The President And First Lady

4 01 2017

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

The United States of America is a shining city on a hill.  It embodies the hopes and dreams of mankind.  It is not perfect, and no American is perfect.  But we try to do our best to honor ourselves, each other, and our fellow citizens of the world.

Our elections are over.  We have a new President and First Lady, Donald and Melania Trump.  We wish them well, because our fates and theirs are linked inextricably.  Our destinies are shared.  The future of our great and noble republic is entrusted to them.

May they serve wisely and prudently, and honor God.


© 2017, Timothy D. Naegele


[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



58 responses

4 01 2017
H. Craig Bradley

I completely agree, but sadly, like the Old South, there are many who still will not accept Trump as their President at all. The losers are real sore losers and hold a grudge.

Bill O’Reilly said this evening that there currently is some “Reverse McCarthyism” going on in Hollywood: If you perform for Donald Trump at his Inaugural Celebration (Ball) then your career in Hollywood is likely to be cut short.

Naturally, nobody wants to be blackballed from their line of work and the mere threat of it means few entertainers will risk crossing over the “picket line” to perform in Washington this year. This is in contrast to the parties when George W. Bush was elected in 2000. Pretty sad. It’s going to be a real long 4 years if the country does not “get over it” soon and move-on. No good will come of it, I predict.

Liked by 1 person

4 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Craig, for your comments; and Happy New Year to you and your family. 🙂

I grew up in Hollywood—aka Los Angeles—around movie stars and their families. I have friends today who are at the very top of that business.

Donald Trump won the “Flyover States,” or the rest of America. Your analogy to the Old South is an excellent one.

After our Civil War, many in the South had “chips on their shoulders” for generations. The best way to understand them is as a defeated nation living among their conquerors. In a very real sense, this has been true of the DDR, or East Germany, after a united Germany was formed.

Fortunately, Hollywood is not America. Its values are distorted. Indeed, my parents told me not to get involved with those in the movie business. I have an old friend who is a multi-billion and a true Hollywood mogul; and this person told me essentially the same thing (i.e., the people are “not nice”).

I have believed for quite a while now that the 4-8 years of the Trump presidency will be “under siege,” and that Donald Trump and Kellyanne Conway (among others) understand this fully. It will be like the Nixon years or worse. The Left will do everything possible to discredit and, yes, bring down the Trump presidency.

They and their Leftist media cohorts will gin up scandal after scandal, often out of thin air; and the elections of 2020 have begun already. Fortunately, it appears that the Democrats’ titular heads are Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi, who are going nowhere fast.

Next, the question becomes what if any role Barack Obama will play in this process. We know the role that he has been playing already, since the elections. Whether he continues to pursue this destructive path is anyone’s guess.

See (“Obama Is Trying To Delegitimize Trump”)

Perhaps his epitaph and legacy were succinctly stated best:

President Obama arrived in Washington on the wings of his promise to cool the rancor between the races, the nation’s saddest and most enduring inheritance of slavery, and he leaves Pennsylvania Avenue having only made things worse.

See id.; see also (“The U.S. dropped more than 25,000 bombs, mostly in Syria and Iraq, last year”—”That figure . . . is likely lower than the actual number dropped because one airstrike can involved multiple bombs”)

Also, in a very real sense, Donald Trump is an Independent. He fought the Neanderthals in the GOP to get that party’s nomination; and he fought the evil Democrats to become our 45th President. When I left the U.S. Senate, I became an Independent, and have been one ever since.

Gallup polling during the last four years or so has indicated that approximately 42 percent of Americans identify as Independents. Having turned my back on both parties, as so many other Americans have. I welcome and salute our Independent president, and wish him well and Godspeed.

See (“Record-High 42 Percent Of Americans Identify As Independents”)

Lastly, three fundamental differences between Donald Trump and Barack Obama are that (1) Obama did not grow up on the American mainland, but in Hawaii and Indonesia, and his core beliefs are very different than those of most Americans; (2) he grew up with definite black racist views and core beliefs, which are set forth in his book “Dreams from My Father”; and (3) Trump does not drink or smoke, while Obama was a druggie by his own admissions.

See (“Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man”)


4 01 2017

May we all pray for President Trump and his family continuously. He will need our support every step of the way. I am thankful beyond my vocabulary for him as our next President. He has much to do; especially concerning judges, most notably those who will sit on our Supreme Court. I just can’t get enough of him. Thank you for acknowledging this man for our season.

Liked by 1 person

4 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Flexes Power Over GOP

President Trump

The Hill has reported:

President-elect Donald Trump tangled with Republicans in Congress for the first time since the election on Tuesday — and won.

Trump took to Twitter Tuesday morning to criticize House Republicans who had voted to curb the powers of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). He argued that there were “so many other things of far greater importance.”

Within hours, an emergency meeting of Republicans on Capitol Hill had agreed to abandon the controversial proposal, which had originally been pushed by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

There were other factors behind that decision. GOP House leadership figures, including Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), were opposed to the Goodlatte proposal, and lawmakers’ offices were subject to a deluge of angry calls from constituents after news of the measure broke on Monday evening.

But Trump’s rebuke was an important ingredient in the mix. His supporters say his swift victory burnishes his brand as an outsider who is willing to challenge the status quo, as well as displaying his instinctive feel for public opinion.

“Don’t catch him by surprise and expect that he will just play along,” said Barry Bennett, a former senior adviser to the Trump campaign who now runs a consultancy business with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

Trump’s populist streak was an important factor in his election win, helping persuade blue-collar voters in the Rust Belt and upper Midwest that he was more concerned with their welfare than playing the Washington game. Staking out a position at odds with Congressional Republicans, as he did on the ethics issue, could help him maintain his bond with those voters.

Bennett said attempts by pundits and Democrats to downplay or mock the importance of Trump’s intervention would only backfire.

“The establishment will do him an enormous favor,” he said. “They will criticize him for what he did. But that does nothing but reinforce to his supporters that he is who he says he is.”

Democrats see things very differently. Democratic pollster Matt McDermott tweeted that “Progressive organizations spent the last 12 [hours] whipping calls to House offices. That’s the ONLY reason GOP backed away from gutting OCE.”

But some House Republicans said that even if the slew of negative news headlines and constituent calls to their offices had made it difficult to stand behind the proposal, it was Trump’s Tuesday morning tweet that effectively sealed its demise.

“This is an important issue to a lot of members who have been done-in in one way or another by that group; there are a lot of strong feelings on both sides of the aisle,” Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), a Trump supporter, told The Hill. He said the ethics overhaul didn’t fit in the GOP’s “overall agenda.”

Trump’s tweet “pushed it over the edge,” Webster said.

The broader dynamic between the incoming president and Congress will be of pivotal importance in the months ahead.

Trump won the White House despite support that was tepid, at best, from Capitol Hill Republicans. Ryan declined to campaign for Trump in the final weeks of the campaign and told colleagues it was up to them whether to support the GOP nominee.

The president-elect’s views are at odds with many Republicans on issues both foreign (relations with Russia) and domestic (Social Security reform). Stephen Bannon, one of Trump’s closest advisers, has made no secret of his disdain for the GOP establishment.

At the same time, Trump needs cooperation from the GOP Congress if he is to translate his campaign promises into legislative action.

Republican lawmakers also have their own political motivations to stay on the right side of a president-elect who elicits such enthusiasm from the party base.

“I think there are going to be some growing pains here,” said GOP strategist John Feehery, a former Capitol Hill aide who is also a columnist for The Hill. “A [GOP House] majority that has dealt for the past six years with an oppositional president has now got to figure out how to change their oppositional nature. Now they are shooting with live bullets.”

Of course, tension with congressional colleagues is hardly unique to Trump.

In early 2009, just after President Obama had first been elected, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told The Hill, “I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him.”

Some Republican lawmakers needed no cue from Trump to conclude that the move toward gutting the ethics office was a political misstep. In a Fox News Radio interview, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pronounced the original vote by his colleagues in the House “the dumbest fricking thing I’ve ever heard.”

Others downplayed the effect of Trump’s tweets, suggesting that the conference would have backed away from the Goodlatte proposal of its own volition.

The changes would have circumscribed the powers of the OCE and placed it under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who opposed the changes, said he had predicted an onslaught of negative media coverage by the end of Monday night’s vote. Watching TV coverage of the vote early Tuesday morning convinced him the provisions on the ethics body would be toast.

“I said, ‘Yep, this is gone,'” Simpson said.

But Feehery, the Republican strategist, asserted that it was Trump who played the decisive role.

“I don’t think they would have backed down unless Trump said something,” he said.

See (emphasis added)


4 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Moving Truck Spotted Outside White House [UPDATED]

Moving out of White House

The Washington Examiner has reported:

A moving truck was seen on Wednesday parked outside the White House, where President Obama will live and work for just two more weeks.

The truck was parked on West Executive Avenue, a street inside the White House gates and situated in-between the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the West Wing.

A photo of the truck was tweeted by CNN White House reporter Michelle Kosinski.

See; see also–politics.html (“Amid packing boxes and tears, staffers leaving White House“)

No more Barack and Moochie.

How sweet It Is! 🙂


5 01 2017

Is Obama looking for a war with Putin so he could stay president? (troops sent to Lithuania)


5 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thanks so much, SmilinJack. Welcome back in the new year. 😊

No, my understanding is that the NATO exercises were planned a while ago.

See, e.g., (“WAR GAMES: US sends special forces to RUSSIAN BORDER as Nato is poised to strike back against Vladimir Putin’s ‘aggression’”)


5 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

57 Percent Of Democrats Want Trump to Succeed

Donald Trump

The Rasmussen Reports has noted:

Even most Democrats want Donald Trump to succeed as president, but voters are far less confident that things will play out that way.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters think Trump’s presidency is more likely to be a success. Thirty percent (30%) say it’s more likely to be a failure instead, while 26% believe the Trump presidency will fall somewhere in between the two.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republicans think Trump is likely to succeed, a view shared by only 17% of Democrats and 35% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Just over half (52%) of Democrats believe Trump is more likely to fail, but only seven percent (7%) of GOP voters and 28% of unaffiliateds agree.

But 57% of Democrats want Trump’s presidency to be a success. Of course, that compares to 91% of Republicans and 73% of unaffiliated voters. Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters in Hillary Clinton’s party want Trump to fail, while another 17% are undecided.

Among all voters, 73% want Trump’s presidency to be a success; 14% want it to fail, and 12% are not sure.

The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 3-4, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters think major legislation to improve the country is likely to be passed during Trump’s first 100 days in office. That compares to 63% who felt that way about Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress just before he became president in January 2009.

Among voters who want Trump’s presidency to be a success, 53% say it’s likely to achieve that goal. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of voters who want Trump to fail believe he’s more likely to do so.

Men want Trump to succeed more than women do and are more confident that he will. Middle-aged voters are slightly more skeptical about his chances of success than others are.

Blacks think he is much less likely to succeed than whites and other minority voters.

Only 17% of voters who Strongly Approve of the job President Obama is doing believe Trump is more likely to be a success. Among voters who Strongly Disapprove of the current president’s job performance, 78% expect Trump to succeed.

Just over half of all voters now view Trump favorably, his high to date, although strong negative opinions still outweigh strong positive ones.

Trump in a TV interview shortly after Election Day made it clear that repealing and replacing Obamacare and filling the long-standing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court are high on his list of action items, and voters think that’s a good place to start.

Most voters think Democrats should work with Trump once he’s in the White House, but Democrats strongly disagree. Still, voters are more hopeful about the parties cooperating than they’ve been since Obama’s inauguration in 2009.

Following Trump’s election, voters are more optimistic about the future than they have been in over four years.

With Republicans set to control both Congress and the White House, more voters than ever are expecting significant cuts in government spending.

A majority of voters have said for years that spending cuts help the economy. Americans are much more optimistic about their personal financial future than they were a year ago.

See (emphasis added)


5 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Democrats Fight Like The Japanese

Chuck Schumer

Years after World War II ended, there were pockets of Japanese resistance on remote Pacific islands—”fighters” from a bygone era, who maintained their vigilance never knowing that the conflict had ended. They were like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.

See (“Japanese holdout“) and (“[Don Quixote] tilting at windmills”)

Many Democrats in Washington are the reincarnations of these abysmal misfits. Our elections are over, done with, decided. Yet, they are determined to fight on. The Wall Street Journal has reported:

This first week of the 115th Congress has been the coming out party for new Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and he isn’t disappointing his fellow Democrats. The New Yorker made clear in a speech on the Senate floor that he intends to do everything he can to use his 48-seat minority as a bulwark against Donald Trump’s agenda.

Mr. Schumer offered up the possibility of compromise on “issues like infrastructure, trade and closing the carried interest loophole,” though the public-works spending must be “significant, direct spending,” not tax credits. You almost have to admire his Stakhanovite dedication to the tiny carried interest tax provision, though we’re willing to bet Mr. Schumer will find other reasons to oppose a serious tax reform that eliminates it.

But that was it for the olive branches, saying that on most Republican priorities “we will resist.” He laced into Mr. Trump’s appointees as “stacked with billionaires, corporate executives, titans of Wall Street, and those deeply embedded in Washington’s corridors of power.” He did not mention that two of those “titans” hail from Goldman Sachs, source of many donations to Senate Democrats.

The Minority Leader saved his most partisan remarks for MSNBC, aptly enough, where he all but promised to block any Trump nominee to the Supreme Court. “We are not going to settle on a Supreme Court nominee. If they don’t appoint someone who’s really good, we’re gonna oppose him tooth and nail,” he said. When the MSNBC host asked if Mr. Schumer would do his best to keep the current vacancy on the High Court open, he responded “absolutely.”

Give him credit for candor. Democrats are sore that Senate Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, after Antonin Scalia died in February. And they’re eager for payback.

But while Democrats can use Senate rules to stretch out a Supreme Court confirmation battle, they’ll need Republican defections to defeat a Trump nominee. Democrats will no doubt try to demand a 60-vote rule, but Republicans can use former Democratic leader Harry Reid’s precedent in killing the filibuster for lower-court judges and apply that to the Supreme Court too. Mr. Schumer will have successes in opposition this Congress, but on the Supreme Court his resistance is likely to be futile.

See (“‘We Will Resist’“) (emphasis added)

Chuck Schumer is a smart guy, but a devout Democratic flamethrower, much like Nancy Pelosi.

I watched him carefully when he was on the House Banking Committee, and I was a banking lobbyist after leaving the Senate. While I often disagreed with him, I respected his intelligence, tenacity and humor. I am sure our President-elect sized him up ages ago, and knows how to deal with him, or not as the case may be.

The election is over, finished and done with. Yet, many Democrats seem bent on conducting a rear-guard action to take down the Trump presidency. In a real sense, they are like the Japanese soldiers after World War II ended.

The fact is that 57 percent of Democrats want Donald Trump to succeed, according to recent polling by the Rasmussen Reports.

See (“57 Percent Of Democrats Want Trump to Succeed“)

The best thing for the new Trump administration is if Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer commit hare–kiri between now and the 2018 elections.

They may be a “gift” that just keeps on giving.


9 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

GOP Voters More Aligned With Trump Than Congress [UPDATED]

Donald Trump

The Rasmussen Reports has noted:

Most voters share the views of the president and the party coming to power, but Republicans identify a lot more with Donald Trump than with the GOP Congress.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 53% of all Likely U.S. Voters identify with the GOP team: 37% feel Trump’s views are closest to their own when it comes to the major issues facing the country, while another 16% feel most closely in sync with the average Republican member of Congress. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say the views of the average Democratic member of Congress are closest to their own.

Among Republicans, however, 63% say that Trump’s views are closest to their own when it comes to the major issues, while only 27% say that of the views of the average Republican member of Congress. Among Democrats, 72% identify with the average Congress member from their party, while just 16% think Trump’s views are closest to theirs.

Just a month before Election Day, 51% of GOP voters still felt that their party’s leaders didn’t want Trump to be president, although that was down from 66% four months earlier.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 3-4, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

More than half of all voters feel comfortable with the prospect of one party controlling both the Executive and Legislative branches of government, as Republicans will do when Trump enters the White House on January 20.

Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 34% say their views most closely match Trump’s, while 16% are more aligned with the average GOP representative. Only 29% feel closer to the average Democrat in Congress, but 20% of these voters are undecided.

The Republican team of Trump and Congress earn majority support in most demographic categories, but the president-elect is the one voters are most likely to agree with.

Women, middle-aged voters and blacks lean more heavily than the others in the direction of the average Democrat in Congress.

Among voters who Strongly Disapprove of the job President Obama is doing, 76% say Trump’s views are closest to their own, compared to only 18% who say the same of the average GOP member of Congress.

Voters aren’t sure if the new Congress will be an improvement on the last one, but most want Congress to cooperate with Trump as much as possible. Fifty-four percent (54%) think major legislation to improve the country is likely to be passed during Trump’s first 100 days in office.

But only 48% of voters are confident that Trump and Congress will work together to do what’s best for the American people.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has gone from publicly criticizing Trump when he was the GOP’s presidential nominee to enthusiastically embracing him as president-elect. Following the election, Ryan is much more popular with his fellow Republicans and is better liked by all voters than any other congressional leader of either major party.

Last August, 47% of GOP voters [said] their party should be more like Trump than Ryan. Thirty-six percent (36%) felt it should be more like Ryan.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of GOP voters told Rasmussen Reports last March that Republicans in Congress have lost touch with their party’s base. That’s consistent with Republican voter attitudes for years but was the highest finding since we first asked this question just after Election Day in November 2008. Democrats have always been much more enthusiastic about their congressional representatives.

See (emphasis added)

Lots of us left both political parties years ago, and only came back to the GOP for Trump.

Many of us believe that Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and other GOP Neanderthals should have been defeated, and not returned to the Congress. We have zero loyalty to them, or confidence in them.

See also (“Voters Think U.S. Intelligence Agencies Play Politics”)


10 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

From The Political Grave: Hillary Clinton’s Latest Criminality [UPDATED]

Ed Klein: Guilty As Sin

Political pundit Dick Morris has reported that the potential criminal indictee, Hillary Clinton, has extracted money from foreign sources and Boeing to have a “Pavilion” named for her at the State Department in Washington, D.C.

See (“Hillary Names State Department Building After Herself“); see also (“Hillary Clinton to speak Tuesday at new State Department museum bearing her name“)

She should be indicted, convicted and sent to prison for the rest of her life, not honored by the State Department.

See, e.g., (“Clinton Fatigue“); see also (“Hillary Does Not Attend Women’s Marches“)


11 01 2017
Ron Michaels

Great to hear from you, Tim. Happy New Year!

Ron Michaels

Liked by 1 person

11 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Have a wonderful year, Ron. 😊


13 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump’s Enemies See An Opening [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:

“Fake news!” roared Donald Trump, the work of “sick people.”

The president-elect was referring to a 35-page dossier of lurid details of his alleged sexual misconduct in Russia, worked up by a former British spy. A two-page summary of the 35 pages had been added to Trump’s briefing by the CIA and FBI — and then leaked to CNN.

This is “something that Nazi Germany would have done,” Trump said. Here, basically, is the story.

During the primaries, anti-Trump Republicans hired the ex-spy to do “oppo research” on Trump, i.e., to dig up dirt.

The spy contacted the Russians. They told him that Trump, at a Moscow hotel in 2013, had been engaged in depraved behavior, that they had the films to blackmail him, and that Trump’s aides had been colluding with them.

When Trump won the nomination, Democrats got the dossier and began shopping it around to the mainstream media. Some sought to substantiate the allegations. None could. So none of them published the charges.

In December, a British diplomat gave the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who personally turned it over to James Comey of the FBI.

On Jan. 7, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and his colleagues at the NSA, CIA and FBI decided the new president needed to know about the dossier. They provided him with a two-page synopsis.

Once CNN learned Trump had been briefed, the cable news network reported on the unpublished dossier, without going into the lurid details.

BuzzFeed released all 35 pages. The story exploded.

Besides Trump’s understandable outrage, his Jan. 11 press conference produced related news.

U.S. intelligence agencies had for months contended that it was Russia who hacked the DNC emails and those of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. Putin’s objectives, they contend, were to damage both U.S. democracy and Hillary Clinton, whom Putin detests, and to aid Trump.

Trump had previously dismissed claims of Russian hacking as unproved conjecture, and also as being advanced to delegitimize his victory.

Wednesday, Trump conceded Russia did it: “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” adding, Vladimir Putin “should not be doing it.”

The stakes in all of this are becoming huge.

Clearly, Trump hopes to work out with Putin the kind of detente that President Nixon achieved with Leonid Brezhnev.

This should not be impossible. For, unlike the 1970s, there is no Soviet Empire stretching from Havana to Hanoi, no Warsaw Pact dominating Central Europe, no Communist ideology steering Moscow into constant Cold War conflict with the West.

Russia is a great power with great power interests. But she does not seek to restore a global empire or remake the world in her image. U.S.-Russian relations are thus ripe for change.

But any such hope is now suddenly impaired.

The howls of indignation from Democrats and the media — that Trump’s victory and Clinton’s defeat were due to Putin’s involvement in our election — have begun to limit Trump’s freedom of action in dealing with Russia. And they are beginning to strengthen the hand of the Russophobes and the Putin-is-Hitler crowd in both parties.

When Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson went before the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Marco Rubio demanded to know why he would not publicly declare Putin a “war criminal.”

The more toxic Putin-haters can make the Russian president, the more difficult for President Trump to deal with him, even if that is in the vital national interest of the United States.

The sort of investigation for which McCain has been clamoring, and the Beltway drums have now begun to beat, could make it almost impossible for President Trump to work with President Putin.

The Washington Post describes the engine it wishes to see built:

“The investigators of Russian meddling, whether a Congressional select committee or an independent commission, should have bipartisan balance, full subpoena authority, no time limit and a commitment to make public as much as possible of what they find.”

What the Post seeks is a Watergate Committee like the one that investigated the Nixon White House, or a commission like the ones that investigated 9/11 and the JFK assassination.

Trump “should recognize,” writes the Post, “that the credibility of his denials of any Russian connections is undermined by his refusal to release tax returns and business records.”

In short, when the investigation begins, Trump must produce the evidence to establish his innocence. Else, he is Putin’s man.

This city is salivating over another Watergate, another broken president. But President-elect Trump should be aware of what is at stake. As The Wall Street Journal writes:

“Mr. Trump’s vehement denials (of collusion with Moscow and corrupt behavior) also mean that if we learn in the future that Russia does have compromising details about him, his Presidency could be over.”

Yes, indeed, very big stakes.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Trump Announces 2020 Campaign Committee Staff“)

With all due respect for Pat Buchanan, unlike Richard Nixon, our new president would ride through it. He is loved by his faithful. And we live in a post-Camelot, post-Bill Clinton-and-Monica Lewinsky country, where anything goes including Bruce/Caitlin Jenner and sex-neutral bathrooms.

Yes, Washington politics will become more vicious than ever. However, if his good health continues, Donald Trump will slay dragons on both the Left and Right, and in Moscow, Beijing and elsewhere.

Having said that, he must always remember—and never forget—that Russia’s Putin is evil personified.

See, e.g., (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War“); see also (“Trump Team Shunning Davos Meeting of World’s Economic Elite”—”President-elect said to view attending as betrayal of populism”—”The group of billionaires and political leaders represents the power structure that fueled the populist anger that helped Trump win the presidential election”—”[T]he weak economic recovery following the global financial crisis has widened the gap between rich and poor, fueling a sense of ‘economic malaise’ that’s led to the rise of populist parties”—”The World Economic Forum wraps up on Jan. 20, the same day Trump is set to take the oath of office”)


14 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

You Are Fake News: Trump and CNN’s Jim Acosta

At the very least, Acosta should be fired by CNN immediately.

If not, CNN should be boycotted.

See also (“AT&T Could Spin Off CNN To Get Time Warner Deal OK: Wells Fargo“)


20 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


See also (“The Inaugural Address“) and (The White House—Donald J. Trump) and (“First Lady Melania Trump“)

The President and First Lady

See also (“McCain: I Couldn’t Have Picked a Better Team”—”‘I have the utmost confidence in General [James] Mattis, General [Michael] Flynn, General [John] Kelly, Dan Coates,’ McCain said of Trump’s Defense Secretary, national security adviser, Homeland Security Secretary and director of national intelligence, respectively. ‘I couldn’t have picked a better team. So I’m confident that he’ll listen to them and be guided by them'”)

Bald Eagle and American Flag


24 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

57 Percent Of Likely U.S. Voters Approve Of President Trump’s Job Performance

The President and First Lady

The highly-respected Rasmussen Reports has announced in pertinent part as follows:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-three percent (43%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 42% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 33% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +9.

. . .

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters think the country is heading in the right direction, the highest level of confidence in four years. It’s important to note, though, that this survey wrapped up the night before Trump’s inauguration.

Voters overwhelmingly followed Trump’s first day in office, but Republicans were a lot happier with it than others were.

Some media commentators were highly critical of Trump’s use of the phrase “America First” in his inaugural address to describe his trade and foreign policy agenda, but most voters continue to feel the new commander in chief is on the right track.

In his inaugural address, Trump also made it clear that he was distancing himself from the Washington, D.C. establishment of both major political parties. . . .

Voters are more comfortable than ever with the amount of power the president now holds.

. . .

Trump yesterday withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a mega-trade deal involving 11 Pacific Rim countries, saying it is bad for America. Just 27% of voters have a favorable opinion of the TPP.

Voters are not big fans of big free trade deals like the TPP and NAFTA.

Republicans historically have been the biggest fans of free trade deals, and Trump is likely to run into resistance from congressional members of his own party. But GOP voters identify a lot more with Trump than with the average Republican in Congress.

. . .

Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.

See (emphasis added; charts omitted); see also (“59%: Daily Presidential Tracking Poll“)


24 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Boycott Fiat Chrysler!

Automakers meet with Trump

Fiat Chrysler’s Italian CEO Sergio Marchionne must be the dumbest person on the planet.

The photo above shows President Trump welcoming Ford’s CEO Mark Fields to the White House, with Marchionne in a sweater on the right.

This moron’s company, Fiat, was on the ropes financially in Italy until he came to the U.S. and received a “sweetheart deal” to buy Chrysler, which was in bankruptcy.

Now, he goes to the White House with other automakers to meet with our new president, and he wears a sweater to the meeting.

How much more disrespect can this Italian ragamuffin show to our president, our country, and to the American people?

Fiat Chrysler products must be boycotted by Americans!

See also (“Ford CEO Mark Fields ‘Excited’ for Donald Trump ‘Renaissance in American Manufacturing’”)


24 01 2017

Something was said about the sweater on CNBC and the response was that it was his “signature sweater”. Perhaps this is similar to Santa’s hat.

Liked by 1 person

24 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Susan, for your comments.

First, many Americans do not remember that Fiat produced “lousy” cars and was forced to leave the U.S. market completely years ago. It only reentered our market when it bought Chrysler, with taxpayers’ monies.

GM was bailed out by U.S. taxpayers too, but Ford was not. Now Ford is America’s best selling brand.

Second, there have been reports that like the past, Fiat [Chrysler] is producing defective and unsafe vehicles.

Third, “signature sweater” or not, Marchionne should be coming to the U.S. on bended knee and “groveling,” after his company literally avoided the abyss as a result of the U.S. bailout.

Fourth, the disrespect shown to our president, our country and to the American people today is inexcusable.

As one commenter has put it:

When meeting the President of the United States, or the head of state of any nation, protocol says one should act and dress appropriately.

. . .

I have several friends who work at FCA headquarters in Auburn Hills, MI. Not one of them has good things to say about Sergio’s leadership and decisions he is making on products and the company’s future. That company seems to be in trouble, unfortunately. And I am a longtime ‘Mopar’ guy.


That speaks volumes.

Next, unlike what Bill Ford and Alan Mulally did at Ford, Marchionne merely bandaged the wounds at both Fiat and Chrysler.

Perhaps all Marchionne accomplished was to postpone the inevitable, and put off the day of reckoning.

Lastly, you said that perhaps Marchionne’s “signature sweater” is similar to “Santa’s hat.” Or rather the Devil’s Pitchfork.


25 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

President Trump Wipes Out Obama’s Immigration Policy With Two Executive Orders

Trump executive orders re immigration

The Washington Times has reported:

With a couple strokes of his pen, President Trump wiped out almost all of President Obama’s immigration policies Wednesday, laying the groundwork for his own border wall, unleashing immigration agents to enforce the law and punishing sanctuary cities who try to thwart his deportation surge.

Left untouched, for now, is the 2012 deportation amnesty for so-called Dreamers.

But most of the other policies, including Mr. Obama’s “priorities” protecting almost all illegal immigrants from deportation, are gone. In their place are a series of directives that would free agents to enforce stiff laws well beyond the border, that would encourage Mexico to try to control the flow of people coming through the southwestern border, and would push back on loopholes illegal immigrants have learned to exploit to gain a foothold in the U.S.

“From here on out I’m asking all of you to enforce the laws of the Untied States of America — they will be enforced, and enforced strongly,” Mr. Trump said as he visited the Homeland Security Department’s headquarters. “We do not need new laws. We will work within the existing system and framework.”

He also called for tripling the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — his promised “deportation force” — to go after illegal immigrants in the interior.

Mr. Trump doesn’t break new legal ground, but instead pushes immigration agents to flex the tools Congress has already given them over the years to enforce existing laws. The goal, both sides of the debate said, is to push the U.S. border further south, including attempting to enlist Mexico as a partner, willing or not.

Immigrant-rights advocates planned a rally outside the White House to protest the moves, saying existing U.S. laws are broken and can’t be enforced. They’ve pushed for a complete overhaul and a redo that would grant most illegal immigrants already in the U.S. legal status.

In the meantime, the groups have asked the federal government to severely curtail — or in some cases to halt altogether — deportations.

On Wednesday, the groups vowed resistance to Mr. Trump’s policies, urging local officials to brave Mr. Trump’s threat to withdraw federal funding from sanctuary cities, and calling on immigrants themselves to rally.

“Those who are targeted by Trump and those that love us must protect ourselves and each other in these times,” said Tania Unzueta, policy director at Mijente, an advocacy group.

Mr. Trump signed two executive orders. One deals with the border, while the other encourages interior enforcement.

The orders would use existing federal laws to encourage foreign governments to take back their own illegal immigrants. Tens of thousands of criminals are released on U.S. streets because their home countries are refusing to take them. Cuba is the worst offender, with nearly 30,000.

Countries that refuse will see their visas stripped.

The Obama administration was reluctant to use that tool, pulling the trigger only once, in its waning days, with the Gambia.

On sanctuary cities, Mr. Trump said he would try to dry up federal money that flows to jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with immigration agents. Hundreds of counties and cities have policies protecting illegal immigrants, to varying degrees, that their own authorities encounter.

The White House said the executive order calls on new Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly and the new attorney general to see what money can be cut off.

Overall, the orders try to create a tougher barrier — both physically and legally — for illegal immigrants trying to cross the southwest border.

Part of that is Mr. Trump’s wall, which the White House said the U.S. will foot the bill for — at least for now. But White House press secretary Sean Spicer insisted that “yes, one way or another, [as] the president has said before, Mexico will pay for it.”

The new executive orders push Homeland Security to “immediately plan, design and construct a physical wall along the southwest border.” The order says to use “appropriate materials” — which seems to suggest fencing, rather than an actual wall, could be used.

Beyond the wall, Mr. Trump’s orders seem designed to stop the loopholes that have emerged in recent years that allow illegal immigrants to come to the border, be caught, then released into the interior of the U.S.

Mr. Trump also called for a surge in detention facilities, so illegal immigrants can be held rather than released.

And one striking part of his orders would tap a little-known part of immigration law that allows illegal immigrants to be shipped outside the U.S. while their deportation cases go through the courts. That could be a severe deterrent to migrants, who currently make the journey with the belief that even if they are apprehended, they will be released into the U.S., where they can disappear into the shadows.

Mr. Trump campaigned on getting a handle on illegal immigration, running the strictest enforcement campaign of any major-party nominee in modern history.

His orders Wednesday are large steps toward his promises, though he did not revoke the 2012 deportation amnesty known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Under that policy, more than 750,000 “Dreamers,” or young adult illegal immigrants, have gained tentative legal status.

They are the most sympathetic cases in the immigration debate, and despite Mr. Trump’s promise to cancel the policy on “day one,” he has put it off.

Still, immigrant-rights groups said the steps Mr. Trump has taken were bad enough for the people they represent.

“These policies are a flagrant attack on immigrants and our values as Americans,” said Beth Werlin, executive director of the American Immigration Council. “Our laws dictate that everyone receives a just and fair process, whether they have been in this country for decades or are arriving today in search of safety and protection.”

See (“Trump eviscerates Obama’s immigration policy in two executive orders“) (emphasis added); see also (“Remember Kate Steinle: 74 Percent of Californians Want to End Sanctuary Cities“)

Elections have consequences!

Conservatives, Independents and moderate Democrats learned this too in 2009, when the first black racist was elected President of the United States.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)


25 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

President Trump’s Incredible Beginning

The President and First Lady

Political pundit Dick Morris has written:

Rather than wait for his administration to have been in office one hundred days, set as the benchmark of a successful launch since FDR’s New Deal, Donald Trump has amassed a record in his first six days that is truly impressive. One hundred days, at this pace, would be staggering.

Here’s what he has done:

• Started process for approving Keystone and Dakota Access Pipeline

• Revoked US support for the TPP

• Ordered a hiring freeze in the executive branch

• Demanded that all politically appointed US Ambassadors resign at once

• Signed an Executive Order making federal agencies interpret Obamacare regulations in the most flexible, consumer-friendly, and broad way possible, setting the stage for repeal

• Ordered a moratorium on new federal regulation

• Decided to meet British PM Theresa May to deepen trade bonds with the U.K. in the wake of Brexit.

• Ordered the Commerce Department to formulate “made in America” rules for all steel used on pipeline construction.

• Ordered a streamlined and expedited process for approval of infrastructure projects

• Reappointed James Comey, perhaps signaling a continuation of the Hillary investigation

• Ordered an end to US aid to any international agency that promotes or provides abortion services

• Freeze grant-giving by the federal EPA

Wow. What a record for six days (including weekends). Any doubts that we have had about Trump’s focus, concentration, management skill, or knowledge of the federal government should now have been set to rest.

And any doubt that he has meant what he said when he told us he was a solid conservative with deep red stripes running through his personal world view should erased as well. To sustain the pace he has set — without serious embarrassment or legal overreach — is truly stunning and most encouraging.

The news media won’t cover the avalanche of executive actions except in a negative context. For them, the Trump Administration has been all about his claim that he lost the popular vote because illegals voted and about his comparisons of his inaugural crowds with Obama’s. But these side shows have nothing to do with the real Trump Agenda that just keeps ploughing up Obama’s misdeeds by the dozen.

See (emphasis added); see also (“President Trump Wipes Out Obama’s Immigration Policy With Two Executive Orders“)


26 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Peso Crushed, And Mexicans Express Shock And Dismay As Trump Turns Campaign Promises Into Reality [UPDATED]

Trump and Mexico

The Washington Post has reported:

President Enrique Peña Nieto on Thursday called off a trip to Washington, after President Trump launched his plan to construct a border wall and insisted he would stick Mexico with the bill. The incident opened one of the most serious rifts in memory between the United States and its southern neighbor.

Trump spokesman Sean Spicer added a stunning new detail about the proposed wall project later Thursday, saying that Trump intended to pay for it by imposing a 20 percent tax on all imports from Mexico.

Peña Nieto had been scheduled to meet with Trump on Tuesday to discuss immigration, trade and drug-war cooperation. He called off the visit after Trump tweeted that it would be “better to cancel the upcoming meeting” if Mexico was unwilling to pay for the wall.

Trump’s moves have rekindled old resentments in Mexico, a country that during its history has often felt bullied and threatened by its wealthier, more powerful neighbor. The legacy of heavy-handed U.S. behavior — which includes invasions and the seizure of significant Mexican lands — has mostly been played down by a generation of Mexican leaders who have pursued pragmatic policies and mutual economic interests with both Republican and Democratic U.S. administrations.

Both Peña Nieto and Spicer said their countries were interested in maintaining positive relations. “We will keep the lines of communication open,” Spicer told reporters in Washington on Thursday morning, adding that the White House would “look for a date to schedule something in the future.” The Mexican president tweeted that his government was willing to work with the United States “to reach agreements that benefit both nations.”

But Mexicans expressed shock and dismay as Trump moved to turn his campaign promises into reality.

Mexicans view a wall across the 2,000-mile border as a symbolic affront, part of a package of Trump policies that could cause the country serious economic pain. They include a crackdown on illegal immigrants, who send billions of dollars home, and renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

The treaty has allowed trade between the neighbors to mushroom. Every day, goods valued at $1.4 billion cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and millions of jobs are linked to trade on both sides. Mexico is the world’s second-largest customer for American-made products, and 80 percent of Mexican exports — automobiles, flat-screen TVs, avocados — are sold to the United States.

“When we are talking about building a wall, about deporting migrants, about eliminating sanctuary cities [for migrants], about threatening to end a free-trade agreement, or to take away factories, we are really talking about causing human suffering,” Margarita Zavala, a possible candidate for the presidency in 2018 and the wife of former president Felipe Calderón, said in an interview. “And after today, without a doubt, it is very difficult to negotiate from behind a wall.”

Mexicans had trouble recalling a time when relations were this bad with the United States or when an American president appeared to be such a threat to Mexico’s core interests.

“Never,” former president Vicente Fox said in an interview, when asked if Mexico had faced a comparable U.S. president in his lifetime. “And I never thought the U.S. people would go for a president like this.”

“We don’t want the ugly American, which Trump represents: that imperial gringo that used to invade our country, that used to send the Marines, that used to put and take away presidents most everywhere in the world,” Fox added. “That happened in the 20th century, and this is what this guy is menacing us with.”

Trump, for his part, faulted the Mexicans for damaging the relationship.

Addressing a GOP policy retreat in Philadelphia, Trump said Thursday afternoon, “The president of Mexico and myself have agreed to cancel our planned meeting” next Tuesday. “Unless Mexico is going to treat the United States fairly, with respect, such a meeting would be fruitless,” he added.

It was not clear exactly how the Trump administration would impose the new tax on Mexican exports. But Spicer said it would be part of a broader plan to tax imports from countries, including Mexico, with which the United States has a trade deficit.

“If you tax that $50 billion at 20 percent of imports — which is, by the way, a practice that 160 other countries do — right now our country’s policy is to tax exports and let imports flow freely in, which is ridiculous,” Spicer told reporters. “By doing it that way, we can do $10 billion a year and easily pay for the wall just through that mechanism alone. That’s really going to provide the funding.”

Peña Nieto’s decision to cancel the trip came a day after Trump signed an executive order to construct a border wall, one of Trump’s signature promises and a rallying cry for his supporters during last year’s presidential campaign. Trump has insisted that Mexico will fund it, but Peña Nieto and other Mexican officials have angrily denied they will do so.

The timing of the order was seen as further insult: Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray was flying to Washington on Tuesday when news broke about Trump’s impending border wall announcement. All day Wednesday, speculation was rampant that Peña Nieto might cancel his upcoming trip.

In the meantime, Videgaray met at the White House with Craig Deare, who is in charge of Latin America on the National Security Council.

Throughout Trump’s rise, Peña Nieto has been mostly respectful toward him, even inviting him to visit Mexico City as a candidate last August. Peña Nieto has tried to maintain a diplomatic approach to the new administration, suggesting that Mexico can negotiate with its largest trading partner and preserve good relations.

On Wednesday night, Peña Nieto sent out a recorded message saying that he “regrets and disapproves” of the U.S. decision to move forward with the wall. He repeated that Mexico will not pay for the wall but said he still planned to come to Washington to meet with Trump because of the importance of the negotiations.

But that decision changed after Trump’s tweet on Thursday morning.

During his speech at the GOP policy retreat later in the day in Philadelphia, Trump described NAFTA as a “terrible deal, a total disaster for the United States,” and said that the move of manufacturing to Mexico cost millions of American jobs and the closure of “thousands and thousands of plants” across the United States.

See (“White House press secretary says border wall will be funded by 20 percent import tax on Mexican goods“) (emphasis added; map omitted); see also (“Peso crushed after Mexican president cancels meeting in latest international Twitter spat“) and (“Gloom Descends on Mexico’s Nafta Capital”—As one Wall Street Journal commenter noted: “[W]e could put a 10% tariff on imported goods with little or no immediate increases in U.S. prices due to the decline in the Mexican Peso since the election”“)

Mexico will genuflex, quite literally, or be crushed.

President Trump and the United States will not bow down, like Barack Obama did.

See also (“Obama Is A Despicable Fool Who Is Bowing Again!“) and (“Obama Wanted To Apologize For Hiroshima and Nagasaki, And Was The First U.S. President To Bow To Japan’s Emperor!“) and (“Obama Is Bowing Again . . . This Time To The Saudis“) and (“Now Barack Obama is bowing to the Mayor of Tampa, Florida!”) and (“Bowing To The Communists!”)

President Donald J. Trump


31 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Deplorables Rise Up: The Media-Stoked Panic And Outrage!

Deplorables Rise Up

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

That hysterical reaction to the travel ban announced Friday is a portent of what is to come if President Donald Trump carries out the mandate given to him by those who elected him.

The travel ban bars refugees for 120 days. From Syria, refugees are banned indefinitely. And a 90-day ban has been imposed on travel here from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen.

Was that weekend-long primal scream really justified?

As of Monday, no one was being detained at a U.S. airport.

Yet the shrieking had not stopped. All five stories on page one of Monday’s Washington Post were about the abomination. The New York Times’ editorial, “Trashing American Ideals and Security,” called it bigoted, cowardly, xenophobic, Islamophobic, un-American, unrighteous.

This ban, went the weekend wail, is the “Muslim ban” of the Trump campaign. But how so, when not one of the six largest Muslim countries — Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey — was on the list? Missing also were three-dozen other Muslim countries.

Of the seven countries facing a 90-day ban, three are U.S.-designated state sponsors of terror, and the other four are war zones. Clearly, this is about homeland security, not religious discrimination.

The criterion for being included in the travel ban appears to be that these places are the more likely breeding grounds for terrorists.

Yet there are lessons for the Trump White House in the media-stoked panic and outrage at the end of his first week in office.

First, Steve Bannon’s observation that the media are “the opposition party,” is obviously on target. While Sen. Chuck Schumer was crying on camera that the ban was “un-American,” the media were into the more serious business of stampeding and driving the protesters.

A second lesson is one every White House learns. Before a major decision is announced, if possible, get everyone’s input and everyone on board to provide what Pat Moynihan called the “second and third echelons of advocacy.” Those left out tend to leak.

A third lesson Trump should learn is that the establishment he routed and the city he humiliated are out to break him as they broke LBJ on Vietnam, Nixon on Watergate, and almost broke Reagan on the Iran-Contra affair.

While the establishment may no longer be capable of inspiring and leading the nation, so detested is it, it has not lost its appetite or its ability to break and bring down presidents.

And Trump is vulnerable, not only because he is an envied outsider who seized the highest prize politics has [to] offer, but because his agenda would cancel out that of the elites.

They believe in open borders, free trade, globalization. Trump believes in securing the Southern border, bringing U.S. industry home, economic nationalism, “America First.”

They want endless immigration from the Third World to remake America into the polyglot “universal nation” of Ben Wattenberg’s utopian vision. Trump’s followers want back the America they knew.

Our foreign policy elites see democratization as a vocation and an autocratic Russia as an implacable enemy. Trump instead sees Moscow as a potential ally against real enemies like al-Qaida and ISIS.

There is another reason for the reflexive howl at Trump’s travel ban. The establishment views it, probably correctly, as the first move toward a new immigration policy, built on pre-1965 foundations, and rooted in a preference for Western-Christian immigrants first.

When the Times rages that “American ideals” or “traditional American values” are under attack by Trump, what they really mean is that their ideology and agenda are threatened by Trump.

We are headed for a series of collisions and crises, and what has happened in Europe will likely happen here. As the Third World invasion and growing Islamization of the Old Continent — which the EU has proven unable to stop — has discredited centrist parties and continuously fed a populist-nationalist uprising there, so may it here also.

And Trump not only appears to have no desire to yield to his enemies in politics and the media, he has no choice, as he is now the personification of a surging Middle American counterrevolution.

Undeniably, there are great numbers of Americans who agree with the libels the Times showered on Trump and, by extension, his backers whom Hillary Clinton designated “the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic . . . deplorables.”

But by whatever slurs they are called, Middle Americans seem prepared to fight. And history shows that such people do not calmly accept the loss of what is most precious to them — the country they grew up in, the country they love.

They have turned to Trump to lead them. Why should he not, having been raised up by them, and knowing in his own heart what the establishment and the media think of him and would do to him?

Ten days in, and already it is “Game On!”

See (“The First Firestorm“) (emphasis added)

This is war, every bit as much as a foreign crusade against our enemies. This time though, we are fighting the morally-bankrupt media and the entrenched “establishments” of both political parties—the truly evil far-Left Democrats, and the Neanderthals of the GOP—as well as America’s other enemies, both foreign and domestic.

By electing Donald Trump, we have come so far.

But we have promises to keep,
And miles to go before we sleep,
And miles to go before we sleep.

See (Robert Frost: “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening”)


31 01 2017

Excellent post. Spot on.

Liked by 1 person

31 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thanks so much, Rick. 😊


5 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Democratic Party Is Worse Off Than Anyone Understands

Webster Hubbell and Chelsea Clinton

[Webster Hubbell and Chelsea Clinton]

Michael Sainato of the Observer has written:

Since Hillary Clinton’s presidential election loss, rumors have circulated that speculate about what she will do next. In trying to predict Clinton’s future—from running for mayor of New York City to hosting her own TV show—the idea has also been advanced that her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, may enter politics herself. Though being the progeny of the widely-disliked Bill and Hillary should disqualify Chelsea, the Democratic Party’s cultist obsession with her family’s access to a vast network of wealthy donors leaves any congressional race of her choosing open to Chelsea if she wants to run.

This would be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Instead of moving on—and being better off for it—another Clinton in public office would broaden the party’s disconnect with working and middle class voters. Electing Chelsea to a major role among Democrats would do little to convey a message of change and progression.

The Washington Post recently reported Chelsea Clinton has begun to show an interest in politics. “In recent days, we’ve noticed a different Chelsea Clinton—one more than willing to speak out, often a bit bluntly. And she’s speaking out specifically against President Trump, using his preferred medium: Twitter.”

Business Insider further dramatized Chelsea Clinton’s recent activity on Twitter by hyperbolically dubbing it a “crusade against Trump.” “Very grateful no one seriously hurt in the Louvre attack . . . or the (completely fake) Bowling Green Massacre. Please don’t make up attacks,” Chelsea Clinton tweeted on February 3 in regards to Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway’s “Bowling Green” gaffe. Conway responded to Chelsea by citing Hillary Clinton’s infamous “Bosnia Sniper Fire” lie and noted Clinton lost the election, to which Chelsea Clinton didn’t bother to retort back.

If the best the Democratic establishment can come up with in regards to the “resistance” against Donald Trump is sensationalizing tweets from establishment elites as legitimate opposition, the Democratic Party is worse off than anyone understands. Huffington Post, ABC News, New York Post, the Hill and several other outlets covered the brief series of tweets between Chelsea Clinton and Kellyanne Conway, attempting to portray Clinton as a formidable spokesperson against Trump. Touting another Clinton to oppose his administration will only help Trump.

Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign drove the Democratic Party into the ground. Doubling down on her flawed strategy, partnering with wealthy elites and establishment celebrities to “get things done,” continues to show Americans that the Democratic Party belongs to the top one percent.

Chelsea Clinton’s potential emergence into politics opens the door for Democratic opposition to continue citing the litany of scandals and disastrous policies championed by the Clintons. The only good to come out of this would be for Chelsea Clinton to lose a congressional race, thereby re-teaching a lesson the Democratic establishment has continuously failed to learn.

See (“Chelsea Clinton Is the Last Thing the Democratic Party Needs“) (emphasis added)

First, there is reason to believe that Webster Hubbell is Chelsea Clinton’s father, not Bill Clinton.

See, e.g., (“Clinton Fatigue”)

Second, if Chelsea Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren are the best that the Democrats have, they are in very deep trouble.

Indeed, their nationwide losses in 2018 and beyond may be greater than in 2016.

Third, Hillary Clinton may be indicted, convicted and imprisoned, which may be the result of her flagrant criminality and the failure of Barack Obama to pardon her.


7 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Democrats are losers

As the Chicago Tribune has reported, this is the sobering advice that has been given to his fellow Democrats by Chicago’s mayor and former Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel, who runs perhaps the nation’s most crime ridden city:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has warned Democrats they need to “take a chill pill” and realize that they are not going to take back national power anytime soon.

“It ain’t gonna happen in 2018,” Emanuel said Monday at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business in California. “Take a chill pill, man. You gotta be in this for the long haul.”

As he did last month at an event in Washington, D.C., the mayor expanded on what he believes is the road map back to power for his party — putting moderate candidates such as veterans, football players, sheriffs and business people up in Republican districts, picking battles with Republicans, exploiting wedges within the GOP and fighting attempts to redistrict Congress on partisan grounds.

But this time he didn’t hold back on his frustration with some of his fellow Democrats.

“Winning’s everything,” he said. “If you don’t win, you can’t make the public policy. I say that because it is hard for people in our party to accept that principle. Sometimes, you’ve just got to win, OK? Our party likes to be right, even if they lose.”

He added, “I don’t go to moral victory speeches. I can’t stand them. I’ve never lost an election. It’s about winning, because if you win you then have the power to go do what has to get done.

“If you lose, you can write the book about what happened — great, that’s really exciting!” he said, sarcastically.

Instead, he said, Democrats should focus on the GOP. “Wherever there’s a disagreement among Republicans, I’m for one of those disagreements,” he said. “I’m all for it. The president’s with Russia? I’m with John McCain and Lindsey Graham, I’m for NATO! Why? (It’s a) wedge. Wedges have to be schisms, schisms have to be divides.”

See (“Rahm Emanuel: Too many Dems care more about being right than winning“) (emphasis added); see also (Dick Morris: “After Liberals Lose An Election They Move To The Left And Commit Suicide”)

Emanuel is not a fool. He needs federal funding from President Trump to keep Chicago afloat. In the absence of Trump’s help, Chicago and Emanuel’s political career will be decimated.


7 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama’s Coming Crusade Against Trump [UPDATED]


Ed Klein has written at

In my last report, I wrote about Hillary Clinton and what she sees when she looks into her crystal ball and plans her future.

This week, let’s talk about Barack Obama.

After three short days in rainy Southern California, Obama escaped the weather and boarded Sir Richard Branson’s private jet for the British Virgin Islands. There, with his hat on backwards and wearing shades, Obama chilled out with his wife, Michelle.

As ET on line reported: “Obama’s backwards hat was the talk of Twitter, with one [liberal] tweet reading, ‘Obama got his hat to the back like it’s 1990 and trump isn’t president. GET YO A** BACK HERE . . . with respect, sir.'”

Liberals don’t have to worry: Obama intends to be the most politically active ex-president in modern times. He’s tossing out the old rule book that says former presidents should remain silent for a decent interval to give their successors in the White House time and space to govern.

Spurred into action by his two significant others—Michelle and Valerie Jarrett—the 55-year-old ex-president is preparing to lead the progressive charge against President Donald Trump.

“He’s planning to make speeches and speak out forcefully against Trump,” said one of his friends. “He’s going to fight Trump’s executive actions, fire up the leftwing resistance to the Trump administration, and pave the way for the Democrats to retake Congress.

“He’s been given assurances by George Soros and other liberal money men that they will make a mighty war chest available for his crusade against Trump,” the friend continued.

“Among Democrats, there is no one on the national scene with the status and popularity to match Obama’s. He’s a towering figure on the left, with a constituency that is angry and begging for a leader to steer them in the right direction.

“And he has every intention of answering their call.”

See; see also (“How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency“)

In a desperate attempt to give life to his abysmal racist legacy, America’s former president is rearing his ugly head again.

How pathetic, but it is so true to his character.

In my first article at this blog, I wrote:

In the final analysis, will he be viewed as a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history? Will his naïveté have been matched by his overarching narcissism, and will he be considered more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter? Will his presidency be considered a sad watershed in history? Or will he succeed and prove his detractors wrong, and be viewed as the “anointed one” and a true political “messiah”? Even Abraham Lincoln was never accorded such accolades, much less during his lifetime. And Barack Obama’s core beliefs are light years away from those of Ronald Reagan.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

I believe his legacy will be that of a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history. Clearly, his naïveté was matched by his overarching narcissism, and he was more starry-eyed and dangerous than Jimmy Carter.

His presidency was a sad watershed in American history. Indeed, as mentioned previously, his epitaph and legacy are the following:

President Obama arrived in Washington on the wings of his promise to cool the rancor between the races, the nation’s saddest and most enduring inheritance of slavery, and he leaves Pennsylvania Avenue having only made things worse.



7 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Sleazy Left [UPDATED]

Chuck Schumer

In an article entitled “Trump Starts His Revolution As Reporters and Judges Scream Like Banshees,” Canadian-born former newspaper publisher and author Conrad Black has written for the New York Sun (and the National Review):

Appearances are deceiving, and President Trump, although the launch of the 90-day travel ban was botched, cannot lose on the issue. His opponents, in the United States and the world, have absurdly overreacted; an arriving onlooker would imagine that the president had caused great loss of life in some frightful act of malice or negligence.

The President will eventually almost certainly be upheld legally, given the immigration legislation from 1952 and the constitutional powers of the president, which his six immediate predecessors have used. His abiding by the legal processes, if it does lead to judicial legitimization, will severely undercut his opponents.

Even if he is ultimately unsuccessful, he has made the gesture, which the apparent majority of Americans support as a national-security measure. His opponents will bear the responsibility if there are any incidents that could arguably have been avoided if his measure had not been challenged. Senator Schumer and others will regret their fatuous histrionics (“The statue of Liberty is weeping,” as Mr. Schumer himself pretended to do).

The whole escapade reeks of the sleazy Left, which, in the Congress, the press, academia, and the entertainment world, is almost all that is left of the fierce opposition to Mr. Trump. Jay Inslee, the smug, verbose, banal governor of Washington state, who was filibustering interviewers last week, went judge-shopping to get this silly stay order on Trump’s 90-day partial-entry ban.

Mr. Inslee found the inane, posturing rogue judge James Robart, who is a George W. Bush appointee, which the local Democrats trumpet as proof of his impartiality, and who could be relied upon to produce a provokingly hostile judgment. Judge Robart decreed that his ruling covered the entire country — quite a reach for a federal district judge.

The President should not have referred to Judge Robart as a “so-called judge,” but the whole business is a frame-up. The Democrats must have had in the back of their minds the hope that Mr. Trump would impetuously ignore Judge Robart’s order, as President Jackson famously invited Chief Justice Marshall to try to enforce a decision of his Supreme Court.

This would have enabled them to start already on the line they are bursting with impatience to raise — that this was grounds for impeachment. This too would be nonsense, but it would help them to ratchet up the righteous obstruction and start agitating for the complete immobilization of this unconstitutional billionaire megalomaniac who was assaulting constitutional propriety.

Instead, Mr. Trump has been more compliant than necessary, and gone through the charade of appealing to the notoriously flaky and leftist Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, and will probably have to go on to the Supreme Court, which could entangle this issue with the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy on that court.

Mr. Trump will get the political credit for trying to safeguard the country whether he is sustained or not, but can be almost a bystander between the raving Democrats and a serious Court when the issue arrives at one.

The Democrats have flogged to death the fact that Robart was a George W. Bush appointee. Once in a life sinecure, judges often evolve unpredictably. President Gerald Ford named John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court as a conservative, and he eventually became one of the most left-wing judges in the Court’s history, making William O. Douglas seem like “Hanging Judge” Jeffreys in comparison.

Richard Nixon had a similar experience with Harry Blackmun, and John F. Kennedy named Byron White to the high court as a liberal and he proved quite conservative. Judge Robart has metamorphosed into another northwestern liberal, seizing most opportunities to utter rabble-rousing left-wing battle cries.

Mr. Trump’s enemies are reduced to screaming like banshees at everything the president does. The effort to represent the firing of former deputy attorney general Sally Yates for rank insubordination as a frightful injustice fizzled. The country yawned and these events are piling up as Mr. Trump charges through the opening days of his presidency.

They have taken the bait again on the comment that the United States is not always innocent. Almost no story lasts more than a day or two, as Mr. Trump overwhelms the country with publicity that is given with animus by most of the press but that elevates him in stature even farther above his opponents than the natural preeminence presidents normally enjoy.

Those who wish Mr. Trump well should be reassured that he has played this astutely, after an over-hasty launch. He calculatedly incited the idiocies of Mr. Schumer and many others and has virtuously been a pillar of legal process since. His losses of temper and lapses of civility are sometimes signs of his large ego, sometimes of business method exercised for the first time from the presidency, but they are also sometimes cunning tactics to exploit the weakness and stupidity of the Democratic leadership and their brain-dead claque in Hollywood and most of the press.

The Democrats are becoming identified with the extreme left, like the 30 or so ninja-like vandals who trashed part of the Berkeley campus and prevented a conservative gay speaker from appearing (as he had been engaged to do by the campus Republican association), and like the obnoxious women shouting obscenities at the police at the Greenwich Village campus of New York University.

Obstructing the confirmation of his Cabinet nominees is churlish and will not succeed. The facts are that Trump is almost certain to produce a superior health-care system than the shambles of Obamacare, and he has slowed down the process to avoid the chaos of repealing one system before the next is in place.

He is almost certain to produce tax cuts for the middle and working classes. It is too early to say how his efforts to repatriate capital accumulations and jobs will go, but, because they are based on incentive economics, they are unlikely to be fruitless.

And the president is picking his opponents astutely. He will eat some of Wall Street’s free fiscal lunch, but give with the other hand as he dismantles the moronic regulatory excess of Sarbanes-Oxley. A group of bankers was in to see him last week, including former ostentatious Democrat Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, who was rewarded for his fervent support of Mr. Obama with a $13 billion fine over his handling of the (government-created) mortgage bubble. Mr. Dimon is now a Trump supporter, although Mr. Trump publicly criticized him for caving to the Justice Department without a fight.

The surest financial barometer of all of what very big, very smart money thinks is the disclosure that that other great Democrat, Warren Buffett, has invested $12 billion in the U.S. economy since Election Day. After only two working weeks as president, Mr. Trump is already chipping away at blocs of Democratic support, in the limousine-liberal business community and with selected labor unions, including some he knew from his career working with the rough building-trade unions across the country.

Mr. Trump has gone a long way to rallying the conservatives, including many intellectual conservatives, by nominating Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in an elegant ceremony. As noted above, his confirmation (he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to his current position as a federal appeals-court judge) might be necessary to get final approval of Mr. Trump’s travel ban, but the Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court are a great deal more substantial as jurists than the poltroon who gained his 15 minutes of world fame by starting this controversy.

It need hardly be emphasized that the Obama policy of appeasement of Iran, and of consistent diplomatic defeat at the hands of puny Russia (which has displaced the United States in the Middle East with 50 warplanes and only a few battalions of troops), is receiving the ultimate reset. At this point, it appears likely that the Iranian theocracy, intoxicated with the smashing victory it won with the nuclear deal, will continue to provoke Mr. Trump with missile test-firings and promotion of the Houthis in Yemen and Hamas and Hezbollah in Gaza and Lebanon.

This president will not hesitate to use overwhelming American domination of the skies to teach the ayatollahs a painful lesson, and everyone from Israel to Russia to Saudi Arabia will applaud him, as will his countrymen.

Two weeks are a very brief incumbency, but, so far, Mr. Trump is building his base and assisting the Democrats into a cul de sac with the loonies of the far left, by presenting them with phantom targets — the appearance of vulnerability because of the calculated and flippant bombast with which he proposes intelligent and vote-winning policies and the installation of high-quality people in senior positions.

It is difficult now to remember when Mr. Trump was routinely referred to as an exploiter and disparager of women, a racist, and a television egomaniac who could not run a two-car funeral. Also almost inaudible is the paranoid foolishness about “alt-right” extremism. It has been a grating performance at times, but a clever one, and it is impossible to feel any warmth for Mr. Schumer. It would be impossible for the Democrats to find a Senate leader more nauseating than Harry Reid, but Mr. Schumer is no Lyndon Johnson or Alben Barkley, or even Robert Byrd or George Mitchell.

Donald Trump is well embarked on his revolution, and likely to be the most important president since Reagan. The intervening regimes (the OBushtons) all seem, as the last of those families, Hillary Clinton, used to say, “so yesterday.” In urgent times in American history, the presidential office seeks the man.

It has now sought a septuagenarian billionaire with an uncommonly assertive manner and no direct political or armed-forces experience, one who appalls many, was scorned by almost all commentators, and continues to skate rings around his doubters and to lead in the right direction at an exhilarating velocity. For such a deliverance from the disasters of the last 20 years, America and the world can live with the loss of a few style points.

See (emphasis added)

The Left and far-Left of America suffer from “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” which may only get worse after they experience more defeats in 2018 and beyond.

They are hysterical now, and seriously unhinged mentally.


9 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Like So Many Judges, Is Trump’s Nominee To The Supreme Court An Arrogant Buffoon, Or A Fool? [UPDATED]

Despicable Judges

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

President Trump’s choice to serve on the Supreme Court said in a private meeting that he finds Trump’s Twitter attacks on a federal judge ‘disheartening,’ after Trump went after a judge who ruled on his immigration order.

Gorsuch made his views known in a private meeting with Connecticut Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal.

‘He said very specifically that they were demoralizing and disheartening and he characterized them very specifically that way,’ Blumenthal said following his meeting with Gorsuch, who is in the midst of a round of courtesy calls.

‘I said they were more than disheartening and I said to him that he has an obligation to make his views clear to the American people, so they understand how abhorrent or unacceptable President Trump’s attacks on the judiciary are,’ he added, CNN reported.

Trump this weekend went after a district court judge who issued a stay of his immigration order – setting up a process that could land the order before the Supreme Court.

‘The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!’ Trump tweeted.

The comment was confirmed by the Supreme Court nomination team.

Federal district judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a stop to Trump’s immigration order last week while it is being adjudicated.

The order had the effect of reopening immigration from a group of seven majority-muslim nations that were deemed a threat.

The issue is certain to arise in Gorsuch’s confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Top Democrats are already making an issue of whether he can be independent from Trump.

Trump also drew widespread criticism during the primary for going after judge Gonzalo Curiel, who had ruled against him in a Trump University fraud case he ultimately settled after paying $25 million to students who claimed they were defrauded by the offer of real estate classes.

Blumenthal said he brought up Trump’s attacks on judges and that Gorsuch ‘didn’t disagree with me on that point.’

‘I said to him if a litigant before your court – and the President of the United States is in fact a litigant right now in the immigration ban cases – said what President Trump said, you would hold him in contempt of court,’ he added.

Gorsuch also met with Senate Demoratic leader Charles Schumer and reportedly gave similar assurances. But after his meeting with Gorsuch, Schumer said, ‘The judge today avoided answers like the plague.’

GOP Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas publicly criticized Trump for the twitter attack Wednesday.

‘Judge Robart, like every other judge in the federal system, is confirmed by the Senate after having been appointed by the president. He’s a judge. He’s not a so-called judge,’ he said bluntly, appearing on CNN.

‘I would say he wrote a so-called opinion, that didn’t offer a single legal reason for his conclusion,’ he added.

‘And again I think it’s best not to personalize these disputes. I understand the president is frustrated that this judge in Seattle has stayed his order. I don’t think that was the right decision. But I would probably focus on the merits of the case itself, and have confidence in his victory on appeal – because I think he should have confidence in his victory,’ he added.

Trump also criticized a federal Ninth Circuit Appeals Court that took up the immigration order Tuesday night.

‘A bad high school student would understand this. Anybody would understand this,’ he said, following a dramatic reading of a portion of the law Wednesday.

‘I listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was disgraceful. It was disgraceful,’ Trump fumed.

‘Because what I just read to you is what we have. And it just can’t be read any plainer or better. And for us to be going through this!’

See (“Democratic senator says Supreme Court nominee found Trump’s attack on judge who blocked travel ban ‘demoralizing’ and ‘disheartening'”) (emphasis added); see also (“Trump Blasts Courts On Travel Ban“) and (“Trump Immigration Order Restricted By Despicable U.S. Judges“) and (The worst federal appellate court in the nation “Keeps U.S. Doors Open During Immigration Fight’) and (“Blumenthal: Gorsuch OK’d Me to Reveal His Trump Criticisms“) and (“Trump Dealt Major Setback as [lawless 9th Circuit] Appeals Court Sides With Immigrants“) and (“Syria’s Assad tells Yahoo News some refugees are ‘definitely’ terrorists“)

Surely President Trump’s nominee to the Court is smart enough to know that a Democratic senator cannot be trusted, much less Blumenthal.

Has Blumenthal distorted Gorsuch’s words, or is Gorsuch a fool? We know that Robart is pure scum, and should be removed from the District Court. That much is clear.

What may also be clear is that President Trump should “yank Judge Gorsuch’s nomination and send up to the Senate a candidate who can keep his or her cool.”

See (“The Gorsuch Gaffe”—”What’s so disheartening is to see such a promising nominee to the high court lose his bearings in a storm. What in the world was Judge Gorsuch thinking?”—”Judge Gorsuch . . . fetched up in the office of the senior Democratic senator from the People’s Republic of Connecticut, and starts wringing his hands about the behavior of the president who nominated him. It would be surprising to us if by chastising his nominator Judge Gorsuch gained any quarter whatsoever from the Democrats. Not even a micron of a quarter”—”It would not be surprising . . . were Mr. Trump to turn around and yank Judge Gorsuch’s nomination and send up to the Senate a candidate who can keep his or her cool”—”As the courts have thrust themselves into political questions, confidence in the Supreme Court has begun to decline”—”The percentage of Americans who had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court slumped to 3 in the decade ending in 2006, according to Gallup. Where Americans confidence reposes, it turns out, is in the military, the police, and religion. The Supreme Court’s slide is what’s disheartening”—”Mr. Trump is but one of the millions of voters who are upset by the politicization of the courts and he has emerged as a tribune for, among other things, millions of citizens who feel similarly”) and and (“A Maniac Is Running Our Foreign Policy! (It’s Not Trump)”—”If only we were able to deport citizens, we could use Trump’s new policy of excluding those who are ‘hostile’ toward our country to get rid of Judge James Robart”—”[T]here is not the slightest question but that the president, in his sole discretion, can choose to admit or exclude any foreigners he likes, based on ‘the interests of the United States.’ The Clinton administration used the executive branch’s broad power over immigration to send a 6-year-old boy back to a communist dictatorship. The courts were completely powerless to stop him”—”The president’s authority over immigration is absolute and exclusive, as part of his authority over foreign policy”—”[W]hen the president’s immigration policy is to protect Americans: Some piss-ant judge announces that his authority exceeds that of the president”—”The judiciary, both political parties, the media, Hollywood, corporate America and approximately 1 million lobbying groups are all working frantically to bring the hardest cases to our shores”—”Federal judges issue lunatic rulings to ensure that there will never be a pause in the transformation of America”)

Tragically, lots of us who have been lawyers for many years, if not decades, have little or no confidence in or respect for our judiciary or courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.


9 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Crazies Are Escaping From Their Asylums!

Impeach Donald Trump

The Left and far-Left’s loonies like the black racists Maxine Waters and Elijah Cummings are the worst of American politics. And judges like James Robart are a very close second, and a disgrace.

However, concerted efforts have begun to destroy the Trump Presidency, which must be stopped in their tracks. Online ads like the one above are appearing nationwide, with lots of similar efforts to come.

See–trump-be-impeached-la-ad; see also


10 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Despicable Judges

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

“Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said?

A “so-called judge” blocked the travel ban, said Trump. And the arguments in court, where 9th Circuit appellate judges were hearing the government’s appeal, were “disgraceful.” “A bad student in high school would have understood the arguments better.”

Did the president disparage a couple of judges? Yep.

Yet compare his remarks to the tweeted screeds of Elizabeth Warren after her Senate colleague, Jeff Sessions, was confirmed as attorney general.

Sessions, said Warren, represents “radical hatred.” And if he makes “the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry” into the Department of Justice, “all of us” will pile on.

Now this is hate speech. And it validates Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to use Senate rules to shut her down.

These episodes reveal much about America 2017.

They reflect, first, the poisoned character of our politics. The language of Warren – that Sessions is steeped in “racism, sexism & bigotry” – echoes the ugliest slander of the Hillary Clinton campaign, where she used similar words to describe Trump’s “deplorables.”

Such language, reflecting as it does the beliefs of one-half of America about the other, rules out any rapprochement in America’s social or political life. This is pre-civil war language.

For how do you sit down and work alongside people you believe to be crypto-Nazis, Klansmen and fascists? Apparently, you don’t. Rather, you vilify them, riot against them, deny them the right to speak or to be heard.

And such conduct is becoming common on campuses today.

As for Trump’s disparagement of the judges, only someone ignorant of history can view that as frightening.

Thomas Jefferson not only refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts of President John Adams, his party impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, who had presided over one of the trials.

Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s prohibition against moving the Cherokees out of Georgia to west of the Mississippi, where, according to the Harvard resume of Sen. Warren, one of them bundled fruitfully with one of her ancestors, making her part Cherokee.

When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus violated the Constitution, Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest the chief justice.

FDR proposed adding six justices to emasculate a Supreme Court of the “nine old men” he reviled for having declared some New Deal schemes unconstitutional.

President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out. And here we come to the heart of the matter.

Whether the roll-out of the president’s temporary travel ban was ill-prepared or not, and whether one agrees or not about which nations or people should be subjected to extreme vetting, the president’s authority in the matter of protecting the borders and keeping out those he sees as potentially dangerous is universally conceded.

That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd.

When politicians don black robes and seize powers they do not have, they should be called out for what they are – usurpers and petty tyrants. And if there is a cause upon which the populist right should unite, it is that elected representatives and executives make the laws and rule the nation. Not judges, and not justices.

Indeed, one of the mightiest forces that has birthed the new populism that imperils the establishment is that unelected justices like Warren and Brennan, and their progeny on the bench, have remade our country without the consent of the governed – and with never having been smacked down by Congress or the president.

Consider. Secularist justices de-Christianized our country. They invented new rights for vicious criminals as though criminal justice were a game. They tore our country apart with idiotic busing orders to achieve racial balance in public schools. They turned over centuries of tradition and hundreds of state, local and federal laws to discover that the rights to an abortion and same-sex marriage were there in Madison’s Constitution all along. We just couldn’t see them.

Trump has warned the judges that if they block his travel ban, and this results in preventable acts of terror on American soil, they will be held accountable. As rightly they should.

Meanwhile, Trump’s White House should use the arrogant and incompetent conduct of these federal judges to make the case not only for creating a new Supreme Court, but for Congress to start using Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution – to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to reclaim its stolen powers.

A clipping of the court’s wings is long overdue.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Like So Many Judges, Is Trump’s Nominee To The Supreme Court An Arrogant Buffoon, Or A Fool?“)

More than a “clipping of wings” is necessary. The dark and sinister, and lawless and tyrannical judiciary’s power must be broken.

Tragically, lots of us who have been lawyers for many years, if not decades, have little or no confidence in or respect for our judiciary or courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Will it take 9/11-like events that strike the judiciary directly—as well as the media, and the Left and far-Left—to shake them out of their sanctimonious and un-American attitudes?

See, e.g., (“Bomb Scare Shuts Down Hollywood Subway Station, Chinese Theater Evacuated“)


14 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Kremlin Is Starting to Worry About Trump

Putin is pure evil

Ivan Krastev (Chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, Bulgaria) and Stephen Holmes (Professor of Law at New York University) have written for Foreign Affairs:

In 2016, a senior Russian official explained to a group of visiting foreigners why the government had decided not to celebrate the upcoming 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. Yes, it was a turning point in Russian history, he argued, and, yes, President Vladimir Putin sees today’s Russia as a successor to both the tsars and the Bolsheviks. But celebrating a revolution would send the wrong message to society. The Kremlin today is staunchly opposed to “regime change,” the visitors were told, and thus skittish about eulogizing 1917. It plans to use the centenary, instead, to draw attention to the catastrophic consequences of resorting to revolution to solve social and political problems.

The last thing the Russian government expected was that 2017 would bring it face to face not with a revolution of the past but with a revolution of the present — the radical regime change taking place in the United States as a result of the electoral victory of Donald Trump. It is Trump’s electoral revolution that has captured the imagination, and fanned the fears, of Russian elites today.

The search for a key to Trump’s mind-boggling and miscellaneous gusher of policy directives has tended to focus on his disturbingly erratic, vindictive, simplistic, narcissistic, insecure, and occasionally delusional personality, due exception being made for those conspiracy theorists who treat him as a kind of Manchurian candidate or sock puppet of the Kremlin. What most observers have been late to recognize is the extent to which, behind his mask as a showman, Trump views himself as a revolutionary insurgent with a mission to dismantle America’s “old regime.”

Trump’s tactics certainly belong to the classic revolutionary playbook. His shock-and-awe style of executive action is designed to rattle Congress, catch his opponents unprepared, and incite his base to wage war on the establishment. The extreme polarization he deliberately foments allows him to fend off an opportunistic alliance of the Republican elite with the Democratic Party in defense of the constitutional system, ensuring that protests will be largely impotent. In the words of White House strategist-in-chief Stephen Bannon, Trump is positioning himself as the global leader of an anti-global movement that is anti-elite, anti-establishment, anti-liberal, and nationalistic. “What we are witnessing now,” Bannon told the Washington Post, “is the birth of a new political order, and the more frantic a handful of media elites become, the more powerful that new political order becomes itself.”

Russian policymakers, obsessed as they are with the fear of “color revolutions,” may understand better than Americans and Europeans the radical nature of the political change that has descended on Washington. Indeed, when it comes to the ongoing Trump revolution, Russian policymakers are in much the same position as the German General Staff one century ago. In 1917, the German government concluded that the best hope for a German victory in World War I was for a revolution to erupt in Russia. It thus allowed some of the leaders of the Bolshevik party, Lenin among them, to pass through Germany and make their way back to Russia. The hope was that a revolution in Russia would pull the country out of the war — and the plan worked. But by the beginning of 1918, the German government started to fear that the virus of revolution that it had surreptitiously help spread to Russia might circle back calamitously to Germany itself.

Our conversations with Russian policymakers and experts indicate they are starting to have similar fears and doubts today.

There is no way of knowing if Russian interference contributed decisively to Trump’s upset victory. But it’s fair to say that the Kremlin viewed the outcome as a divine gift. Since at least 2011-2012, when Russia witnessed widespread popular protests, and particularly after the Ukrainian Maidan uprising — events that elicited heartfelt praise and encouragement from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Russia’s leadership had been convinced that her election would spell disaster for Russia and that it might even lead to war. So Russians did what they could to prevent Clinton from getting into the White House. But while they welcomed her defeat, they were wholly unprepared for the ensuing regime change in Washington.

Now that Trump is in power, political elites in Moscow have stopped cheering. They recognize that Russia’s position has become abruptly and agonizingly complex.

It’s true that Trump’s accession opens up the possibility of “normalizing” Russia’s relations with the West, beginning with a reduction or even elimination of sanctions. It also validates many of Russia’s ideological criticisms of the liberal order and may perhaps foreshadow policy reversals that Moscow has long hoped for: from Washington’s disengagement from the Ukraine crisis to its dissolution of the Cold War Western alliance. Russians also celebrate Trump’s unfiltered stream-of-consciousness diatribes as signaling a welcome end to America’s hypocrisy and condescension.

But Trump’s revolution is also ushering in a period of turmoil and uncertainty, including the likelihood of self-defeating trade wars. Still traumatized by the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia’s present leadership has no appetite for global instability.

With Trump in the White House, moreover, Putin has lost his monopoly over geopolitical unpredictability. The Kremlin’s ability to shock the world by taking the initiative and trashing ordinary international rules and customs has allowed Russia to play an oversized international role and to punch above its weight. Putin now has to share the capacity to keep the world off balance with a new American president vastly more powerful than himself. More world leaders are watching anxiously to discover what Trump will do next than are worrying about what Putin will do next. Meanwhile, using anti-Americanism as an ideological crutch has become much more dubious now that the American electorate has chosen as their president a man publicly derided as “Putin’s puppet.”

What the Kremlin fears most today is that Trump may be ousted or even killed. His ouster, Kremlin insiders argue, is bound to unleash a virulent and bipartisan anti-Russian campaign in Washington. Oddly, therefore, Putin has become a hostage to Trump’s survival and success. This has seriously restricted Russia’s geopolitical options. The Kremlin is perfectly aware that Democrats want to use Russia to discredit and possibly impeach Trump while Republican elites want to use Russia to deflate and discipline Trump. The Russian government fears not only Trump’s downfall, of course, but also the possibility that he could opportunistically switch to a tough anti-Moscow line in order to make peace with hawkish Republican leaders in Congress.

It is emblematic that, in their first telephone call, Putin refused to press Trump on lifting the sanctions or on America’s discontinuing support for Kiev. Moscow has also chosen to ignore some harsh anti-Russian statements issued by certain members of the new administration. The renewed fighting in eastern Ukraine might seem like a counterexample, but the Kremlin swears that the Petro Poroshenko government in Kiev is the guilty party, aiming at getting the attention of anti-Russian U.S. Congress members and thereby providing a potent argument against Trump’s appeasement of Putin. In any case, Russia has been trying to find ways to accommodate the U.S. president, including, for example, echoing the White House’s denials that Ambassador Sergei Kislyak discussed sanctions with Michael Flynn before Trump’s inauguration as well as announcing plans to reconsider Trump’s demand to set up safe zones inside Syria—a proposal that was initially rejected by the Russians.

Trump’s presidency has also complicated Moscow’s relations with China and Iran. Moscow is interested in normalization with the West but not at the cost of joining a Washington-led anti-China coalition, which Trump seems insistent on creating. Moreover, Putin’s Russia hosts up to 20 million Muslims and therefore cannot indulge in the radical anti-Islam rhetoric adopted by Trump.

What is especially dangerous from the Kremlin’s perspective is that certain nationalistic circles in Russia are falling in love with Trump’s insurrectionary approach. In January, for the first time since Putin returned to the Kremlin in 2012, Putin was not the most frequently cited name in the Russian media; Trump was. And although most of Trump’s Russian admirers, such as Alexander Dugin, are loyal to Putin personally, they also dream of purging the globalist elites who occupy the rooms adjoining their president’s.

Anyone who spends any time in Moscow will quickly discover that ordinary Russians, in contrast with a majority of Europeans, feel surprisingly positive about Trump. One reason is that they are exhausted at Russia’s confrontation with the West. Another is that they share Trump’s cynical, borderline apocalyptic view of international politics. Like Trump, they never believed in win-win politics in the first place.

Most interesting of all, they readily compare Trump to an early Boris Yeltsin — impulsive, charismatic, trusting only his family, and ready to bomb the parliament if that works to cement his hold on power. The problem for the Kremlin is that Yeltsin was a revolutionary leader and Putin has decided to make 2017 a year for deploring, not celebrating, revolutions.

See (emphasis added)


14 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Flynn Victim Of Obama Coup [UPDATED]


Political pundit Dick Morris has written:

The Obama appointees still inhabiting the bowels of the State and Justice Departments orchestrated the coup that brought down General Michael Flynn who quit as National Security Advisor only four weeks into Trump’s term.

Waiting until their confirmations as secretary of state and defense, neither Tillerson nor Sessions have had the time to replace the Obama appointees. But, in the interregnum, the Obama operatives used the time to slit Flynn’s throat, Washington style.

Flynn, anxious to head off Russian retaliation against U.S. sanctions, spoke with Moscow’s Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak to assuage his concerns over the sanctions imposed in the wake of Russian intervention in Ukraine and Crimea. Because he did so before Trump took office — but after his own appointment — he ran afoul of established protocol.

The alert Obama-era wiretappers pounced, taping the conversation and leaking it to the media. Former Obama officials were quoted in the New York Times as saying that Flynn reassured the ambassador that Mr. Trump would adopt a more accommodating tone on Russia once in office. They said that Flynn urged Russia not to retaliate against any sanctions because an overreaction would make any future cooperation more complicated.” One Obama official said that “he appeared to leave the impression that it would be possible” to ease the U.S. sanctions under the new president.

Then the former Obama folks at the Justice Department chimed in, gratuitously warning the incoming president that there was a blackmail risk that Moscow might hold the fact of the conversation over Flynn’s head as he served in office.

Finally, the former Obama folks at the Defense Department scrutinized a 2015 trip to Moscow by Flynn during which he received a payment to attend an anniversary celebration of a Kremlin operated TV station. The payment (it might have been a nominal gift of some sort) had to be reported because Flynn is a former general.

Essentially, the Obama team at State, Justice, and Defense acted as opposition researchers for Obama and the Democrats to frame the incoming National Security Advisor and leak his sins to the media.

Caught in the trap sprung by the Democratic operatives, Flynn, unfortunately doubled down and lied to VP Mike Pence, concealing the full extent of his conversation with the Russians. But never fear, the Obama minions helpfully provided the full text of the Flynn-Kislyak conversation that showed the former general had gone further in reassuring the Russians.

Once Flynn lied to the Vice President and Pence had gone out in public to defend him, a resignation was inevitable.

But the prospect of the political appointees in one administration using their powers and surveillance capabilities to bring about the resignation of a highly placed official in the incoming administration is, itself, a more alarming event than any perpetrated by Michael Flynn.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Former Obama Officials, Loyalists Waged Secret Campaign to Oust Flynn“) and (“FBI needs to explain why Flynn was recorded, Intelligence Committee chairman says“) and (“In Final Interview, Defiant Flynn Insists He Crossed No Lines, Leakers Must Be Prosecuted“) and (“Trump asked for Flynn resignation over lack of trust, White House says“) and (Dick Morris: “Flynn Was Forced Out By Obama Operatives”—”[T]here is a subversive group within the government of the United States, composed of former Obama appointees who still inhabit the bowels of these agencies . . . and these folks—who may linger for six months to a year—are using the power of the government against the president. It’s as close to an insurrection or coup d’état as you can have it in the United States. And Flynn is the first to fall to their efforts”)

The dark and sinister shadow of the racist, Barack Obama, and his operatives is ever present; and it must be purged.

See also (“Obama’s Coming Crusade Against Trump“) and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)


15 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Do-Nothing-Positive GOP Neanderthals

GOP Establishment Neanderthals

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

Let’s compare what President Trump has accomplished since the inauguration (with that enormous crowd!) with what congressional Republicans have done.

In the past three weeks, Trump has: staffed the White House, sent a dozen Cabinet nominees to the Senate, browbeat Boeing into cutting its price on a government contract, harangued American CEOs into keeping their plants in the United States, imposed a terrorist travel ban, met with foreign leaders and nominated a Supreme Court justice, among many other things.

(And still our hero finds time to torment the media with his tweets.)

What have congressional Republicans been doing? Scrapbooking?

More than 90 percent of congressional Republicans kept their jobs after the 2016 election, so you can cross “staffing an entire branch of government” off the list. Only the Senate confirms nominees, which they’ve been doing at a snail’s pace, so they’ve got loads of free time — and the House has no excuse at all.

Where’s the Obamacare repeal? Where are the hearings featuring middle-class Americans with no health insurance because it was made illegal by Obamacare?

The House passed six Obamacare repeals when Obama was president and there was no chance of them being signed into law. Back then, Republicans were full of vim and vigor! But the moment Trump became president, the repeals came to a screeching halt.

After the inauguration (gigantic!), House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put out a plan for repealing Obamacare . . . in 200 days. They actually gave their legislative agenda this inspiring title: “The Two Hundred Day Plan.”


What was in the last six Obamacare repeals? If we looked, would we find “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” carefully typed out 1 million times? Seriously, what does Paul Ryan’s day look like?

This is the Silence of the Lambs Congress. They’re utterly silent, emerging from the House gym or their three-hour lunches only to scream to the press about Trump.

To the delight of the media, these frightened little lambs are appalled by nearly everything Trump does. They’ve been especially throaty about Trump’s temporary travel ban from seven terrorist nations — as designated by the Obama administration (and by everybody else who hasn’t been in a deep freeze in a Finnish crevasse for the past decade).

Just like the six Obamacare repeals, a refugee ban was already written and passed by one house of Congress. Then suddenly: the Silence of the Lambs. McConnell and Ryan are hiding under their desks, as Trump is being attacked from every side.

Way, way back, 15 long months ago, congressional Republicans didn’t have a problem with a total ban on Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Not for a mere three months like Trump’s order — but permanently, unless the director of the FBI, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence personally certified that a particular refugee posed no danger to the U.S.

That bill passed the House with an overwhelming, veto-proof majority, including 47 Democrats. Then it went to the Senate to die.

But when President Trump imposed a comparatively mild three-month ban on immigrants from Syria, Iraq and five other terrorist nations, the same Republicans who had voted for a limitless ban on refugees whiled away their days calling reporters to denounce Trump.

A little more than a year ago, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, bragged in a press release that he had introduced the House’s refugee ban, calling it a bill that would “protect Americans from ISIS.”

But when it came to Trump’s three-month pause, McCaul told the Post that Trump’s order “went too far.”

I guess that ISIS problem just sort of faded away. (Or maybe we should check with Mrs. McCaul, inasmuch as it’s her family money that makes Rep. McCaul one of the richest members of Congress.)

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., who voted for the House’s permanent refugee ban, demanded that Trump immediately rescind his travel ban, babbling on about the “many, many nuances of immigration policy” — which he must have learned about on one of his congressional jaunts to a Las Vegas casino.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said that Trump’s order “overreaches and undermines our constitutional system.” Evidently, he was suddenly struck by the realization that it’s “not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality,” despite having voted to ban refugees on the basis of nationality just 15 months earlier. (I’m OK with this, provided the Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis are sent to live on Justin’s street after being told about his support for gay marriage.)

Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., both rushed to The Washington Post with this refreshingly original point: NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! Why, thank you, senators! Where would the GOP be without you?

The Post also quoted spokesmen — spokesmen! — for Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rob Portman of Ohio and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina complaining about not having been briefed on Trump’s order. The senators themselves were far too busy to talk to the press because they were — wait, what were they doing again? Words With Friends? Decoupage?

Since the election, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., has been mostly occupied polishing his anti-Trump quotations to get a pat on the head from an admiring media. He complained about Trump’s order, saying it was “poorly implemented” and that he had to find out about it from reporters. (I wonder why.)

This is the moment we’ve been waiting for our entire lives, but Republicans in Congress refuse to do the people’s will. Their sole, driving obsession is to see Trump fail.

I am not presently calling for these useless, narcissistic, Trump-bashing Republicans to be defeated in their re-election bids, but they’re on my Watch List. To be cleared, they can start by getting off the phone with The Washington Post and passing one of those six Obamacare repeal bills.

See (“The Silence Of The Lambs Congress”) (emphasis added)

The Democrats are pure evil and un-American, while many in the GOP are “card-carrying” Neanderthals and worthless.

This is among the reasons why so many of us left both parties years ago, and have been supporting Donald Trump, as a breath of “fresh air” in Washington’s polluted climate.


16 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Wow! Trump Approval At 55 Percent [UPDATED]

President Donald J. Trump

The highly-respected Rasmussen Reports has noted:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 38% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 36% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +2.

. . .

Questions are growing about the source of top-secret information leaked to the media to hurt the Trump administration. A plurality (47%) of voters believe America’s intelligence agencies have their own political agenda.

Nearly half (48%) also believe most reporters are biased against the president. Only 12% think they are biased for Trump, while 31% feel most reporters try to be fair and balanced. Needless to say, Republicans and Democrats strongly disagree in their assessments of the media.

While the president’s refugee freeze is tied up in the courts, the State Department has sped up acceptance of newcomers from the Middle Eastern terrorist havens targeted by the freeze. Most voters think that’s making America less safe.

. . .

Most voters support Trump’s plan to halt refugees and visas from certain countries until these newcomers can be properly vetted to screen out potential terrorists.

The president feels strongly that federal government overregulation is hurting the economy and has signed an executive order mandating that every time a government agency adds a regulation, it needs to cut two others. Most Republicans approve of Trump’s two-for-one deregulation plan; most Democrats don’t.

But voters have long felt that Wall Street got off lightly after the economic meltdown in September 2008. This helps explain why voters, including Republicans, favor more government regulation of the U.S. financial system.

Hillary Clinton recently declared that “the future is female.” Thirty-six percent (36%) of women [] agree, compared to 28% of men.

Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.

To get a sense of longer-term job approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.

Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology. . . .

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. . . .

See (emphasis added; charts omitted)

55 percent

Nonetheless, the thoroughly-corrupt and pathetically-biased media continues to spin “Fake News” and the most outrageous stories.

See, e.g., (“Trump’s Press Conference Echoes Death Throes of Watergate“); but see (“Trump Triumphs Over Press“)

Trump Press Conference, February 16, 2017:


18 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Boycott FAKE News! [UPDATED]

FAKE news

There is only one way to end or diminish FAKE news: boycott those persons and entities that purvey or dispense it.

I have been on the Internet since late 1992, almost a quarter century ago. I have not purchased a newspaper or news magazine (e.g., Time) in more than a decade. There is no need to do so: news is free on the Web, instantly.

See, e.g.,

Indeed, newspapers are dead and dinosaurs. They are like the “horse and buggy” in this digital age. The world is linked, on the Web; and traditional media sources (e.g., The Times of London, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC) are relics of the past—vestiges of a bygone era.

See, e.g., (“Priebus: Public Should Take Trump Seriously on Danger of ‘Fake News'”) and (“More Than 100 Newspapers Dumped in Year“)

Newspapers are dead


19 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trumps Speak At Melbourne

Trumps at Melbourne

Video of the Trump rally at Melbourne, Florida on February 18, 2017:


21 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

When It Comes to Chaos, Trump Has Nothing on Previous Presidents [UPDATED]

President Donald J. Trump

Edward Klein, one of America’s most celebrated journalists and a New York Times best-selling author, has written:

If you get most of your news from the mainstream media, you might come to the conclusion that the first month of Donald Trump’s administration is unique in the annals of presidential chaos and incompetence. Rather than the “well-oiled machine” touted by Trump, the press portrays his presidency as a jalopy full of circus clowns.

But is that true? Are Donald Trump’s stumbles really unique? Have previous presidents been paragons of proficiency and professionalism who’ve gotten off to a smooth start during their first 100 days?

For an answer, let’s go to the presidential videotape.

Jimmy Carter: From day 1, Carter and his bungling crew in the West Wing displayed disdain for Congress, and the result was disaster. According to the Jimmy Carter Home Page of the Miller Center on the American President, “A pattern of mutual distrust and contempt had been set [and when] Congress transformed [Carter’s] tax plan into new favors for special interests, Carter called the taxing committees ‘a pack of ravenous wolves.’” Says Princeton University historian Fred Greenstein: “The impression was [Carter] didn’t know which end was up.”

Ronald Reagan: Seventy days into his presidency, Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley while Vice President George H. W. Bush was in a plane somewhere over Texas. In the chaotic aftermath of the assassination attempt, Secretary of State Al Haig famously declared, “I’m in charge here!” He wasn’t. No one was in charge of the nuclear football. A little over a year later, both Haig and National Security Adviser Richard Allen were fired. Haig compared Reagan’s White House to a “ghost ship” with a crew of rivals fighting for control of the helm.

Bill Clinton: “Mr. Clinton’s first months were chaotic,” writes Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor. “His first two nominees for attorney general, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, both eventually withdrew due to revelations that they had employed undocumented immigrants as nannies. He became embroiled in controversy over his attempt to allow gays to serve in the military. . . . His secretary of defense, Les Aspin, proved to be too disorganized and not decisive enough to run the enormous business of the Pentagon [and] lasted a year in the job.” And then, of course, there was the first lady’s disastrous HillaryCare, which cost Clinton control of the House of Representatives—the worst election loss for a president in 100 years.

Barack Obama: Obama was forced to withdraw his choice for commerce secretary (former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson), his backup choice for commerce secretary (former Senator Judd Gregg), his pick for Health and Human Services (former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle), and his nominee to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council (Charles Freeman). As WorldNet Daily reported, this chaos was “compounded by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s admission of ‘tax goofs’ involving his failure to pay $43,000 in federal self-employment taxes for four separate years (until, that is, he was tapped for his Obama post). At least five other Treasury staff picks withdrew before the Obama administration had reached the 100-day mark.” And then, of course, there was ObamaCare, which resulted in the “shellacking” that Obama suffered in the 2010 midterm election, in which the Democrats lost a half dozen Senate seats and 60 House seats.

The Takeaway: Donald Trump may be unique in many respects, but not when it comes to presidential chaos and confusion.

Emphasis added. See also (Dick Morris: “How The Liberals Plan To Bring Trump Down “)


22 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Why Do So Many Americans Hate This Woman? [UPDATED]

Maxine Waters

The Gateway Pundit has reported:

Far left Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has taken on the role of spokesperson for the Democrat Party since the November election.

During an appearance on MSNBC’s All in with Chris Hayes, Democrat Maxine Waters read off a list of people connected to the Trump team who also have connections to Russia and the oil and gas industry.

Waters then went on to call the Trump administration a “bunch of scumbags.”

Two weeks ago Maxine Waters told reporters Russian leader Vladimir Putin invaded Korea.

See (“Democrat Maxine Waters Calls Trump Cabinet Picks: ‘A Bunch of Scumbags’ (VIDEO)”) (emphasis added)

The new face of the Left’s and far-Left’s politics—aka the Democrats and so-called “progressives”—seems to be Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren.

With a cast of characters like this one. President Donald Trump and the GOP should waltz to election victories next year and beyond.

See also (“Ellison holds edge in DNC race survey“)


22 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Americans Hate Both Political Parties And Rightly So [UPDATED]

No Justice

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

Americans thought electing a trash-talking billionaire reality TV star to the presidency of the #$%^ United States would finally be enough to convey the message that they hate both political parties. If anything, they hate Republicans more.

But the Uni-Party can’t learn. The bureaucracy, the judiciary and congressional Republicans are all openly working for the “Resistance.” It’s President Trump against the world.

In Congress, the hate for Trump is personal. Not only did he throw a grenade into politicians’ little do-nothing club, but his very existence destroys their self-conception as people with a set of skills.

While Trump was making billions of dollars building skyscrapers, developing golf courses and starring on a hit reality TV show, members of Congress were slowly working their way up the political ladder — interning at think tanks and congressional offices, taking some small government job, then running for the House or Senate, and, hopefully, marrying a woman with a large inheritance.

A stunning number of senators and congressmen are supported by rich wives — Sens. John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Richard Blumenthal, John Kerry and Ron Wyden, and Reps. Michael McCaul, Scott Peters and Paul Ryan, to name a few. Is there any other profession with as high a percentage of men sponging off their wives’ inheritances?

Then a self-made billionaire came along, violated all the rules they had lived by, and swept aside more than a dozen experienced politicians just like themselves! Not only did Trump make his own money, but he beat them at the one thing they thought they knew how to do.

How else to explain Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s sneering dismissal of Trump’s request for an investigation into voter fraud, followed — one week later! — by McConnell’s assurance that the Senate would investigate former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s phone call to the Russian ambassador?

These useless Republicans allowed a Senate seat to be stolen from under their noses in Minnesota in 2008, giving Obama the vote he needed to pass Obamacare and destroy our health care.

No, don’t investigate that! Why bother with the very foundation of democracy? How will these nitwit politicians win praise from The Washington Post without devoting all their energy to some current leftist fetish, like Russia?

At least when liberals fixate on Russia, they have a clear subversive mission.

Congressional Republicans are just nincompoops. The only thing they know is: Imitate Reagan — from 30 years ago. It would make more sense for Republicans to demand that all air traffic controllers be fired for no reason than it is for them to keep treating Putin like it’s 1950 and he’s Stalin. (We know Putin isn’t Stalin because Democrats aren’t affectionately calling him “Uncle Joe” and spying for him.)

If senators have time for hearings on Flynn’s discussions with the Russian ambassador, could they possibly squeeze in an afternoon to repeal Obamacare?

How about the campaign pledge that rocketed Trump to the White House? According to The Washington Post, at the GOP retreat last month, when Trump talked about using tax policy to help pay for the wall, Republicans expressed “confusion about what exactly he meant.”

Are they retarded? (By “they,” I mean all Republicans in Congress, except Sen. Tom Cotton and about a half-dozen others.)

If Republicans had an ounce of self-respect, right after repealing Obamacare and writing a bill taxing remittances to make Mexico pay for the wall, they’d be impeaching the ridiculous Judge James Robart. Even lawyers who oppose Trump’s travel ban agree that Judge Robart made a complete ass of himself when he blocked the executive order.

The “Resistance” claims to be terrified that Trump will not be constrained by our Constitution, but they’re the ones who are perfectly willing to disregard the Constitution simply to stop Trump.

At least since the Chinese exclusion case of 1889, the Supreme Court has made blindingly clear that “the power of exclusion of foreigners” belongs to the political branches of government: Congress and the president — not to the judiciary.

The president’s authority to exclude aliens in the public interest has been reaffirmed in dozens of cases since then. Among them:

— Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952): “Any policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with . . . the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.”

— Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953): “Congress expressly authorized the President to impose additional restrictions on aliens entering or leaving the United States during periods of international tension and strife. . . . (The President) may shut out aliens whose ‘entry would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States.’”

— Mathews v. Diaz (1976): “(T)he responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of the Federal Government. . . . (Therefore, there is) a narrow standard of review of decisions made by the Congress or the President in the area of immigration and naturalization.”

— United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal (1982): “The power to regulate immigration — an attribute of sovereignty essential to the preservation of any nation — has been entrusted by the Constitution to the political branches of the Federal Government.”

— INS. v. Aguirre-Aguirre (1999): “(J)udicial deference to the Executive Branch is especially appropriate in the immigration context where officials ‘exercise especially sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign relations.’”

And on and on and on.

There are lots of constitutional questions that reasonable people can disagree about. Whether the president can exclude foreigners from seven terror-prone countries is not one of them.

But congressional Republicans are happy to ignore the Constitution, ignore the balance of powers, ignore written law, even to relinquish their own constitutional authority and let the courts run our foreign policy, just to be a part of the establishment’s STOP TRUMP movement.

Instead of neurotically fixating on Russia in some fantasy camp imitation of Reagan, circa 1982, what we’d like these worthless Republicans to do is: Imitate Trump — circa now.

See (emphasis added)

There is no question that the total scumbag and “ridiculous Judge James Robart” should be impeached. And his impeachment should be just the beginning of a very long list of impeachments to rid our judiciary of lawless judges.

As Ann Coulter has written, correctly:

Even lawyers who oppose Trump’s travel ban agree that Judge Robart made a complete ass of himself when he blocked the executive order.



3 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

A Must Read: War—Obama Is Pure Evil! [UPDATED}


The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation’s capital – just two miles away from the White House – into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.

Obama’s goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.

And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with the former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends.

Jarrett played a vital – if at times low-key – role in the Obama presidency. She lived in the White House, dined with the Obamas, and help shape his domestic and foreign policies.

The former president has set up an office on the West End of the national’s capitol, where he recently hosted an open house for his White House staff – including Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Josh Earnest and Jarrett.

But the office, part of his post presidency perks, cannot be used for political purposes. The rent on his home is paid by him personally.

On Tuesday, former Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that Obama is indeed getting closer to making his public reappearance in politics.

‘It’s coming. He’s coming,’ Holder said speaking to reporters. ‘And he’s ready to roll.’

According to the family source, Obama was at first reluctant to assume the role of leader of the opposition.

‘No longer the most powerful man in the world, he was just observing Trump and not liking what he saw,’ said the source.

‘He was weary and burned out after eight years in office. But Valerie convinced him that he didn’t have any choice if he wanted to save his legacy. And, as usual, he bowed to Valerie’s political wisdom and advice.’

In his only public comment against Trump since leaving the presidency, Obama came out in support of the protests opposing President Donald Trump’s executive order to restrict immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.

A spokesman said the former president thinks they’re ‘citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.’

After Obama left office, Jarrett moved all her White House belonging into the Kalorama mansion.

‘There was never any doubt that Valerie would have a suite of rooms in the house that the Obama’s [sic] are renting,’ said the source. ‘Obama trusts her judgment more than any other person on the planet, as does Michelle.

Obama doesn’t make a decision without her.’

Spurred on by Jarrett and Michelle, the ex-president has come to embrace his role as the leader of the opposition against Trump, whose policies he loathes and whose presidency he considers illegitimate.

‘He is going to use his immense popularity with the half of the country that identifies as liberals and progressives,’ said the Obama family source. ‘Millions of Americans are energized and ready to take to the streets to oppose Trump, but they need to be organized and have their anger focused and directed.

‘Obama is dismayed at the way Trump is tearing down his legacy—ObamaCare, the social safety net and the welcome mat for refugees he put in place,’ the source continued.

Trump’s cabinet picks are also problematic for the former president, especially Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, whom Obama regards as too racially insensitive to be in charge of the Civil Rights division at Justice.

Leaving Jim Comey as FBI Director is another thorn in Obama’s side. He blames Comey for announcing that he was reopening the FBI investigation into Hillary’s emails eleven days before the election, which, in Obama’s view, was an irresponsible act that helped elect Trump.

‘He had hoped to write his memoirs, golf to his heart’s content. and bask in the glory of his eight years in power and the progressive achievements he brought about. Instead, he is going to be leading the fight and strategy to topple Trump.’ says the insider.

The Kalorama house, which the Obama’s are renting from Joe Lockhart, who was Bill Clinton’s press secretary, is still being refurbished and redecorated by Michelle.

‘Michelle and Valerie have changed their minds many times over about colors, carpets, wall paper, furnishing and art,’ said the source.

Michelle hired Los Angeles-based interior designer Michel S. Smith, who designed several rooms in The White House during their residence, to decorate the Kalorama home. Smith will also decorate the Obama’s new home in Rancho Mirage, California.

According to the source, Michelle and Valerie have big plans for traveling and shopping as well as strategizing over Trump.

The friend said that Valerie and her signature enormous totes are going to be packed and ready to go for shopping sprees with Michelle from their native Chicago to Paris and the Far East, including Shanghai.

‘They feel like they have had some great trips while in the White House, but were always working and being herded around,’ said the source. ‘Now they are planning to travel together – home to Chicago, to Paris and Shanghai, and shop to their heart’s content.

‘The Obamas both love the Kalorama house and are making it their own,’ continued the source. ‘They have plans to build a pool on the grounds. And they are almost certainly going to wind up buying the house from Lockart in the next few years.

‘They are also planning to have a house in Hawaii, as well as in Chicago, where the Obama Presidential Library will be built. But Kalorama, where the Washington action takes place, is going to be home base.’

See (“Barack Obama’s close confidante Valerie Jarrett has moved into his new DC home, which is now the nerve center for their plan to mastermind the insurgency against President Trump“) (emphasis added); see also (“Barack Obama and His Deep State Operatives Are Attempting to Sabotage the Duly Elected President of the United States”—”This story is about Barack Obama and the Democrat Party attempting to sabotage the Trump presidency and do everything they can to either render it meaningless and ineffective or to get him impeached or force him to resign”—”[T]his is the only option the Democrats have open is to try to convince as many people as possible that Hillary should have won the election, that Trump is illegitimate, that Trump’s victory was the result of cheating and fakery and maybe foreign espionage. That’s all they’ve got”—”[T]hey’re going after all of the people who are the closest advisers to Trump. They took out Rudy Giuliani right after the election with stories about his supposed ties to foreign governments”—”It is all about Barack Obama and the Democrat Party attempting to unseat President Trump. It’s all about sabotage and a scandal from the highest levels of the Democrat Party. That’s what is happening here”) and (“Sessions Under Fire: GOP Rushes to Eat Their Own Again“)

Aside from being a black racist, Barack Obama is pure evil.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

The Left and far-Left, aka the Democrats (or self-styled “progressives”) and their lapdogs in the Mainstream Media, are determined to destroy the Trump presidency in its incipiency.

Having lost the election, and races across this great country, they are bent on using every trick and “dirty trick” imaginable to achieve their objective. They must not be given any red meat. Those of us who lived through Watergate remember their tactics vividly.

This “war” began on the day that Donald Trump was elected. At least Richard Nixon had a “grace period.” President Trump and his new administration have none.

See also (“Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump”—”Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration”—”Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation”)


6 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Victims of Obama’s Many Wiretaps


The Gateway Pundit has reported:

The Main Stream Media and other enemies of the current President are challenging the proposition that President Obama wire tapped President Donald Trump during the 2016 Presidential race. President Trump started this discussion with his tweets over the weekend.

In his first tweet President Trump tweeted:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

He next tweeted:

Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

Next the President tweeted:

I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

The final for four tweets concerning the wire tapping:

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

This is now being referred to as Obamagate!

It is not unfounded that former President Obama would wire tap President Trump during the election process. This is because he has done this before. Here is a list of individuals who were wire tapped by the Obama Administration.

WikiLeaks released the following list on February 23rd . . . of Obama Administration wire taps:

* The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;

* Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;

* Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;

* Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;

* Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);

* Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;

* Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and

* Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.

In addition to the above list we also know now that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration. It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:

* In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks. The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked.

* Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance. The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.”

* Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration. A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.

Update – WikiLeaks tweeted overnight that the Obama Administration spied on their journalists as well:

Obama is no stranger to wire tapping. His administration tapped phones and computers of friends and foe alike.

See (“Here’s the List: More Than a Dozen Proven Victims of Obama’s Many Wiretaps“) (emphasis added); see also (“A Must Read: War—Obama Is Pure Evil!“)


7 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Who Inside The U.S. Government Is Trying To Destroy The President?

Breaking Trump

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

At Mar-a-Lago this weekend President Donald Trump was filled “with fury” says The Washington Post, “mad — steaming, raging, mad.”

Early Saturday the fuming president exploded with this tweet: “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

The president has reason to be enraged. For what is afoot is a loose but broad conspiracy to break and bring him down, abort his populist agenda, and overturn the results of the 2016 election.

At its heart is the “deep state” — agents of the intel community, their media collaborators, and their amen corner in a Democratic party whose control of our permanent government is all but total.

At the heart of the case against Trump is what appears to be a Big Lie.

It is that Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s email account, then colluded with Trump’s friends or associates to systematically sabotage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Therefore, Trump stole the election and is an illegitimate president. In this city, Trump is looked upon as a border-jumper, an illegal alien.

Yet let us consider the constituent components of the charge.

For months, we have heard that U.S. intel agencies agree that the Russians hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign, and gave the fruits of their cybertheft to WikiLeaks, because Putin wanted Trump to win.

For months, this storyline has been investigated by the FBI and the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress.

Yet where is the body of evidence that the Russians did this?

More critically, where is the evidence Trump’s people played an active role in the operation? Why is it taking the FBI the better part of a year to come up with a single indictment in this Trump-Putin plot?

Is this all smoke and mirrors?

In late February, The New York Times reported that Trump officials had been in regular touch with Russian intelligence officers.

The smoking gun had been found!

Yet, almost immediately after that report, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told Fox News “the top levels of the intelligence community” had assured him that the allegations of campaign contacts with Russia were “not only grossly overstated, but also wrong.”

If what Reince says is true, the real crime here is U.S. security officials enlisting their Fourth Estate collaborators, who enjoy First Amendment privileges against having to testify under oath or being prosecuted, to undermine the elected commander in chief.

Now we expect Russia to seek to steal our secrets as we steal theirs. After all, our NSA wiretapped Angela Merkel and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Our National Endowment for Democracy pushes “color revolutions” to bring about regime change in the near abroad of Putin’s Russian Federation.

Our NGOs are being restricted, shut down, expelled from Russia, China, Israel and Egypt, because they have been caught interfering in the internal affairs of those countries.

There is talk that Putin use the pilfered emails as payback for Clinton’s urging demonstrators to take to the streets of Moscow to protest a narrow victory by his United Russia party in 2011.

As for the alleged wiretapping of Trump Tower, President Obama has denied ordering any such thing and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper assures us nothing of the sort was ever done.

Yet, there are other reports that intelligence officials got a warrant to surveil Trump campaign officials or the Trump Tower, and, though failing to succeed in the FISA court that authorizes such surveillance in June, they did succeed in October.

If true, this is a far more explosive matter than whether a Trump aide may have told the Russians, “You’re doing a great job!” when WikiLeaks blew DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz out of her job for tilting the playing field against Bernie Sanders in the primaries.

What needs to be done now?

The White House should tell the Justice Department to tell the FBI to expedite its investigation and file a report on what was done by the Russians. And if any Trump campaign official criminally colluded with the Russians, send the recommendation to indict to Justice.

The acting attorney general should instruct Director James Comey to run down, remove and recommend for prosecution any FBI or intel agent who has leaked the fruits of their investigation, or fake news, to the media. If Comey cannot find the source of the leaks, or lies, coming out of this investigation, a housecleaning may be needed at the bureau.

While President Obama may not have ordered any surveillance of Trump or his advisors, the real question is whether he or Attorney General Loretta Lynch were aware of or approved of any surveillance of Trump and his staff during the campaign.

Russian hacking of the DNC is a problem, not a scandal. The scandal is this: Who inside the government of the United States is trying to discredit, damage or destroy the President of the United States?

For these are the real subversives.

See (“The Beltway Conspiracy to Break Trump“) (emphasis added); see also (“Victims of Obama’s Many Wiretaps“) and (“A Must Read: War—Obama Is Pure Evil!“)


7 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Investigate Obamagate!


Jeffrey Lord—a former member of the Ronald Reagan administration, a journalist, author, and political strategist—has written:

Obamagate is here.

And Mark Levin is on the case. First on his Thursday radio show and then in his appearance on Fox and Friends over the weekend, Mark laid out in chapter and verse the mainstream media’s own reporting that the Obama administration was responsible for using government agencies to spy on its political opponents — namely Donald Trump, his aides, and then-U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, now the Attorney General of the United States.

Said the former chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III:

This is not about President Trump’s tweeting; this is about the Obama administration spying. . . . The issue isn’t whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign or transition of surrogates; the issue is the extent of it . . . . Donald Trump is the victim. His campaign is the victim. His transition team is the victim. His surrogates are the victim.

To the question of whether former President Obama was involved? After noting that there were repeated stories on the government’s spying of Trump and others in the New York Times and the Washington Post — newspapers unquestionably well-read by the Obama White House — the talk radio host added: “I will tell you this, he’s more involved than he says; it’s his executive branch.”


Is this another Watergate? Here’s the History Channel’s description of the original Watergate scandal that eventually forced the resignation of President Richard Nixon, [italics] supplied:

Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), located in the Watergate building in Washington, D.C. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising “hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members.

Note well: Watergate began with an attempt to wiretap phones — which is to say spy on the target, in this case the Democratic National Committee and its then-chairman, ex-JFK and LBJ aide Lawrence O’Brien.

On his radio show and in his Fox appearance, Mark Levin lays out eight specific examples of reporting by no less than the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the McClatchy news service, and Heat Street, the libertarian website. Of all these sources cited, only Heat Street would be considered a “right-wing” site, as it is libertarian-oriented. The rest, every one, are part of the left-leaning “mainstream” media in the United States and, in the case of the Guardian, the United Kingdom.

So, again, for the record, let’s look at the stories Mark Levin has found that emphatically bolster President Trump’s belief that the Obama Administration was spying on him.

1. Heat Street on November 7, 2017:

EXCLUSIVE: FBI ‘Granted FISA Warrant’ Covering Trump Camp’s Ties to Russia

Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of “U.S. persons” in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.

2. The Guardian on January 11, 2017:

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

3. McClatchy on January 18, 2017:

FBI, 5 other agencies probe possible covert Kremlin aid to Trump

WASHINGTON — The FBI and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided President-elect Donald Trump, two people familiar with the matter said.

The agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence, the sources said.

4. The New York Times on January 19, 2017:

Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates

WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump. . . .

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

5. The New York Times, January 12, 2017:

N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications

WASHINGTON — In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

6. The New York Times, March 1, 2017:

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators. . . .

As WikiLeaks was pushing out emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee through online publication, American intelligence began picking up conversations in which Russian officials were discussing contacts with Trump associates, and European allies were starting to pass along information about people close to Mr. Trump meeting with Russians in the Netherlands, Britain and other countries.

7. The New York Times, February 9, 2017:

Flynn Is Said to Have Talked to Russians About Sanctions Before Trump Took Office

WASHINGTON — Weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed American sanctions against Russia, as well as areas of possible cooperation, with that country’s ambassador to the United States, according to current and former American officials. . . .

But current and former American officials said that conversation — which took place the day before the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia over accusations that it used cyberattacks to help sway the election in Mr. Trump’s favor — ranged far beyond the logistics of a post-inauguration phone call. And they said it was only one in a series of contacts between the two men that began before the election and also included talk of cooperating in the fight against the Islamic State, along with other issues.

8. The Washington Post, March 2, 2017:

. . . The Wall Street Journal, following The Post’s report, added that “U.S. investigators have examined contacts . . . Sessions had with Russian officials during the time he was advising” Trump’s campaign. “The outcome of the inquiry, and whether it is ongoing, wasn’t clear,” per Carol E. Lee, Christopher S. Stewart, Rob Barry and Shane Harris. “The contacts were being examined as part of a wide-ranging U.S. counterintelligence investigation into possible communications between members of Mr. Trump’s campaign team and Russian operatives.”

And then there’s this.

The New York Times, January 20, 2017:


Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides

In this story the Times reports that “. . . wiretapped communications had been provided to the (Obama) White House.”

But barely a month later the Times headlines this:

Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones

And the kicker here? Times reporter Michael Schmidt co-wrote both stories. The first on January 20th headlining “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides” — and the March story saying: “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.”


Last but not least there is this interview with former Bush 43 Attorney General Michael Mukasey over on ABC, with the questioning by Martha Raddatz. Here is part of the transcript as supplied by ABC:


RADDATZ: You heard about them.

MUKASEY: Yeah, I hear about them, but I don’t do tweets and for good reason. It’s not the’ ideal medium in which to get an idea across.

This is the difference between being correct and being right. I think the president was not correct certainly in saying that President Obama ordered a tap on a server in Trump Tower. However, I think he’s right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney — of the Justice Department through the FISA court.

RADDATZ: And what do you base that on?

MUKASEY: I base that on news reports that you mentioned in the last spot. I also base it on kind of inadvertent blurting out by (Democratic Congressman from Washington) Adam Schiff that his committee wants to talk to the counterintelligence agents at the FBI who were involved in this. Now, what that means is this is part not of a criminal investigation, but of an intelligence gathering investigation.

The FBI has got two functions. They investigate crimes and they gather intelligence. They started gathering intelligence in ’08 based on guidelines that we put in place.

They tried to get — apparently tried to get a wiretap based on their criminal investigation function in June. That was turned down. They then tried to get, and got, an order permitting them to conduct electronic surveillance in October. This is October of 2016.

So that’s when, apparently, that’s when . . .

RADDATZ: And again you’re basing this on news reports as well.

MUKASEY: And on, and on, Adam Schiff.

RADDATZ: And on Adam Schiff. If a wiretap did exist, it would have to have been approved by a FISA court based on real evidence. So, if there was a wiretap, does that mean there were suspicious things going on between the Trump administration and the Russians?

MUKASEY: It means there were some basis to believe that somebody in Trump Tower may have been acting as an agent of the Russians, for whatever purpose, not necessarily the election, but for some purpose.

And the FBI keeps track of people who act as agents of foreign governments. They keep track of people who act as agents of the Chinese, the Russians, the Israelis, everybody.

RADDATZ: Some of the evidence may have been gleaned from classified means. Is there any way to verify these claims in the press or Trump’s claims so the American people can really understand what’s going on here?

MUKASEY: The only way to verify, whether there was a — whether there was electronic surveillance is to disclose the warrant and to disclose the fruits of it. And that should not be done even in a political storm as hot as this one.

Over at National Review, the redoubtable Andrew C. McCarthy, who has been following all of this since January with his keen legal eye . . . , has in his latest headlined the obvious:

While You Weren’t Looking, the Democrat-Media Election-Hacking Narrative Just Collapsed

Writes Andy ([italics] supplied by me):

That supposed FBI investigation of collusion with the Russians? Never mind. . . . They’re in retreat now.

You may have missed it amid President Trump’s startling Saturday tweet storm, the recriminations over president-on-candidate spying, and the Jeff Sessions recusal — a whirlwind weekend. But while you weren’t looking, an elaborate narrative died. . . .

But still, the media and Democrats have always had a serious vulnerability here — one they’ve never acknowledged because they’ve been too swept away by the political success of the fantasy narrative. It is this: At a certain point, if compelling evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the election did not materialize, the much more interesting question becomes “How did the government obtain all this information that has been leaked to the media to prop up the story?”

The most plausible answer to that question: The Obama administration, through the Justice Department and the FBI, was investigating the associates of the opposition party’s presidential nominee, and perhaps even the nominee himself, during the campaign. Otherwise, what explanation can there be for all of the investigative information — much of it classified, and thus illegal to disclose — that has been funneled to the press?

In other words? In other words, the repeated stories in the liberal outlets the New York Times and the Washington Post — have now effectively hoist[ed] the liberal media on their own petard. Liberals wanted an investigation — and now they are being joined by conservatives. And yes indeed, via press secretary Sean Spicer, President Trump is now calling for an investigation “to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016.” Now that we all agree, let’s start digging.

In 1974 the House of Representatives was preparing to pass articles of impeachment for Richard Nixon. Nixon, back against the wall, was never impeached because he resigned before the process could get any further. Recall Article One, [italics] supplied:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence.

Which is to say Nixon was being held responsible for the Watergate break-in, something it was never proven — to this day — that he knew of much less authorized. Be that as it may, it was his campaign committee who sent those “Watergate burglars” into the DNC offices in the dead of night to tap the DNC phones. Everything that transpired afterwards came from that unalterable fact.

What we have here is no “conspiracy theory.” This is an administration that investigated the emails of Fox journalist James Rosen. This is the administration that employed Lois Lerner and all of that abuse at the IRS. What we have here this time — as repeatedly reported by the Times and the Post — is an admission that, to quote McCarthy again, “The Obama administration, through the Justice Department and the FBI, was investigating the associates of the opposition party’s presidential nominee, and perhaps even the nominee himself, during the campaign.”

Exactly right. In other words? Collectively? This is a really, really big deal.

Obamagate is here. And it is not going away. By all means, bring on the grand juries and the congressional investigations. ASAP.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Who Inside The U.S. Government Is Trying To Destroy The President?“) and (“The Beltway Conspiracy to Break Trump“) and (“Victims of Obama’s Many Wiretaps“) and (“A Must Read: War—Obama Is Pure Evil!“)


8 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Criminal Hillary Means To Run Again

Ed Klein: Guilty As Sin

In an article entitled “What Is Huma Up To — And Why Should We Care?” Edward Klein—one of America’s most celebrated journalists and a New York Times best-selling author—has written about Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin:

The gossip sphere was atwitter recently when Huma Abedin, the estranged wife of scandal-scarred Anthony Weiner and Hillary Clinton’s longtime confidante, met for lunch with Vogue editor Anna Wintour.

The two women were spotted enjoying a private tete-a-tete at Il Cantinori, a favorite celebrity hangout in Greenwich Village. They’re good friends—Wintour held fundraisers for Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign and she profiled Abedin in the pages of Vogue.

Beyond their mutual admiration for Hillary, Abedin and Wintour share a passion for fashion, and sources tell me that among the things they discussed over lunch was Wintour’s offer to help Abedin find a job in the fashion business.

Now that Abedin is a single mother and her soon-to-be-ex-husband is in sex-addiction rehab and out of work, she needs a steady, well-paying job.

Her conversation with Wintour was based on the assumption that, following Hillary’s defeat at the polls, Hillary was bidding farewell to elective politics, dismantling her campaign staff, and no longer needed Abedin to hold her hand.

They were wrong.

When Abedin informed Hillary of her desire to seek a career in fashion, Hillary vetoed the idea.

Hillary told Abedin that she was utterly serious about running again for the White House. She intends to fight for control of the Democratic Party apparatus and ultimately launch a “listening tour” as a prelude to another try for the presidency.

Hillary blamed many members of her campaign staff for her defeat to Donald Trump, but she never blamed Abedin. She reportedly told Abedin that she was “irreplaceable,” and she backed up her words of praise by giving Abedin a substantial raise on the staff of the Clinton Foundation.

Since then, Abedin has spent much of her time at Hillary’s homes in Chappaqua and Washington, D.C.

“Huma and Hillary are inseparable again, joined at the hip,” says a source close to the Clintons. “Huma’s presence at Hillary’s side is proof positive that Hillary means to run again.”

Emphasis added; see also (“From The Political Grave: Hillary Clinton’s Latest Criminality“) and (“Clinton Fatigue“)

Hillary Clinton may be indicted, convicted and imprisoned, which would be the result of her flagrant criminality and the failure of Barack Obama to pardon her.

Huma Abedin may join her in prison, where their fellow inmates might mete out true justice to both of them.

And then there is “Obamagate” . . .

See, e.g., (“Investigate Obamagate!“)


24 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

It Is Time To “Cantorize” Paul Ryan! [UPDATED]

Paul Ryan

Bloomberg has reported:

In public, President Donald Trump is standing by House Speaker Paul Ryan over the Obamacare replacement bill.

Behind the scenes, the president’s aides are planning to blame Ryan if there is an embarrassing defeat on a bill that has been a Republican goal for more than seven years, a senior administration official said.

The House is expected to vote this afternoon on the health bill, which is opposed by all Democrats and may not enjoy enough support among either conservative or moderate Republicans. The conservative House Freedom Caucus negotiated several changes to the bill to win over its members.

Ryan is coming to the White House to brief Trump on the bill’s status, three Republican officials said. Several House Republicans including the chairman of the Appropriations Committee announced in the morning that they would vote against the measure, making its prospects grim.

On Thursday, Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, took the unusual step of traveling to Capitol Hill to deliver an ultimatum: take the vote on Friday, win or lose. Ryan had sought to carefully build a majority for the bill, and it would be highly unusual for him to call the vote without knowing if it would pass.

Little Choice

Ryan had little choice but go along with the administration’s gambit.

Trump said Friday at the White House that Ryan shouldn’t lose his job if the bill goes down. He also said “no” when asked if the bill had been rushed or if he regretted pursuing a replacement of the Affordable Care Act ahead of other priorities such as a tax overhaul.

But asked whether Trump, Ryan, or the Freedom Caucus chairman, North Carolina Republican Mark Meadows, would be most to blame if the bill fails, the administration official said Ryan. The official insisted on anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

A senior Republican aide said that a Trump tweet on Friday indicated he would blame the Freedom Caucus for the bill’s failure. Ryan has been in close contact throughout the bill’s development and consideration, and both politicians understand that they have much at stake in the legislation, the aide said, calling the bill the most conservative version of an Obamacare repeal that could pass Congress.

Several Trump associates have already laid groundwork to blame the speaker, who butted heads with Trump repeatedly before his election.

“I think Paul Ryan did a major disservice to President Trump, I think the president was extremely courageous in taking on health care and trusted others to come through with a program he could sign off on,” Chris Ruddy, chief executive officer of Newsmax and a long-time friend of Trump’s, said in an interview last week. “The President had confidence Paul Ryan would come up with a good plan and to me, it is disappointing.”

A Trump associate who requested anonymity to discuss the president’s views on the matter said that White House chief of staff Reince Priebus may also be imperiled.

Trump’s core supporters regarded Ryan as at best unimportant during the presidential campaign and at worst a poster child for the sort of establishment, scripted politician they loathed.

Still, Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and top White House aides had been working closely with Ryan on a health bill since the election and were heavily involved in negotiations to reach a deal, according to a senior Republican aide. That leaves questions about whether they’ll be able to cooperate to pull the party together on other tough issues, crucially a tax overhaul that Trump has said is a personal priority.

See (“White House Preparing to Blame Ryan If Health Bill Fails, Official Says“) (emphasis added); see also (“GOP health-care bill: House Republican leaders abruptly pull their rewrite of the nation’s health-care law“)

It was a mistake to elevate Paul Ryan to House Speaker. After all, when he was Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate, he could not even carry his own state of Wisconsin for the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Since then, his ineptitude has been on full display. Like his House leadership colleague who was defeated for reelection, Eric Cantor—one-time GOP “rising star,” and House Majority Leader from Virginia—it is time to send Ryan packing too.

Inevitably, in the ways of Washington, he is likely to become a high-paid lobbyist, but at least he will not be able to do any more damage as a Member of Congress.

See also (“Paul Nehlen Rises While Paul Ryan Plummets To 43 Percent In New Primary Poll”)

Trump and Ryan


28 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Democrats Now Own Obamacare, Again


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

Did the Freedom Caucus just pull the Republican Party back off the ledge, before it jumped to its death? A case can be made for that.

Before the American Health Care Act, aka “Ryancare,” was pulled off the House floor Friday, it enjoyed the support — of 17 percent of Americans. Had it passed, it faced an Antietam in the GOP Senate, and probable defeat.

Had it survived there, to be signed by President Trump, it would have meant 14 million Americans losing their health insurance in 2018.

First among the losers would have been white working-class folks who delivered the Rust Belt states to President Trump.

“Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan,” said JFK.

So, who are the losers here?

First and foremost, Speaker Paul Ryan and House Republicans who, having voted 50 times over seven years to repeal Obamacare, we learned, had no consensus plan ready to replace it.

Moreover, they put a bill on the floor many had not read, and for which they did not have the votes.

More than a defeat, this was a humiliation. For the foreseeable future, a Republican Congress and president will coexist with a health care regime that both loathe but cannot together repeal and replace.

Moreover, this defeat suggests that, given the ideological divide in the GOP, and the unanimous opposition of congressional Democrats, the most impressive GOP majorities since the 1920s may be impotent to enact any major complicated or complex legislation.

Friday’s failure appears to be another milestone in the decline and fall of Congress, which the Constitution, in Article I, fairly anoints as our first branch of government.

Through the last century, Congress has steadily surrendered its powers, with feeble resistance, to presidents, the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve, the regulatory agencies, even the bureaucracy.

The long retreat goes on.

Another truth was reconfirmed Friday. Once an entitlement program has been created with millions of beneficiaries, it becomes almost impossible to repeal. As Ronald Reagan said, “A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

Nor did President Trump escape unscathed.

Among the reasons he was elected was the popular belief, which carried him through scrapes that would have sunk other candidates, that, whatever his faults or failings, he was a doer, a man of action — “He gets things done!”

To have failed on his first big presidential project has thus been an occasion of merriment for the boo-birds in the Beltway bleachers.

Yet, still, Trump’s Saturday tweet — “Obamacare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan … Do not worry!” — may prove prophetic.

Now that “Trumpcare” or “Ryancare” is gone, the nation must live with Obamacare. A Democratic program from birth, it is visibly failing. And Democrats now own it again, as not one Democrat was there to help reform it. In the off-year election of 2018, they may be begging for Republican help in reforming the health care system.

After what he sees as a wonderful win, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer now intends to block a Senate vote on Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, and thus force Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to muster 60 votes to halt a Democratic filibuster.

Should Schumer persist, Senate Republicans will exercise the “nuclear option,” i.e., change the rules to allow debate to be cut off with 51 votes, and then elevate Gorsuch with their own slim majority.

Why would Schumer squander his political capital by denying a quality candidate like Judge Gorsuch a vote? Does he also think that a collapsing Obamacare — even its backers believe is in need of corrective surgery — will be an asset for his imperiled colleagues in 2018? The last time Democrats headed down that Radical Road and nominated George McGovern, they lost 49 states.

While the Republicans have sustained a defeat, this is not the end of the world. And there was an implied warning in the president’s Sunday tweet:

“Democrats are smiling in D.C. that the Freedom Caucus, with the help of Club For Growth and Heritage, have saved Planned Parenthood & Ocare.”

What Trump is explaining here is that, if Republican majorities in the House and Senate cannot or will not unite with his White House behind solutions on health care, taxes, infrastructure, border security, he will seek out moderate Democrats to get the work done.

This humiliation of Obamacare reform may prove a watershed for the Trump presidency. What he is saying is simple and direct:

I am a Republican president who wants to work with Republicans. But if they cannot or will not work with me, I will find another partner with whom to form coalitions to write the laws and enact the reforms America needs, because, in the last analysis, while party unity is desirable, the agenda I was elected to enact is critical.

The health care defeat yet may prove to be another example of winning by losing.

See (“The Ryancare Route — Winning by Losing?“) (emphasis added)


28 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Signs Order Sweeping Away Obama-Era Climate Policies

Global warming swindle

Reuters has reported:

U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to undo a slew of Obama-era climate change regulations that his administration says is hobbling oil drillers and coal miners, a move environmental groups have vowed to take to court.

The decree’s main target is former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan that required states to slash carbon emissions from power plants – a critical element in helping the United States meet its commitments to a global climate change accord reached by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015.

The so-called “Energy Independence” order also reverses a ban on coal leasing on federal lands, undoes rules to curb methane emissions from oil and gas production, and reduces the weight of climate change and carbon emissions in policy and infrastructure permitting decisions.

“I am taking historic steps to lift restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion, and to cancel job-killing regulations,” Trump said at the Environmental Protection Agency headquarters, speaking on a stage lined with coal miners.

The wide-ranging order is the boldest yet in Trump’s broader push to cut environmental regulation to revive the drilling and mining industries, a promise he made repeatedly during the presidential campaign. But energy analysts and executives have questioned whether the moves will have a big effect on their industries, and environmentalists have called them reckless.

“I cannot tell you how many jobs the executive order is going to create but I can tell you that it provides confidence in this administration’s commitment to the coal industry,” Kentucky Coal Association president Tyler White told Reuters.

Trump signed the order with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Vice President Mike Pence by his side.

U.S. presidents have aimed to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, which triggered soaring prices. But the United States still imports about 7.9 million barrels of crude oil a day, almost enough meet total oil demand in Japan and India combined.

While Trump’s administration has said reducing environmental regulation will create jobs, some green groups have countered that rules supporting clean energy have done the same.

The number of jobs in the U.S. wind power industry rose 32 percent last year while solar power jobs rose by 25 percent, according to a Department of Energy study.


Environmental groups hurled scorn on Trump’s order, arguing it is dangerous and goes against the broader global trend toward cleaner energy technologies.

“These actions are an assault on American values and they endanger the health, safety and prosperity of every American,” said billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer, the head of activist group NextGen Climate.

Green group Earthjustice was one of many organizations that said it will fight the order both in and out of court. “This order ignores the law and scientific reality,” said its president, Trip Van Noppen.

An overwhelming majority of scientists believe that human use of oil and coal for energy is a main driver of climate change, causing a damaging rise in sea levels, droughts, and more frequent violent storms.

But Trump and several members of his administration have doubts about climate change, and Trump promised during his campaign to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord, arguing it would hurt U.S. business.

Since being elected Trump has been mum on the Paris deal and the executive order does not address it.

Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change who helped broker the Paris accord, lamented Trump’s order.

“Trying to make fossil fuels remain competitive in the face of a booming clean renewable power sector, with the clean air and plentiful jobs it continues to generate, is going against the flow of economics,” she said.

The order will direct the EPA to start a formal “review” process to undo the Clean Power Plan, which was introduced by Obama in 2014 but was never implemented in part because of legal challenges brought by Republican-controlled states.

The Clean Power Plan required states to collectively cut carbon emissions from power plants by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Some 85 percent of U.S. states are on track to meet the targets despite the fact the rule has not been implemented, according to Bill Becker, director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, a group of state and local air pollution control agencies.

Trump’s order also lifts the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management’s temporary ban on coal leasing on federal property put in place by Obama in 2016 as part of a review to study the program’s impact on climate change and ensure royalty revenues were fair to taxpayers.

It also asks federal agencies to discount the cost of carbon in policy decisions and the weight of climate change considerations in infrastructure permitting, and reverses rules limiting methane leakage from oil and gas facilities.

See (emphasis added); see also (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming“)


7 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Attacks

Trump attacks Syria

Former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Elliott Abrams, has written:

The Trump administration has had a rocky start. There was the defeat on Obamacare, staffing the departments has been far too slow, the National Security Advisor lasted only three weeks, there has clearly been infighting in the White House staff, and there have certainly been too many tweets.

But that 75-day break-in period has just ended, and the Trump administration can truly be said to have started only now. The president has been chief executive since January 20, but this week he acted also as Commander in Chief. And more: He finally accepted the role of Leader of the Free World.

This was unexpected: He had appeared to say, during the campaign, that this kind of global leadership role was just too expensive. We were tired of it, tired of having others take advantage of us. We could not solve all the world’s problems.

But the strike at Syria had at its heart precisely that kind of global leadership, to enforce the century-old ban on chemical warfare—in the interest of decency and peace. His remarks ended with words that many predecessors, from Wilson to Roosevelt, and Kennedy to Reagan, might have spoken: “as long as America stands for justice then peace and harmony will prevail.”

Explaining the strike, Secretary of State Tillerson pointed to one clear security goal: “if there are weapons of this nature available in Syria, the ability to secure those weapons and not have them fall into the hands of those who would bring those weapons to our shores to harm American citizens.” But then he added “it’s important that some action be taken on behalf of the international community to make clear that the use of chemical weapons continues to be a violation of international norms.” The term “on behalf of the international community” is certainly not one we have previously heard from the Trump administration.

This strike will save lives—in Syria, by preventing Assad from daring to use chemical weapons again, and in unknown future conflicts where the losing side will be tempted to employ chemical weapons, and will think twice and not do it. Trump saved more lives in Syria by his action this week than Obama did in all his years in office.

And the strike will have far wider effects. It was undertaken while Chinese president Xi was with Trump in Florida. Surely this new image of a president willing to act will affect their conversations about North Korea. Vladimir Putin will think again about his relations with the United States, and will realize that the Obama years of passivity are truly over. Allies and friends will be cheered, while enemies will realize times have changed. When next the Iranians consider swarming around an American ship in the Gulf, they may think again.

Of course this was an easy lift militarily: a few dozen missiles, one air base as a target. Yet our previous president refused to do it; this one acted. He did not let worries about the possible Russian reaction scare him off. He understood that this would not end the war in Syria, but he did it anyway. He was willing to act alone, without demanding a UN Security Council meeting or congressional vote. And of course, leadership pays off: he will have strong bipartisan support on the Hill.

Henceforth when he speaks of American conditions and demands, interests and desires, more attention will be paid. Every official in every foreign government has been trying to figure him out since November 8. This week he gave them a lot to think about. He took command, and issued orders. He didn’t draw a red line and then withdraw it, but instead called Assad’s action intolerable—that overused word—and then proceeded to show that when he said intolerable, he meant it.

Trump’s decision may create an opportunity for negotiations over Syria. The talks have never been serious because one can never achieve at a conference table what he has failed to achieve on the battlefield. But the battlefield may look a bit different now; it may be worth a try. Trump is right in saying that there were earlier opportunities in Syria and he inherited a mess, but perhaps some kind of real a cease-fire or truce is attainable this year. He has certainly boosted the chances.

The president has obviously not solved the problem of war in Syria, or that of ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or a rising China and an aggressive Iran and a hostile Russia. Of course not. Moreover, he may waver in the coming months, and lead analysts to wonder if the Syria strike was a one-time emotional response to the sarin gas attack.

But he has put us back on the map in a new way; he has created some new space. Consider the alternative: Syria uses sarin and kills babies, defying us and laughing at the unanimous Security Council decisions and its own pledges—and we do nothing. That’s a far worse situation for the United States. When the president said it was in the “vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,” he was right. It is also in our vital national security interest to stand for justice, and peace, and liberty, and it appears he is coming to see that. That’s the most encouraging thing of all.

See (“The Strike At Syria”) (emphasis added); see also (“Kim Jong-un declares he’s on ‘the brink of a war’ with US as Donald Trump is urged to assassinate North Korean despot“)

With Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Trump estate, Mar-a-Lago in West Palm Beach, the attack sends a message of what can happen to North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in an instant. He can be vaporized.

China needs the United States desperately, if its economy is not to collapse.

Reports indicate that the Syrian airbase was “almost completely destroyed” after the U.S. strike. This sends a message loud and clear to Russia’s killer Putin too.

Putin and Russia are “paper tigers,” both militarily and economically. Russia’s economy would collapse if the U.S. denies it access to the SWIFT banking system. Its naval “fleet” and that of China are essentially nonexistent.

If Putin does not accede to Trump’s wishes, it may be time for regime changes in both Russia and Syria.

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

Lastly, neither the Trump Administration nor the United States must ever do the “bidding” of Israel or its “neocon” surrogates again, as we did during the tragic Iraq War, in which thousands of Americans died or were maimed for life, while trillions of dollars were wasted, for nothing.

The United States is not Israel’s protector.

See, e.g., (“Is Israel Doomed?“)


9 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Burier Of Bin Laden, USS Carl Vinson, Moves Into Korean Waters [UPDATED]

USS Carl Vinson

On May 2, 2011, following the death of Osama bin Laden, his body was brought aboard the USS Carl Vinson, which was operating in the Northern Arabian Sea, and buried at sea. Does this or a similar fate await North Korea’s brutal Kim Jong-un?

See, e.g., (“USS Carl Vinson“)

Fox News has reported:

The U.S. bombardment of a Syrian airbase just outside of Homs Friday was likely seen by North Korea as a clear warning that President Trump will use his military if United States interests are at risk.

The immediate focus after the strikes was on Russia’s Vladimir Putin’s reaction. Russia was not happy with the U.S., it spoke in defense of Syria and moved warships. But now the attention is on the next move by another world leader: Kim Jong-Un.

Gordon Chang, a Daily Beast columnist and author of “Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On The World,” said in an emailed statement to Fox News Friday that the U.S. strike on the Syrian airfield “tells North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un that he must now heed American military power, something that he probably dismissed before.”

“Kim’s father, Kim Jong Il, disappeared from public view for about six weeks in 2003 at the time of the Iraq war. Kim Jong-Un loves the public spotlight, and it will be telling if he similarly goes into hiding,” the author said.

The airstrikes are “a warning to China’s People’s Liberation Army, which had grown dismissive of the U.S. Navy and Air Force. Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader visiting Mar-a-Lago, almost certainly interpreted the strike as a sign of disrespect to him,” Chang said.

Retired four-star Gen. Jack Keane told Fox News on Wednesday that the U.S. is “rapidly and dangerously heading towards the reality that the military option is the only one left when it comes to getting North Korea to denuclearize and not weaponized [intercontinental ballistic missiles].”

Trump made it a point to address the media about the Syria strike at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida just moments after dining with his Chinese counterpart President Xi Jinping.

The strike was a culmination of a rapid, three-day transformation for Trump, who has long opposed deeper U.S. involvement in Syria’s civil war. Advisers said he was outraged by heartbreaking images of young children who were among the dozens killed in the chemical attack and ordered his national security team to swiftly prepare military options. The Los Angeles Times reported up to 15 dead in the strikes. A Syrian official said six were killed at the base and nine others in surrounding areas. The death toll could not be independently confirmed.

“This is Trump saying, ‘No, I am a man of my words,’” Reva Goujon, the vice president of Stratfor, told CNBC. “’When I make a threat, I will follow through.’ That’s certainly something the Chinese and North Koreans will be thinking about.”

Trump has said that if China doesn’t exert more pressure on North Korea, the U.S. will act alone. The missile strikes on Syria bring more weight to that statement.

See (“Expert: Watch to see if Kim Jong-Un goes into hiding after Syria strike“) (emphasis added); see also (“Trump orders military advisers to prepare plans to hit North Korea“) and (“KIM’S FATE SEALED Elite US Navy Seal squad that killed Osama bin Laden ‘is training up in South Korea to take out Kim Jong-un’”)

Target Kim Jong-un


9 04 2017

Let’s do it now, so our children don’t have to deal with it.

Liked by 1 person

9 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

I agree completely, Rick. Well said.


10 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Terminate The Rabid Dogs: Putin, Assad And Kim Jong-Un

Putin's death

The UK’s Sun has reported:

RUSSIA and Iran have said they will respond to further American military actions following the air strike in Syria last week.

In a joint statement, the command centre for the two countries and allied groups said “we will respond to any aggression”.

The statement read: “What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well.”

The warning comes on the same day that:

• A Russian politician warned the North Koreans could strike at any time

• A seven-year-old Syrian girl tweeted her support for Trump’s missile strike

• The President blasted claims his 59-missile strike on Syrian airfield missed targets

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani condemned “flagrant US aggression on Syria” following the missile strike on a Syrian air base in response to a suspected chemical attack by the Syrian government on innocent civilians.

The Iranian leader, a key ally of Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad, called yesterday for an impartial investigation into the chemical attack that killed at least 70 people.

He warned that the American strikes in response risked escalating extremism in the region, reported Iranian state television.

In a phone call with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, Rouhani told him: “Allegations that Syria launched the chemical attack were just a pretext to disrupt the Syrian peace process”.

The Syrian state news agency SANA said Assad told Rouhani the Syrian people and army were “determined to crush terrorism in every part of Syrian territory” – a reference to the rebels who have been fighting his bloody rule for six years.

He also thanked Rouhani for Iran’s support for “the Syrian nation”.

In a speech on Sunday, Rouhani also criticised US-allied Gulf Arab states for endorsing the missile strike.

He said: “Unfortunately, there are countries in our own region which encourage America’s acts of aggression.” He warned: “Your turn will come too.”

Saudi Arabia hailed the strike as a “courageous decision” by President Donald Trump and a Saudi ally, the United Arab Emirates, declared they also supported the action.

Both countries are part of the US-led coalition fighting ISIS in Syria.

See (“Russia and Iran pledge to hit back against further Syria strikes as they blast US for ‘crossing red lines’“) (emphasis added); see also (“The Burier Of Bin Laden, USS Carl Vinson, Moves Into Korean Waters“) and (“Trump Attacks“) and (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War“)


11 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Sobering [UPDATED]

USS Carl Vinson strike force

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

By firing off five dozen Tomahawk missiles at a military airfield, our “America First” president may have plunged us into another Middle East war that his countrymen do not want to fight.

Thus far Bashar Assad seems unintimidated. Brushing off the strikes, he has defiantly gone back to bombing the rebels from the same Shayrat air base that the U.S. missiles hit.

Trump “will not stop here,” warned U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley on Sunday. “If he needs to do more, he will.”

If Trump fails to back up Haley’s threat, the hawks now cheering him on will begin deriding him as “Donald Obama.”

But if he throbs to the war drums of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio and orders Syria’s air force destroyed, we could be at war not only with ISIS and al-Qaida, but with Syria, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

A Syrian war would consume Trump’s presidency.

Are we ready for that? How would we win such a war without raising a large army and sending it back into the Middle East?

Another problem: Trump’s missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so.

Indeed, Congress denied President Obama that specific authority in 2013.

What was Trump thinking? Here was his strategic rational:

“When you kill innocent children, innocent babies — babies, little babies — with a chemical gas … that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. . . . And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me . . . my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”

Two days later, Trump was still emoting: “Beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.”

Now, that gas attack was an atrocity, a war crime, and pictures of its tiny victims are heart-rending. But 400,000 people have died in Syria’s civil war, among them thousands of children and infants.

Have they been killed by Assad’s forces? Surely, but also by U.S., Russian, Israeli and Turkish planes and drones — and by Kurds, Iranians, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS, U.S.-backed rebels and Shiite militia.

Assad is battling insurgents and jihadists who would slaughter his Alawite brethren and the Christians in Syria just as those Copts were massacred in Egypt on Palm Sunday. Why is Assad more responsible for all the deaths in Syria than those fighting to overthrow and kill him?

Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?

For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve gas attack on children, certain to ignite America’s rage, for no military gain?

Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false flag operation to stampede America into Syria’s civil war.

And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom, Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him — to keep us out of unnecessary wars — may not be standing by him.

We have no vital national interest in Syria’s civil war. It is those doing the fighting who have causes they deem worth dying for.

For ISIS, it is the dream of a caliphate. For al-Qaida, it is about driving the Crusaders out of the Dar al Islam. For the Turks, it is, as always, about the Kurds.

For Assad, this war is about his survival and that of his regime. For Putin, it is about Russia remaining a great power and not losing its last naval base in the Med. For Iran, this is about preserving a land bridge to its Shiite ally Hezbollah. For Hezbollah it is about not being cut off from the Shiite world and isolated in Lebanon.

Because all have vital interests in Syria, all have invested more blood in this conflict than have we. And they are not going to give up their gains or goals in Syria and yield to the Americans without a fight.

And if we go to war in Syria, what would we be fighting for?

A New World Order? Democracy? Separation of mosque and state? Diversity? Free speech for Muslim heretics? LGBT rights?

In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority to take us to war in Syria.

We are back at that barricade. An after-Easter battle is shaping up in Congress on the same issue: Is the president authorized to take us into war against Assad and his allies inside Syria?

If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, we do not want America in yet another Mideast war, the time to stop it is before the War Party has us already in it. That time is now.

See (“Is Trump Enlisting in the War Party?“) (emphasis added); but see (“Terminate The Rabid Dogs: Putin, Assad And Kim Jong-Un“)

If anything, Pat Buchanan understates and/or underestimates the pure evil represented by Putin, Assad and Kim Jong-un. They are every bit as evil as Hitler, Stalin and Mao were.

See, e.g.,’s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao’s-chinese-holocaust/ (“The Silent Voices Of Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust And Mao’s Chinese Holocaust“)

True enough, Israel and its “neocon” surrogates pushed us into the tragic Iraq War, in which thousands of Americans were killed or maimed for life, while trillions of dollars were wasted, for nothing. And this must never happen again, even if Israel’s existence is at stake.

See (“Is Israel Doomed?“)

But there is a middle ground between all-out war, and succumbing to the forces of darkness, including our supposed ally Israel.

There is no question that eight years of our failed racist former president, Barack Obama, has led us to this moment in history.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

Our adversaries and outright enemies are moving to take advantage of the United States and our new president, before his administration has gotten its “sea legs.”

And Obama’s evil Democrats are fanning the flames of such un-Americanism.


19 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Double Down: Destroy America’s Left, And Boycott Political Correctness! [UPDATED]

Bill O'Reilly

The New York Times has reported:

Bill O’Reilly has been forced out of his position as a prime-time host on Fox News, the company said on Wednesday, after the disclosure of settlements involving sexual harassment allegations against him. His abrupt and embarrassing ouster ends his two-decade reign as one of the most popular and influential commentators in television.

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,” 21st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox News, said in a statement.

Mr. O’Reilly is departing two and a half weeks after an investigation by The New York Times revealed how Fox News and 21st Century Fox had repeatedly stood by him even as sexual harassment allegations against him mounted. The Times found that the company and Mr. O’Reilly had reached settlements with five women who had complained about sexual harassment or other inappropriate behavior by him. The agreements totaled about $13 million.

Since then, more than 50 advertisers had abandoned his show, and women’s rights groups had called for his ouster. Inside the company, women expressed outrage and questioned whether top executives were serious about maintaining a culture based on “trust and respect,” as they had promised last summer when another sexual harassment scandal forced the ouster of Roger E. Ailes as chairman of Fox News.

That put pressure on 21st Century Fox and the Murdoch family, who controlled it. After the dismissal of Mr. Ailes, the company struck two settlements involving sexual harassment complaints against Mr. O’Reilly and extended his contract.

Last week, the Murdochs enlisted the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to investigate Mr. O’Reilly’s behavior after one woman, who had detailed her allegations against Mr. O’Reilly to The Times, called the company’s hotline to report her complaints. Since then, other complaints have been lodged.

Mr. O’Reilly has denied the allegations against him.

He will be succeeded in the 8 p.m. Eastern slot by Tucker Carlson, who moved to the channel’s prime-time lineup only in January. “The Five,” an ensemble political round table, will shift to 9 p.m. from the afternoon.

Mr. O’Reilly, 67, has been an anchor at Fox News since he started at the network in 1996. He was the top-rated host in cable news, delivering defiant commentary every weeknight, with a message that celebrated patriotism and expressed scorn for political correctness. His departure is a significant blow to the Fox News lineup, which dominated the prime-time cable news ratings. In January, the lineup lost another star, Megyn Kelly.

In a letter to the staff Wednesday, Rupert Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan, the top executives at 21st Century Fox, praised Mr. O’Reilly as “one of the most accomplished TV personalities in the history of cable news.” The letter said, “His success, by any measure, is indisputable.”

It also said the decision “follows an extensive review done in collaboration with outside counsel.”

“Lastly, and most importantly, we want to underscore our consistent commitment to fostering a work environment built on the values of trust and respect,” the Murdochs added.

The announcement of Mr. O’Reilly’s departure occurred as a current Fox News contributor came forward Wednesday with complaints that he had made inappropriate comments to her.

The contributor, Jehmu Greene, said that she called Paul, Weiss on Wednesday to report inappropriate behavior by Mr. O’Reilly. Ms. Greene said she decided to call the firm after she received no response to an email she sent to a network executive more than a week ago to schedule a meeting to discuss her concerns.

Ms. Greene said instances of harassment occurred when she was a regular guest on the network but before she became a network contributor in November 2010. Ms. Greene disclosed her allegations to The Times in the fall but decided to go on the record this week.

She reported that in late 2007, Mr. O’Reilly told her that she should show more cleavage when she was in the makeup room.

About two years later, Ms. Greene was making an appearance on Mr. O’Reilly’s show. Before the segment, the two discussed a bet they had made for dinner. She had won the bet, but Mr. O’Reilly had never paid up.

Ms. Greene said that Mr. O’Reilly then told her that while she might want to “break his bank” with the restaurant choice, he “was more interested in breaking my back.”

“I don’t think that these comments were focused from a sexual standpoint,” Ms. Greene said. “I think they were more of a power standpoint to put me in my place.”

Representatives for 21st Century Fox and Mr. O’Reilly did not immediately respond to requests for comment about Ms. Greene’s comments.

See (“Bill O’Reilly Is Forced Out at Fox News“) (emphasis added; charts omitted); see also (Dick Morris: “What Does O’Reilly’s Departure Mean For Us”)

The Murdoch sons have overruled their father, and bowed to America’s despicable far-Left.

They will gain no favors from the Left, and will be boycotted by the rest of America.

See, e.g., (“Michael Wolff: How Bill O’Reilly’s Scandal Exposes a Murdoch Family Divide“)

The far-Left lynch mobs have won, temporarily. At best, a pyrrhic victory.

Sexual harassment and deviants (e.g., MSNBC’s resident dike, Rachel Maddow) have never mattered to the Left or to women’s rights groups—or John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton never would have been elected and served as this great nation’s presidents.

See, e.g., (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“) and (“Clinton Fatigue”)

. . .

The sponsors who pulled their advertising from O’Reilly’s show must be boycotted (e.g., Mercedes Benz); Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers must be indicted and denied all federal funding; and the always-despicable Left must be destroyed.

See, e.g., (“The Price Of Fetal Parts“)

How many scalps does the Left want? As many as it can get!

. . .

Lastly, the very idea that lawyers would be hired to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing is patently absurd. First, it is highly likely that they are Left or far-Left lawyers. Second, lawyers are notorious for sexual harassment and involvement with their clients, especially in the context of divorces.

As I have written:

[D]isturbing, disconcerting and odious is the fact that divorce lawyers prey sexually on their vulnerable and distraught clients. They should be automatically disbarred; and the State Bar [of California] is culpable and morally reprehensible for failing to act. As in the case of other professionals—such as medical doctors and psychiatrists who prey on their vulnerable patients—the most stringent sanctions must be imposed, but they are not. The State Bar turns a blind eye, which undermines any notions of morality and propriety that it purports to represent.

Its failure to disbar these divorce lawyers is inherently repugnant. Women’s rights organizations especially should be up in arms, protesting the State Bar’s culpability. Anyone is vulnerable during divorce proceedings, and this is particularly true of women. Yet the State Bar does nothing. If some lawyers can act with impunity in the context of divorces, what use is the State Bar to society—or to those lawyers whose conduct is above reproach?



22 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump before Trump was Trump

Pat Buchanan

André Chung has written in Politico:

His first date with his future wife was spent in a New Hampshire motel room drinking Wild Turkey into the wee hours with Hunter S. Thompson. He stood several feet away from Martin Luther King Jr. during the “I Have a Dream” speech. He went to China with Richard M. Nixon and walked away from Watergate unscathed. He survived Iran-Contra, too, and sat alongside Ronald Reagan at the Reykjavík Summit. He invaded America’s living rooms and pioneered the rhetorical combat that would power the cable news age. He defied the establishment by challenging a sitting president of his own party. He captured the fear and frustration of the right by proclaiming a great “culture war” was at hand. And his third-party candidacy in 2000 almost certainly handed George W. Bush the presidency, thanks to thousands of Palm Beach, Florida, residents mistakenly voting for him on the “butterfly ballot” when they meant to back Al Gore.

If not for his outsize ambition, Pat Buchanan might be the closest thing the American right has to a real-life Forrest Gump, that patriot from ordinary stock whose life journey positioned him to witness, influence and narrate the pivotal moments that shaped our modern world and changed the course of this country’s history. He has known myriad roles—neighborhood brawler, college expellee, journalist, White House adviser, political commentator, presidential candidate three times over, author, provocateur—and his existence traces the arc of what feels to some Americans like a nation’s ascent and decline. He was 3 years old when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and 6 when Harry Truman dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now 78, with thick, black glasses and a thinning face, Buchanan looks back with nostalgia at a life and career that, for all its significance, was at risk of being forgotten—until Donald Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States.

A quarter-century before Trump descended into the atrium of his Manhattan skyscraper to launch his unlikely bid for the White House, Buchanan, until then a columnist, political operative and TV commentator, stepped onto a stage in Concord, New Hampshire, to declare his own candidacy 10 weeks ahead of the state’s presidential primary. Associating the “globalist” President George H. W. Bush with “bureaucrats in Brussels” pursuing a “European superstate” that trampled on national identity, Buchanan warned his rowdy audience, “We must not trade in our sovereignty for a cushioned seat at the head table of anybody’s new world order!” His radically different prescription, which would underpin three consecutive runs for the presidency: a “new nationalism” that would focus on “forgotten Americans” left behind by bad trade deals, open-border immigration policies and foreign adventurism. His voice booming, Buchanan demanded: “Should the United States be required to carry indefinitely the full burden of defending rich and prosperous allies who take America’s generosity for granted as they invade our markets?”

This rhetoric—deployed again during his losing bid for the 1996 GOP nomination, and once more when he ran on the Reform Party ticket in 2000—not only provided a template for Trump’s campaign, but laid the foundation for its eventual success. Dismissed as a fringe character for rejecting Republican orthodoxy on trade and immigration and interventionism, Buchanan effectively weakened the party’s defenses, allowing a more forceful messenger with better timing to finish the insurrection he started back in 1991. All the ideas that seemed original to Trump’s campaign could, in fact, be attributed to Buchanan—from depicting the political class as bumbling stooges to singling out a rising superpower as an economic menace (though back then it was Japan, not China) to rallying the citizenry to “take back” a country whose destiny they no longer dictated. “Pitchfork Pat,” as he was nicknamed, even deployed a phrase that combined Trump’s two signature slogans: “Make America First Again.”

“Pat was the pioneer of the vision that Trump ran on and won on,” says Greg Mueller, who served as Buchanan’s communications director on the 1992 and 1996 campaigns and remains a close friend. Michael Kinsley, the liberal former New Republic editor who co-hosted CNN’s “Crossfire” with Buchanan, likewise credits his old sparring partner with laying the intellectual groundwork for Trumpism: “It’s unclear where this Trump thing goes, but Pat deserves some of the credit.” He pauses. “Or some of the blame.”

Buchanan, for his part, feels both validated and vindicated. Long ago resigned to the reality that his policy views made him a pariah in the Republican Party—and stained him irrevocably with the ensuing accusations of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia—he has lived to see the GOP come around to Buchananism and the country send its direct descendant to the White House.

“I was elated, delighted that Trump picked up on the exact issues on which I challenged Bush,” he tells me. “And then he goes and uses my slogan? It just doesn’t get any better than this.” Buchanan, who has published such books as The Death of the West, State of Emergency, Day of Reckoning and Suicide of a Superpower, admits that November’s election result “gave me hope” for the first time in recent memory.

But none of this means he’s suddenly bullish about America’s future. Buchanan says he has “always been a pessimist,” and despite Trump’s conquest, two things continue to color his dark forecast for the nation. First, Buchanan harbors deep concerns over whether Trump, with his off-topic tweeting and pointless fight-picking, has the requisite focus and discipline to execute his nationalist agenda—especially over the opposition of a media-establishment complex bent on his destruction. Second, even if Trump delivers on the loftiest of his promises, Buchanan fears it will be too little, too late. Sweeping change was needed 25 years ago, he says, before thousands of factories vanished due to the North American Free Trade Agreement, before millions of illegal immigrants entered the country, before trillions of dollars were squandered on regime change and nation-building.

He’s not unlike the countless Trump voters I met across the country in 2016, many of them older folks yearning for a return to the country of their youth, a place they remember as safer, whiter, more wholesome, more Christian, more confident and less polarized. The difference is that Buchanan refuses to indulge in the illusion that a return to this utopia of yesteryear is even possible. Economically and demographically and culturally, he believes, the damage is done.

“We rolled the dice with the future of this country,” he tells me. “And I think it’s going to come up snake eyes.”


The living room of Buchanan’s home in McLean, Virginia, a wealthy suburb of Washington, could be mistaken for a museum. Between this wood-paneled space and his red-carpeted basement there must be 3,000 books on the shelves, meticulously categorized by genre, author or time period, a classical backdrop to Buchanan’s extensive collection of historical guns (including a rare replica of Robert E. Lee’s revolver) and a lifetime’s accumulation of family photographs, newspaper clippings, campaign keepsakes and miscellaneous relics.

His house is a monument to failed uprisings against the political establishment. Above the mantel rests a spectacular painting of Buchanan gazing out a bus window during a ride through scenic Iowa. Across the room, encased in wood and glass and standing some 4 feet tall, is the gilded pitchfork he received from “the Buchanan Brigades,” a group of campaign supporters, symbolic of his populist insurgency (and, unintentionally, of his paradoxical existence as a Georgetown-educated tormentor of the Washington elite). Resting on the coffee table is the most delicate souvenir of all, a piece of pristine stained glass gifted to him by a New Hampshire voter. The size of a nightstand surface, its craftsmanship is immaculate, with a dove’s red-and-white tail weaving through blue scrawl in memory of the year, 1992, and the motto of his presidential campaign: “America First.”

It all feels like ancient history, and Buchanan himself these days looks, well, rather ancient; the wrinkles run deep across his brow, and untamed wisps of gray hair shoot divergently from the back of his head. This aging exterior should not fool anyone. He is as mentally agile and rhetorically sharp as he was during his heyday on CNN and PBS, before the star commentator turned into a presidential candidate. As we talk for hours, Buchanan recalls those three campaigns—and the rest of his half-century in public life, not to mention his childhood, adolescence and early career—with a vivid clarity and a command of detail.

Buchanan has had plenty of titles over the years, from spokesman to candidate, but his favorite is historian. He cherishes history not just for its drama but for the lessons bequeathed and the parallels he can extract: the seductive appeal of populism, the rising tide of nationalism, the similarities between the current president and the two he worked closely alongside. Above all, Buchanan loves history because, in his mind, it contains our civilizational apex; he treasures the past because he is convinced that his beloved country, these United States, will never again approach the particular kind of glory it held for a middle-class family in the postwar years.

Such assured pessimism is somewhat surprising, given that Buchanan’s boldest achievement—and perhaps the most lasting aspect of his legacy—was being Trump before Trump was Trump.

“The ideas made it,” Buchanan tells me, letting out a belly laugh. “But I didn’t.”

There is some sad irony in the fact that Buchanan, whose vision is finally penetrating and driving the uppermost echelons of government, has seen his public profile diminished to an all-time low. This is somewhat intentional: Since being fired from MSNBC in 2012, he has hunkered down, content to make occasional Fox News appearances, write two columns a week for Creators Syndicate and spend more time at home with his wife, Shelley, binge-watching television shows such as “24” and “Homeland.” (“I dated a girl who reminded me of Claire Danes,” Buchanan grins. “She was crazy as a hoot owl.”) The couple doesn’t get out too often. They attend 9 a.m. Sunday Mass at Saint Mary Mother of God Church near Capitol Hill, then shop at their local Safeway and settle in for the coming week. They have an occasional dinner out at J. Gilbert’s steakhouse in McLean but mostly have simple meals at home; when it’s not Lent, Buchanan has two glasses of Grgich Hills Chardonnay each night. The slower pace suits a man who has battled heart problems and had several hospital stays in recent years.

His intellectual metabolism, however, remains turbocharged. After he walks a half-mile each morning around his neighborhood, Buchanan and his wife—Nixon’s former secretary, whom he calls “junior” and “kiddo” despite the fact that she is slightly older than he is—brew eight cups of coffee in a pot that is often finished by noon. In those intervening hours, Buchanan reads and annotates copious amounts of news; he begins with Drudge Report and—two aggregators of reporting and opinion, one from the right and one from the libertarian-leaning left—before weaving his way, red markup pen at the ready, through the print editions of his five preferred newspapers: the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. (He used to read USA Today, too, but recently canceled the subscription.) This daily intake informs Buchanan’s well-considered stances on every current event we discuss during our conversation and provides fodder for his columns, which, however distasteful they may be to many on the left (and some on the right), cannot possibly be mistaken for material poorly researched.

Buchanan loves to write; he spends more time on his columns today than ever before, he says, about five hours on each one. The rest of his time, in recent years, has been consumed by books. He offered an ode to his former boss Richard Nixon in 2014 with The Greatest Comeback, an unappreciated tale of Tricky Dick’s political resurrection, and this May will release his 13th book, Nixon’s White House Wars, which is something of a sequel, offering a thorough and mouthwatering insider’s account of one of history’s most bellicose presidencies. “The first one had a happy ending,” Buchanan says. He shrugs his shoulders. “The second one, not so much.”

The path Buchanan took to becoming one of Nixon’s key loyalists was unusual, to say the least. Raised in a middle-class Roman Catholic family of nine children in Washington—back when the District of Columbia was “a sleepy and segregated Southern city,” he once wrote—Buchanan excelled in his parochial-school education and, despite an appetite for troublemaking and partying while he was a student at Gonzaga High School, he earned a scholarship to attend Georgetown University a few miles away. When Buchanan was expelled from Georgetown in his senior year for hospitalizing two D.C. cops during a traffic altercation that degenerated into fisticuffs, he and his father successfully petitioned the university to reduce his expulsion to a one-year withdrawal. Buchanan went to work in his father’s accounting firm during the suspension, began rethinking his life ambitions and, upon returning to finish college, decided to pursue a career as a columnist. (He had developed an interest in journalism as an 11-year-old boy, when he wound up in a full-body cast thanks to a football injury and spent four months doing nothing but reading newspaper and magazine coverage of the Korean War.) After Georgetown, Buchanan won acceptance to Columbia University’s journalism school, where he was surrounded by brilliant liberals who would go on to populate the nation’s most prominent newsrooms—an experience that shaped Buchanan’s distrust of the media’s objectivity. Upon earning his master’s, he sent out 17 job applications and fielded offers from three other newspapers—the New York Daily News, Charlotte Observer and Albuquerque Journal—before packing his bags for the Globe-Democrat, a conservative newspaper in St. Louis.

His break arrived quickly. After five weeks of reporting for the business section, an editorial writer position opened, and Buchanan never looked back. Three-and-a-half years later, in 1965, when Nixon came to town for a local party function, Buchanan cornered him in a kitchen and offered his services ahead of Nixon’s imminent 1968 campaign. “The Old Man,” as Buchanan still calls Nixon—“He was like a father to me at times”—hired him, and they became conjoined: Buchanan was a speechwriter, political adviser and special assistant in the White House. He gave famously defiant testimony in front of the Senate Watergate Committee and remained loyal to Nixon until the end, yet somehow emerged with his reputation enhanced even as, in his own recollection, “All those friends of mine went to the penitentiary.”

For all the comparisons of Trump to his own campaigns, Buchanan argues the more relevant parallels are between the 45th and 37th presidents. “They both confronted bureaucracy and a hostile media that hated Nixon and hates Trump,” he says. “The ‘deep state’ wants to break Trump’s presidency, just like it tried to break Nixon’s.” One difference between the two men is restraint: Whereas Trump appears consumed by “irrelevant things and peripheral attacks,” Buchanan says, “Nixon told me, ‘Don’t ever shoot down. Always shoot up.’” He lets out a sigh. “I feel for the guys that are in there,” Buchanan says of Trump’s team. “The problem is the president is distracted—and his adversaries know it. If I were them, I’d keep egging him on.”

Certainly, though, Nixon—and nearly every other former president—benefited from the absence of social media and the insatiable, 24-hour news cycle. Buchanan remembers his old boss occasionally calling him late at night, raving about some perceived slight and asking him to write and distribute something in response. By the next morning, Nixon had cooled off. “You didn’t do that, did you?” the president would ask him. (Buchanan recalls a former colleague once joking, “Watergate happened when some damn fool came out of the Oval Office and did exactly what Nixon told him to do.”)

Buchanan says Trump has “tremendous potential,” but adds, “This is my great apprehension, that the larger issues—the taxes, the Obamacare thing, the border security agenda, the trade agenda—could be imperiled by unnecessary fights.” He thinks for a moment. “It’s not a bad instinct to be a fighter. But sometimes you have to hold back.”

When it comes to Trump’s fight with the news media, however, Buchanan wants the president to keep swinging. Not only is it justified, he says, based on recent coverage, but Buchanan—a journalist by training—believes undermining the media’s legitimacy is essential to winning popular support for the president’s agenda. Here again, he speaks from firsthand experience in yet another American political war, the Nixon administration’s assault on the Fourth Estate. After the president’s November 1969 speech responding to nationwide protests against the Vietnam War was panned by all three major television networks, Nixon asked Buchanan to craft a memo detailing the president’s successes in his first year; instead, the young speechwriter advised the White House to wage “an all-out attack on the media.” Nixon liked the idea, but he didn’t want to be the messenger. Buchanan drafted the speech, and 10 days after Nixon’s nationally televised address, Vice President Spiro Agnew, an imposing figure who was then one of the most popular Republicans in America, delivered his now famous speech in Des Moines slamming “a small and unelected elite” who possess a “profound influence over public opinion” without any checks on their “vast power.”

Conservatives loved it, especially on the heels of Nixon calling them “the great silent majority,” a phrase Buchanan had coined. The entire sequence remains one of Buchanan’s career highlights—“it was a sensation,” he says of Agnew’s speech—and he says it holds important lessons for Trump. For starters, the president needs a strong and reliable surrogate. “Nixon would give Agnew all the lines he wanted to say, but couldn’t say because he was the president. Trump needs somebody like that—he’s doing it all by himself,” Buchanan says. He smirks. “Is Mike Pence going to do that?”

Moreover, Buchanan argues, calling out media bias has consistently worked in the 48 years since Agnew’s speech—and still does. “What we did was call into question their motives and their veracity. We said they are vessels flying flags of neutrality while carrying contraband,” Buchanan tells me. “And that’s a message that is still well received today, because people know it’s true.”


The architect of Nixon’s “all-out attack on the media” never strayed far from the media himself. He went on to became one of the best-known television personalities of the modern political era, a celebrity pundit who parlayed his popularity and visibility into a presidential bid two-and-a-half decades before Trump did the same.

After a brief stint as a holdover in President Gerald R. Ford’s administration, Buchanan returned to writing, pouring himself into a syndicated column that quickly became an acerbic must-read on the right. Radio opportunities weren’t far behind, and after five years of co-hosting a D.C.-based program alongside liberal journalist Tom Braden, the two took their act to CNN for an experiment called “Crossfire.” It was a hit, and so was “The McLaughlin Group,” an argumentative public affairs panel show that also began airing in 1982. Buchanan, suddenly the star conservative on two of political television’s premier programs, had emerged as one of the most influential media voices in the country. There was a vacuum of compelling content in those early days of always-on news—and Buchanan eagerly filled it with forceful opinions that were encouraged by producers who discouraged compromise and common ground. It’s the one element of his legacy to which he attaches some regret, repeatedly citing the poisonous tone of cable news discourse as a culprit in our societal and cultural disunion.

A decade after Buchanan left, the White House again came calling. This time, Ronald Reagan wanted him to serve as communications director. Buchanan had no choice but to accept—“the Gipper himself!” he recalls of receiving the offer—and spent two years, starting in the winter of 1985, steering the 40th president’s press operation. Buchanan sees fewer parallels between Reagan and Trump, though he offers two cautionary notes from his experience in that administration. First, he says, Trump must be “conscious of the coalition that brought him here” the way Reagan was responsive to the concerns of working-class cultural conservatives; Buchanan is particularly concerned that Trump, in addition to not following through on border security and protectionism, could hurt his own older and blue-collar voters with any type of dramatic health care overhaul. Second, Buchanan, in a nod to Trump’s testy public demeanor, remembers that Reagan’s famously sunny disposition wasn’t always on display—he just made it seem that way. “I saw Reagan explode a number of times in private. He was an Irishman, and you could see that temper go off,” Buchanan tells me. “But he never let the anger show in public.”

Eleanor Clift, the liberal longtime Newsweek journalist, first met Buchanan while covering the Reagan White House. “Everybody knew where he was ideologically,” Clift recalls, “and he was far to the right of President Reagan, and you could get him to tell stories about Reagan making fun of him and tasking him with selling things to conservatives.” She says Buchanan wasn’t much of a source for mainstream reporters because most of his energy was spent wooing the right. It was several years later, when the two began sharing the set on “The McLaughlin Group,” that Clift realized Buchanan’s gift for framing a political argument. “When he puts his analyst hat on, there’s nobody better,” she says. (Clift and Buchanan are in talks with television executives to bring “The McLaughlin Group” back on air, they tell me, but decline to elaborate.)

Buchanan was such a lucid communicator, in fact, that some conservatives wanted him to run for president. Having remarked shortly before leaving the White House in 1987 that “the greatest vacuum in American politics is to the right of Ronald Reagan,” Buchanan re-entered the media realm—resuming his roles on “Crossfire” and “The McLaughlin Group”—only to face mounting pressure from the right to enter the race for the Republican nomination in 1988. He ultimately declined, but published a page-turning autobiography in that presidential year, Right From the Beginning, that seemed a preliminary step toward a potential run for something, someday. The book is fascinating for its glimpse at Buchanan’s idyllic America, the earnest age of sprawling middle-class families and booming church attendance and fistfights at the local hangout after one six-pack too many. What it barely mentions, in making the case for a return to this safer and gentler society, are the dangers of trade and immigration—two issues that would animate Buchanan’s campaign against George H.W. Bush four years later.

“Between the years on ‘Crossfire’ and the years he ran for president, he was conservative but became very protectionist and nationalist, and that was of course a surprise,” Kinsley tells me. “The Republican Party stood for free markets completely and the Democratic Party stood for protectionism, and the idea that Pat Buchanan, who had worked in the Nixon and Reagan White Houses, would become an ardent protectionist was shocking.”

When I ask about the transformation, Buchanan tells me the story of his uncle, a Republican activist who hailed from industrial Pennsylvania, confronting him at the 1976 GOP convention. “Free trade is killing us, Pat,” he told him. Buchanan says the incident “planted a seed in my mind,” but that a decade later he was still an avowed free-trader working in the Reagan White House. It was the winding down of the Cold War in the twilight of Reagan’s presidency that Buchanan says refocused his attention away from international dilemmas and toward those at home. Free trade had never seemed problematic; nor had Reagan’s 1986 amnesty that legalized some 3 million undocumented immigrants. The more he studied domestic policy problems, though, the more convinced Buchanan became that the country needed a drastic course correction. “We had carried the load for the West all throughout the Cold War. All of these allies had been essentially freeloading off the United States,” he recalls thinking. “And I said, ‘If the Russians are going home, it’s time for us to come home and look out for our own country first.’”

His only regret is that he didn’t take up the fight sooner, when he could have had a greater impact, and maybe could have headed off some of the decline he sees when he gazes across the modern American landscape. “Look at Detroit in 1945 and Hiroshima in 1945. And look at the two of them today,” Buchanan says. “Something went wrong.”


By 1992, the evolution was complete—“I was a full-fledged economic nationalist,” Buchanan says—and his crusade against the embodiment of globalism, President George H. W. Bush, became a surprise 10-week proxy war for the future of the Republican Party. Buchanan’s allies held out hope he could pull a historic upset in New Hampshire that would throw the entire nominating process into turmoil. But they knew it was terribly unlikely, and were thrilled when Buchanan captured 37 percent of the vote, even though it was still a double-digit defeat. He wound up winning nearly 3 million votes nationwide against Bush, and though he carried no states, was invited to speak at the party convention. When he delivered his fire-breathing “culture war” speech, urging Republicans to “take back” the country from the alien forces of militant secularism and liberal multiculturalism, Democrats said it was proof of a GOP tacking hard and fast to the right. That was the whole idea: Buchanan, unlike Trump 25 years later, was a committed social conservative who saw crusades against gay rights and abortion as part of the campaign to restore his ideal America. But they also limited his appeal, and some in the party establishment hold a grudge to this day, convinced Buchanan scared off independents and jump-started the Clinton dynasty. Buchanan dismisses this notion, but long ago made peace with the fact that he would need to damage Bush in order to shape the future of Republicanism. “He wasn’t going to remove the sitting president from winning the party’s nomination,” says Terry Jeffrey, Buchanan’s research and policy director that year. “But the question was: Which direction is the party going to go?”

It was an open question in 1996, when Buchanan mounted a second and more viable campaign, this time against establishment favorite Bob Dole, as well as Southern son Phil Gramm and publisher Steve Forbes, among others. Doubling down on the nationalist rhetoric—which, unlike Trump, Buchanan continued to combine with heaping doses of social conservatism—he carved out his role at the far right of the field. Things looked good when he won a nonbinding contest in Alaska and even better when he upset Gramm in the first official contest in Louisiana. Dole edged him by 3 percentage points in the much-anticipated Iowa caucuses, but eight days later, Buchanan’s political career climaxed with a 1-point win in the New Hampshire primary. “We’re going to recapture the lost sovereignty of our country,” Buchanan cried in a victory speech, “and we’re going to bring it home!”

It was the closest he would ever come to the presidency. Buchanan won just one of the remaining contests as Dole coasted to the nomination. Four years later, Buchanan broke from the GOP after years of tension with its establishment wing and sought the Reform Party nomination. He won it, over the objections of some activists, but bombed in November, winning fewer than 500,000 votes nationwide. (Ralph Nader’s Green Party tallied roughly 2.5 million votes more.) Buchanan, however, once again put his imprint on history: He won 3,407 votes in Palm Beach County, Florida—a liberal, heavily Jewish community—thanks to the “butterfly ballot” famously confusing many voters. George W. Bush won Florida by 537 votes, and Buchanan makes no bones about what happened. “The Lord intervened,” he says, grinning. “We sunk Al Gore and won the election for Bush.”

Less memorably, the 2000 campaign also brought Buchanan into contact for the first time with Trump. The New York real estate tycoon and tabloid favorite was also mulling a run for the Reform Party’s nomination at the urging of Jesse Ventura, the former professional wrestler who had won Minnesota’s governorship on the third-party ticket in 1998. Trump never followed through, but true to the form he would display 16 years later, the future president took pleasure in brutalizing his potential competition. Trump devoted portions of a book to highlighting Buchanan’s alleged “intolerance” toward black and gay people, accused him of being “in love with Adolf Hitler” and denounced Buchanan while visiting a Holocaust museum, telling reporters, “We must recognize bigotry and prejudice and defeat it wherever it appears.”

The irony today is unmistakable. “What Trump said about Pat at the time is precisely what Trump’s opponents are saying about him now,” says Justin Raimondo, editorial director of, who gave a nominating speech for Buchanan at the Reform Party convention.

Trump’s attacks stemmed from Buchanan’s suggestion in a book that year that World War II had been avoidable and that Hitler did not want conflict with the United States or its Western allies. Buchanan, who loathes international aggression—he vigorously opposed George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, further distancing himself from the GOP—has written and repeated similar sentiments about World War II over several decades, which, on top of his criticisms of Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy, have led to charges of anti-Semitism. (Most damaging was William F. Buckley writing in National Review, shortly before Buchanan joined the 1992 race, that he could not defend his fellow conservative against such accusations. That said, some Jews in the media who are critical of Buchanan’s politics, including Kinsley, have defended him on this front.)

Buchanan has faced his share of critiques, but no one has hit him harder than Trump. In retrospect, it’s astounding that the man who used Buchanan’s playbook to win the White House had previously bashed him in the most ruthlessly ad hominem terms imaginable—yet Buchanan used his columns to cheerlead Trump’s 2016 candidacy from Day One. The explanation for this became clear once I accepted that Trump had done something entirely out of character: According to multiple sources, Trump called Buchanan out of the blue some five years ago, when the former candidate was a regular guest on “Morning Joe,” and apologized for all of the hurtful things he had said. “He made amends,” Bay Buchanan, Pat’s sister and former campaign manager, says of Trump. “Long before he got into the presidential [race], he reached out to Pat and apologized for what he’d done, realizing it had been wrong. … My brother is a very forgiving guy, and if someone asks for forgiveness, he’s going to deliver it.”

Buchanan himself refuses to comment on private conversations with Trump but does tell me the president would call occasionally during the 2016 primary to thank him for kind words during a TV appearance or make small talk about the campaign. Buchanan also says Trump mailed three “Make America Great Again” hats to his home—two of which he gifted to childhood friends, while keeping the other one for his extensive collection of presidential memorabilia.

“Did you ever offer him any advice?” I ask.

Buchanan begins to shake his head no, then stops himself. “I gave him some advice once,” he says, a smile spreading across his face. “I think he took it.”


Controversy has been a constant in Buchanan’s life, and will surely be part of his legacy. Buchanan, his friends say, suspected that powerful people at MSNBC were looking for a reason to fire him from the day he started there in 2002, reuniting with liberal commentator and former “Crossfire” co-host Bill Press for a similarly formatted program, “Buchanan & Press.” Ultimately Buchanan lasted a full decade at the left-wing cable news outlet before he published the book that would, finally, end his national broadcast career. In early 2012, months after Buchanan published Suicide of a Superpower, MSNBC fired him over provocative passages in the book relating to demographic change in America. Officials at 30 Rock were exceptionally disgusted with one chapter, “The End of White America,” in which Buchanan warned of the dire consequences brought on by what he had often called the “mass invasion” of immigrants from poor countries.

“Can Western civilization survive the passing of the European peoples whose ancestors created it and their replacement by Third World immigrants?” Buchanan wrote in his column the day of the book’s release, pre-emptively defending what he knew would be a polarizing thesis. “Probably not, for the new arrivals seem uninterested in preserving the old culture they have found.”

Of course, Buchanan’s views were well known by that point; he had presented identical arguments in several previous books, which explains why some of his highest-profile colleagues were furious with MSNBC’s decision. “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski issued a statement saying that they “strongly disagree” with Buchanan’s firing, and that his statements “should have been debated in public.” Chris Matthews dedicated a segment of “Hardball” to Buchanan in the wake of his dismissal, saying, “I miss him already,” and adding: “To Pat, the world can never be better than the one he grew up in as a young boy. … No country will ever be better than the United States of America of the early 1950s.”

Buchanan will go to his grave believing exactly that. He swears he has no personal animus toward people who don’t look like him; in fact, he says, the immigrant groups he interacts with in northern Virginia are “always smiling” and seem like wonderful members of the community. “Obviously they love America,” Buchanan tells me. “The question is, what is it that holds us together? The neocons say we’re an ideological people bound together by what Lincoln said at Gettysburg and what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, and that’s what makes us one nation. But my tradition of conservatism says it’s not; it’s the idea of culture and faith and belief and history and heroes and holidays.”

He takes a long pause. “Can you have a nation that consists of all the people in the world—and be one people?”

Buchanan has spent decades researching and thinking and writing about the threat he believes recent immigrants pose to America’s identity, and he comes to the subject armed with reams of statistics and arguments grounded in his reading of history. There are three main problems with the latest immigration trends, he says. First, whereas the Europeans were “never going back” and therefore put down permanent roots, millions of recent immigrants in the United States hail from Mexico and Central America and have easy access to their original home. Second, the vast numbers of new arrivals are stifling opportunity and mobility for the waves of immigrants who came before. And third, that stifling of opportunity and mobility causes prolonged concentration in closed-off communities, which robs those immigrants, Buchanan argues, of the chance to work their way out of ghettos and assimilate into American culture.

“This is why we argued in 1990 for a moratorium on immigration—those folks coming in poor could have been like the ethnic Irish and Italians and German,” Buchanan says. Instead, “they keep coming, and now you’ve got 60 million Hispanics living here, many of them in enclaves that can sustain themselves culturally and economically and socially. And it’s like they’re at home. A little piece of Mexico has been moved over here. … You look at the 24 counties from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas: Are they part of the United States or part of Mexico?”

A minute later, Buchanan adds, “You think you can go to Tucson, to what they call ‘Little Mexico,’ and ask them what the Constitution says? You think they know what the Constitution says?”

It’s this type of talk that has earned Buchanan the ugliest of labels—racist, bigot, xenophobe. He says it used to bother him but doesn’t anymore. “Everybody’s a racist. The curse words of the left [are] losing their toxicity from overuse,” Buchanan says. “Those accusations used to be cause for a fight. Now they’re just tossed out.” What’s interesting is that his many friends on the left have grown similarly numb to the hullabaloo. At this point, they are resigned to rejecting Buchanan’s views while remaining convinced of his inherent respectability as a person.

“I’ve learned to live with the fact that Pat has some very abhorrent views, which I strongly, strongly object to, while at the same time I know him to be a very good, very solid, decent man, who is loyal to his friends and loves his country,” Press, his former MSNBC co-host, tells me. “I know that may be an impossible distinction, but I really don’t think Pat has a racist bone in his body. I think he just gets carried away with his view about threats to Western civilization.”

Kinsley recalls his old colleague renting a vacation home on Maryland’s Eastern Shore that had an extra bedroom, where Buchanan could store boxes of books he would read while there. “Pat might be a nut, but he’s not a con man. Trump is both a nut and a con man,” Kinsley tells me. “You have to give Pat a certain amount of credit for intellect. He really thought through policy problems, and that’s where he’s not like Trump at all.”

Trump or no Trump, Buchanan has only become more alarmed about America’s political trajectory. The Republican Party is “running out of white folks,” he says, and historically immigrant groups have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. “If you bring in 100 million people and they vote 60 percent Democratic and 40 percent Republican, you’re buried,” Buchanan tells me. “What I’m saying is the America we knew and grew up with, it’s gone. And it’s not coming back. Demographically, culturally, socially, in every way, it’s a different country. And I think it’s come to resemble more of an empire than a nation and a people.”

Buchanan’s friends say that deep down he wants to be wrong about these predictions. And he admits that sometimes his pessimism gets the better of him: He never believed Trump would win in November. On Election Day, in fact, he bumped into Virginia Congresswoman Barbara Comstock’s mother at the polling station and suggested that her daughter would soon be running for higher office—to replace Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential nominee, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. Instead, he found himself up at 3 in the morning celebrating, basking in congratulatory emails, and convincing himself that maybe, just maybe, America isn’t doomed yet.

“But this,” Buchanan tells me, “is the last chance for these ideas.”

See (“‘The Ideas Made It, But I Didn’t’“) (emphasis added)

Yours truly does not agree with everything that Buchanan writes. For example, he is “too forgiving” of Russia’s killer Putin, who should be terminated, summarily.

See, e.g., (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War“)

Also, I do not share Buchanan’s pessimism for our great country. The same utterances were made during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, yet Ronald Reagan snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. He and George H.W. Bush drove the final nails into the USSR’s coffin, and it is gone forever.

Next, I believe all of the newspapers that Buchanan reads daily are irrelevant. They are fodder for the so-called “elites” and nothing more. The American people do not read or care about any of them; and newspapers are dinosaurs anyway.

The article states:

[T]he vast numbers of new arrivals are stifling opportunity and mobility for the waves of immigrants who came before.

I agree completely. America’s blacks remain at the bottom of the economic totem pole, as more recent arrivals rise above them, and trample on them, which is sad.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: