trump’s beliefs than it does about the depth of Ryan’s mind.

We have seen a former president of Mexico curse Trump. We have heard Mexican-American journalists and politicians savage him. We have watched Hispanic rioters burn the American flag and flaunt the Mexican flag outside Trump rallies.

We are told Trump “provoked” these folks, to such a degree they are not entirely to blame for their actions.

Yet the simple suggestion that a Mexican-American judge might also be affected is “the textbook definition of a racist comment”?

The most depressing aspect of this episode is to witness the Republican Party in full panic, trashing Trump to mollify the media who detest them.

To see how far the party has come, consider:

After he had locked up his nomination, Barry Goldwater rose on the floor of the Senate in June of 1964 and voted “No” on the Civil Rights Act. The senator believed that the federal government was usurping the power of the states. He could not countenance this, no matter how noble the cause.

Say what you will about him, Barry Goldwater would never be found among this cut-and-run crowd that is deserting Trump to appease an angry elite.

These Republicans seem to believe that, if or when Trump goes down, this whole unfortunate affair will be over, and they can go back to business as usual.

Sorry, but there is no going back.

The nationalist resistance to the invasion across our Southern border and the will to preserve the unique character of America are surging, and they have their counterparts all across Europe. People sense that the fate and future of the West are in the balance.

While Trump defies political correctness here, in Europe one can scarcely keep track of the anti-EU and anti-immigrant nationalist and separatist parties sprouting up from the Atlantic to the Urals.

Call it identity politics, call it tribalism, call it ethnonationalism; it and Islamism are the two most powerful forces on earth.

A decade ago, if one spoke other than derisively of parties like the National Front in France, the blacklisters would come around. Now, the establishments in the West are on the defensive — when they are not openly on the run.

The day of the Bilderberger is over.

Back to Jowett. When the British were serenely confident in the superiority of their tribe, faith, culture and civilization, they went out and conquered and ruled and remade the world, and for the better.

When they embraced th