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



94 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”) and (“In House of Murdoch, Sons Set About an Elaborate Overhaul“)

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 shut down, 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?


. . .

Bill O’Reilly may be back, soon.

See, e.g., (“Bill O’Reilly hints at launching his own network“)


22 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump before Trump was Trump [UPDATED]

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.

I believe Donald Trump realizes this; and unlike his predecessor, he is determined to do something about it.

Trump arrives at West Palm Beach


30 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Settling In [UPDATED]


See also (“Bullish Trump renews his battle with the ‘incompetent’ media as he mocks ‘boring’ White House Correspondents’ Dinner he snubbed and boasts that his First 100 Days rally attracted ‘much better people'”)

President Trump returns to White House


2 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Enemy Is BOTH Political Parties! [UPDATED]

Pelosi and Ryan

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written a very sobering article for those who love our great country:

Saturday’s White House Correspondents Association dinner exposed anew how far from Middle America our elite media reside.

At the dinner, the electricity was gone, the glamor and glitz were gone. Neither the president nor his White House staff came. Even Press Secretary Sean Spicer begged off.

The idea of a convivial evening together of our media and political establishments is probably dead for the duration of the Trump presidency.

Until Jan. 20, 2021, it appears, we are an us-vs.-them country.

As for the Washington Hilton’s version of Hollywood’s red carpet, C-SPAN elected to cover instead Trump’s rollicking rally in a distant and different capital, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Before thousands of those Middle Pennsylvanians Barack Obama dismissed as clinging to their Bibles, bigotries and guns, Donald Trump, to cheers, hoots and happy howls, mocked the media he had stiffed:

“A large group of Hollywood actors and Washington media are consoling each other in a hotel ballroom. … I could not possibly be more thrilled than to be more than 100 miles away from Washington’s swamp … with a much, much larger crowd and much better people.”

Back at the Hilton, all pretense at press neutrality was gone. Said WHCA President Jeff Mason in scripted remarks: “We are not fake news. We are not failing news organizations. We are not the enemy of the American people.”

A standing ovation followed. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press was repeatedly invoked and defiantly applauded, as though the president were a clear and present danger to it.

For behaving like a Bernie Sanders’ rally, the national press confirmed Steve Bannon’s insight – they are the real “opposition party.”

And so the war between an adversary press and a president it despises and is determined to take down is re-engaged.

As related in my book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever,” out May 9, that war first broke out in November of 1969.

With the media establishment of that day cheering on the anti-war protests designed to break his presidency, President Nixon sought to rally the nation behind him with his “Silent Majority” speech.

His prime-time address was a smashing success – 70 percent of the country backed Nixon. But the post-speech TV analysis trashed him.

Nixon was livid. Two-thirds of the nation depended on the three networks as their primary source of national and world news. ABC, CBS and NBC not only controlled Nixon’s access to the American people but were the filter, the lens, through which the country would see him and his presidency for four years. And all three were full of Nixon-haters.

Nixon approved a counterattack on the networks by Vice President Spiro Agnew. And as he finished his edits of the Agnew speech, Nixon muttered, “This’ll tear the scab off those b–––s!”

It certainly did.

Amazingly, the networks had rushed to carry the speech live, giving Agnew an audience of scores of millions for his blistering indictment of the networks’ anti-Nixon bias and abuse of their power over U.S. public opinion.

By December 1969, Nixon, the president most reviled by the press before Trump, was at 68 percent approval, and Agnew was the third-most admired man in America, after Nixon and Billy Graham.

Nixon went on to roll up a 49-state landslide three years later.

Before Watergate brought him down, he had shown that the vaunted “adversary press” was not only isolated from Middle America, it could be routed by a resolute White House in the battle for public opinion.

So where is this Trump-media war headed?

As of today, it looks as though it could end like the European wars of the last century, where victorious Brits and French were bled as badly and brought as low as defeated Germans.

Whatever happens to Trump, the respect and regard the mainstream media once enjoyed are gone. Public opinion of the national press puts them down beside the politicians they cover – and for good reason.

The people have concluded that the media really belong to the political class and merely masquerade as objective and conscientious observers. Like everyone else, they, too, have ideologies and agendas.

Moreover, unlike in the Nixon era, the adversary press today has its own adversary press: Fox News, talk radio and media-monitoring websites to challenge their character, veracity, competence and honor, even as they challenge the truthfulness of politicians.

Trump is being hammered as no other president before him, except perhaps Nixon during Watergate. It is hard to reach any other conclusion than that the mainstream media loathe him and intend to oust him, as they relished in helping to oust Nixon.

If this war ends well for Trump, it ends badly for his enemies in the press. If Trump goes down, the media will feel for a long time the hostility and hatred of those tens of millions who put their faith and placed their hopes in Trump.

For the mainstream media, seeking to recover the lost confidence of its countrymen, this war looks like a lose-lose.

See (“WHERE THE TRUMP-MEDIA WAR IS HEADED“) (emphasis added)

Today, Americans do not live in a world where “[t]wo-thirds of the nation depend[s] on the three networks as their primary source of national and world news,” as in the days of the Nixon presidency.

In fact, many of us have not watched the three networks in years, nor do we get our news from CNN, MSNBC or any other media outlets that are described as the “Mainstream Media.” The Internet has changed how Americans get their news, dramatically.

The Buchanan article must be juxtaposed against what just happened—as described succinctly in a mailing by Ken Cuccinelli II of the Senate Conservatives Action:

GOP leaders in Congress have completely surrendered control over federal spending to the Democrats.

The new spending bill written by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) represents yet another betrayal of the voters who elected them.

Instead of fighting for President Trump’s budget priorities, the bill funds Planned Parenthood, it funds sanctuary cities, it subsidizes Obamacare, and it fails to fund the border wall.

We gave them the House, the Senate, and the White House yet nothing has changed. President Trump was prepared to fight the Democrats, but GOP leaders in Congress refused.

See also (“Dawdling Congress tests Trump’s patience“) and (“Top Immigration Group Pulls Trump Endorsement Due to Betrayal on Immigration Promises“) and (“As Trump budget plans fade, Republicans brace for war – with each other“) and (“Democrats confident they can block Trump’s agenda after spending-bill win“)

The truly evil Democrats are laughing, while the disgraced Paul Ryan—who must be “Cantorized” in the next election—and other Neanderthals in the GOP are patting each other on the back, deluding themselves that they have done something really significant for the United States and the American people.

Paul Ryan


6 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump-Hatred Warps America’s Lawless Judiciary

Despicable Judges

St. John’s University law professor Marc O. DeGirolami has written in the Weekly Standard:

Something ugly is happening to the First Amendment. It is being contorted to enable judges to protest Donald Trump’s presidency. The perennial impulse of judges to manipulate the law to achieve morally and politically desirable ends has only been exacerbated by the felt necessity to “resist” Trump. The result: Legal tests concerning the freedoms of speech and religion that in some cases were already highly dubious are being further deformed and twisted.

Welcome to the rise of fake law. Just as fake news spreads ideologically motivated misinformation with a newsy veneer, fake law brings us judicial posturing, virtue signaling, and opinionating masquerading as jurisprudence. And just as fake news augurs the end of authoritative reporting, fake law portends the diminution of law’s legitimacy and the warping of judges’ self-understanding of their constitutional role.

Those who try to police the relentlessly transformational projects of constitutional progressives had much to dread from the Obama administration, an inveterate ally of the legal left that did what it could to graft the aspirations of progressives onto the Constitution. But Trump’s presidency may be even worse, because too many judges now feel called to “resist” Trump and all his works—no matter the cost to the law’s authority and to the integrity of the judicial role.

In one recent deformation, Trump was sued for incitement to riot and assault and battery when, at a campaign rally before he became president, he said “Get ’em out of here” in response to protesters in the audience. Several of these protesters were subsequently pushed and struck by others in the crowd. A Kentucky federal district judge ruled that the case against Trump could proceed because “Get ’em out of here” could reasonably be interpreted as an exhortation to attack the protesters.

The most astonishing part is the court’s conclusion that the statement is not protected by the speech clause of the First Amendment because it is plausible to think Trump was inciting a riot. Though the court cites the highly speech-protective test from Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech does not permit the government “to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action,” it mangles it. What part of “Get ’em out of here” could plausibly be interpreted as advocating illegal activity, rather than a call for the assistance of security officers? Where is the explicit advocacy of illegality?

Brandenburg involved a KKK member advocating on film the possibility of “revengeance” against African Americans and Jews, along with other hateful speech. In an earlier case, Terminiello v. City of Chicago, a rabble-rousing priest whipped up an angry throng to confront an enraged mob, shouting: “[T]here will be violence. .  .  . We will not be tolerant of that mob out there. .  .  . We are going to stand up and dare them to smear us. .  .  . We don’t want them here; we want them to go back to where they came from.” In both cases, the Supreme Court held that these words were constitutionally protected free speech. Neither what Trump said nor the context of his speech is even in the same universe.

And yet this district court found a way to rule that the president of the United States might be deposed on the question of incitement to criminal violence because Trump had on some other occasions “condoned violence,” and because had Trump actually wanted the assistance of security officers to remove the protesters, “Trump would have instructed the intervening audience members to stop what they were doing.”

It is not possible to explain this jaw-dropping ruling—one that flies in the face of binding Supreme Court precedent—without reference to extra-legal factors: the desire to embarrass the president, for example, or to create mischief for him, or to signal opposition to him. That Trump had previously “condoned violence” is irrelevant to whether he incited a riot at this rally. It is highly relevant, however, if one’s purpose is grandstanding to injure a political opponent.

An even more appalling specimen of fake law has been generated by Trump’s executive order restricting entry into the country by nationals of six foreign countries for 90 days and suspending refugee admission for 120 days. In one court order, a Hawaii federal district judge rejected the government’s claim that the six nations posed special security threats (on this, the Trump and Obama administrations are aligned) and concluded that the order violated the establishment clause. Relying principally on obscure dicta from Justice David Souter’s opinion for the Supreme Court in McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), the court held that the “unique,” “remarkable” “historical context” of the order, “full of religious animus, invective, and obvious pretext,” tainted it with anti-Muslim bias and therefore evidenced a purpose to make a law respecting an establishment of religion.

The court pointed to campaign statements by Trump that “Islam hates us” and by his “surrogate” (a media term appropriated by the judge) Rudy Giuliani’s description of a campaign conversation with Trump about a “Muslim ban” to justify its holding. This executive order was narrower than its predecessor—but somehow that counted against the government. In reaffirming its decision in a preliminary injunction, the court erupted in sanctimonious disgust: “The Court will not crawl into a corner, pull the shutters closed, and pretend it has not seen what it has.”

McCreary County was a 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court concluded that two Kentucky counties’ displays of the Ten Commandments in their respective courthouses were unconstitutional because each of three iterations of the displays evinced to a “reasonable observer” the same impermissible, nonsecular purpose—the promotion of Christianity. “Reasonable observers,” the Court intoned, “have reasonable memories.”

And unreasonable observers have unreasonable ones. Put to one side that the Supreme Court has never yet applied the establishment clause to foreign claims—a fact not even acknowledged by this judge. What makes the Hawaii court ruling so absurd—and such a clear example of fake law—is the district judge’s use of campaign statements by people without any lawmaking power when they were made to identify the order’s purpose. The Ten Commandments case was at least an attempt to discern government purpose because there was actually a government with a law-making history whose purpose could ostensibly be investigated. What “legislative history” did this judge consult? Campaign rhetoric, and the media spouting of a “surrogate” who has no role at all in the current administration.

A large part of the blame for this abomination falls on the Supreme Court. It was only a matter of time before the hollowness of its favored establishment clause test—which focuses on impure motivations, perceived slights, and the hurt feelings of political exclusion—would be exposed in the patently unreasonable use of irrelevant and illimitable “context.” The reasonable observer, it seems, is not the judge who faithfully applies the law but the politically motivated judge who swells the scope of the establishment clause and wears his contempt for the president like a medal.

. . .

As more courts succumb to similar Trump-hatred in the exercise of their constitutional duties, the damage to the law’s legitimacy and to the institution of the judiciary will only intensify. As with fake news, it is one of the pathologies of fake law that we are likely to forget what real law looks like. Soon enough, we won’t even know the difference.

See (“Fake Law“) (emphasis added)

The worst of America’s legal profession become judges. It has been polluted the most by judges who are egotistical, callous, mean-spirited, power-hungry, self-righteous, condescending and, yes, incompetent and arrogant.

Shakespeare’s famous quotation—“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”—must have been written by the Bard in some light-hearted, clairvoyant moment with the dark and sinister characteristics of judges in mind.

See; see also (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix“) and (“The American Legal System Is Broken: Can It Be Fixed?“) and (“The United States Department of Injustice“) and (“The State Bar Of California Is Lawless And A Travesty, And Should Be Abolished“)


11 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Trump arrives at West Palm Beach

Yahoo! News has reported:

The U.S. government had a $182 billion budget surplus in April, confounding market expectations for a deficit, according to Treasury Department data released on Wednesday.

The budget surplus was $106 billion in April 2016, according to Treasury’s monthly budget statement.

The fiscal 2017 year-to-date deficit was $344 billion compared with $353 billion in the same period of fiscal 2016.

When accounting for calendar adjustments, the surplus last month was $145 billion compared with an adjusted surplus of $146 billion the prior year. The adjusted deficit for the fiscal year to date was $373 billion compared with $314 billion the prior fiscal year period.

Receipts last month totaled $456 billion, up 4 percent from April 2016, while outlays stood at $273 billion, a decrease of 18 percent from the same month a year earlier.

See–business.html (“U.S. government posts $182 billion surplus in April“) (emphasis added); see also (“US-Saudi Arabia seal weapons deal worth nearly $110 billion immediately, $350 billion over 10 years“) and (“Corporate A-Listers Descend on Riyadh for Trump’s CEO Summit”—”Defense contractors were the big winners, but President Donald Trump’s first day in Saudi Arabia yielded a slew of high-profile investment deals that showcased the administration’s ability to draw support from major corporations”)


15 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

‘Black Lives Matter’ Must Be Destroyed

The Washington Times has reported:

President Trump took aim at the Black Lives Matter movement and former President Obama Monday, saying ambush-style killings of police last year during tensions in minority communities were “a stain on the very fabric of our society” and that too many Americans “obstruct” law enforcement.

“We are living through an era in which our police are subjected to unfair vilification and defamation — even worse, hostility and violence,” Mr. Trump said at a memorial ceremony at the Capitol for fallen officers. “More officers were slain last year in ambushes than in any year in more than two decades.”

Of fallen officers, Mr. Trump said, “We owe it to their memory to put truth before politics, justice before agendas, and to put the safety and security of the American people above everything else.”

While the president didn’t mention Black Lives Matter by name, Mr. Trump said, “The attacks on our police must end, and they must end right now.” He specifically addressed ambushes of police last year in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and in Dallas.

Some law enforcement officials were critical of President Barack Obama during the height of police-minority tensions, accusing him of emboldening the BLM movement and putting more cops at risk. Mr. Obama convened a task force on police practices in an effort to build better relations between police departments and minority communities.

Mr. Trump seemed to refer to Mr. Obama Monday when he told police officials, “I want you to know that patriotic Americans of all backgrounds truly support and love our police. A very sad thing is that many of today’s politicians don’t want to say that, don’t want to talk about that because it’s not politically correct or they think it might hurt them with the voters. I will say it and I will talk about it proudly.”

He also told the gathering, “You are entitled to leadership at the highest level that will draw a bright line in the sand, not a red line in the sand that isn’t gone over, but a bright line in the sand. And we will protect you, that I can tell you, and we will say ‘Enough is enough.’ “

Mr. Obama had infamously failed to enforce his own “red line in the sand” against Syria after that government’s military launched a chemical-weapons attack in 2013.

The president also called for Americans to “end the reckless words of incitement that give rise to danger and give rise to violence” against police.

He said too many Americans “obstruct” the work of law enforcement.

“It is time to work with our cops, not against them, but to support them in making our streets safe, not to obstruct, which we’re doing,” Mr. Trump said. “True social justice means a future where every child in every neighborhood can play outside without fear, can walk home safely from school, and can live out the beautiful dreams that fill their hearts.”

Mr. Trump told officers at the Peace Officers’ Memorial ceremony, “You are the thin blue line between civilization and chaos. You rush into unknown danger, risking your lives for people you have never met. And often without any thanks at all.”

President Chuck Canterbury of the National Fraternal Order of Police praised Mr. Trump.

“In his short time in office, he has let America know that our law enforcement officers are important, and that their lives matter,” he said.

Total law enforcement officer fatalities through Sunday were up 39 percent over the same period last year, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Firearms-related fatalities actually dropped slightly during that period, from 18 last year to 16 so far this year.

According to the NLEOMF, law enforcement fatalities nationwide rose to their highest level in five years in 2016, with 135 officers killed in the line of duty. That was a 10 percent increase over 2015, and the highest total since 2011, when 177 officers were killed.

Firearms-related incidents accounted for the most police deaths in 2016, with 64 officers shot and killed nationwide, a 56-percent increase from 2015. Of the 64 shooting deaths of officers last year, 21 were the result of ambush-style attacks — the highest total in more than two decades.

See (“Trump takes aim at Black Lives Matter, slams ‘hostility and violence’ against police“) (emphasis added); see also (“‘Black Lives Matter’ Thugs In Chicago”)

Barack Obama was and is a despicable black racist. If anyone has any doubts whatsoever, please read his book “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there, in his own words and beliefs, which undergirded eight years of his failed presidency, and gave rise to racial divisions not seen in our great country in years.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)


16 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Impeachment: The Democrats’ Loonies And Wackos Are Frothing At The Mouth [UPDATED]

Obama fanatic

Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, has written for the Washington Post:

The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice.

The remedy of impeachment was designed to create a last-resort mechanism for preserving our constitutional system. It operates by removing executive-branch officials who have so abused power through what the framers called “high crimes and misdemeanors” that they cannot be trusted to continue in office.

No American president has ever been removed for such abuses, although Andrew Johnson was impeached and came within a single vote of being convicted by the Senate and removed, and Richard Nixon resigned to avoid that fate.

Now the country is faced with a president whose conduct strongly suggests that he poses a danger to our system of government.

Ample reasons existed to worry about this president, and to ponder the extraordinary remedy of impeachment, even before he fired FBI Director James B. Comey and shockingly admitted on national television that the action was provoked by the FBI’s intensifying investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia.

Even without getting to the bottom of what Trump dismissed as “this Russia thing,” impeachable offenses could theoretically have been charged from the outset of this presidency. One important example is Trump’s brazen defiance of the foreign emoluments clause, which is designed to prevent foreign powers from pressuring U.S. officials to stray from undivided loyalty to the United States. Political reality made impeachment and removal on that and other grounds seem premature.

No longer. To wait for the results of the multiple investigations underway is to risk tying our nation’s fate to the whims of an authoritarian leader.

Comey’s summary firing will not stop the inquiry, yet it represented an obvious effort to interfere with a probe involving national security matters vastly more serious than the “third-rate burglary” that Nixon tried to cover up in Watergate. The question of Russian interference in the presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign go to the heart of our system and ability to conduct free and fair elections.

Consider, too, how Trump embroiled Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, despite Sessions’s recusal from involvement in the Russia investigation, in preparing admittedly phony justifications for the firing on which Trump had already decided. Consider how Trump used the vice president and White House staff to propagate a set of blatant untruths — before giving an interview to NBC’s Lester Holt that exposed his true motivation.

Trump accompanied that confession with self-serving — and manifestly false — assertions about having been assured by Comey that Trump himself was not under investigation. By Trump’s own account, he asked Comey about his investigative status even as he was conducting the equivalent of a job interview in which Comey sought to retain his position as director.

Further reporting suggests that the encounter was even more sinister, with Trump insisting that Comey pledge “loyalty” to him in order to retain his job. Publicly saying he saw nothing wrong with demanding such loyalty, the president turned to Twitter with a none-too-subtle threat that Comey would regret any decision to disseminate his version of his conversations with Trump — something that Comey has every right, and indeed a civic duty, to do.

To say that this does not in itself rise to the level of “obstruction of justice” is to empty that concept of all meaning. Obstruction of justice was the first count in the articles of impeachment against Nixon and, years later, a count against Bill Clinton. In Clinton’s case, the ostensible obstruction consisted solely in lying under oath about a sordid sexual affair that may have sullied the Oval Office but involved no abuse of presidential power as such.

But in Nixon’s case, the list of actions that together were deemed to constitute impeachable obstruction reads like a forecast of what Trump would do decades later — making misleading statements to, or withholding material evidence from, federal investigators or other federal employees; trying to interfere with FBI or congressional investigations; trying to break through the FBI’s shield surrounding ongoing criminal investigations; dangling carrots in front of people who might otherwise pose trouble for one’s hold on power.

It will require serious commitment to constitutional principle, and courageous willingness to put devotion to the national interest above self-interest and party loyalty, for a Congress of the president’s own party to initiate an impeachment inquiry. It would be a terrible shame if only the mounting prospect of being voted out of office in November 2018 would sufficiently concentrate the minds of representatives and senators today.

But whether it is devotion to principle or hunger for political survival that puts the prospect of impeachment and removal on the table, the crucial thing is that the prospect now be taken seriously, that the machinery of removal be reactivated, and that the need to use it become the focus of political discourse going into 2018.

See (“Trump must be impeached. Here’s why“)

Donald Trump was elected by the American people. Hillary Clinton should be indicted, convicted and imprisoned for the rest of her life. Yet, despicable lawyers like Tribe want to destroy the Trump presidency before it has begun.

Many of us felt just as strongly about the black racist Barack Obama, who served as a research assistant to Tribe for two years, but we did not try to destroy his presidency.

and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

The seditious, subversive and treasonous conduct of Tribe and others like him strongly suggests that they pose a danger to our system of government. They should be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned.

See also (“Comey & The Saturday Night Massacre”—”Trump is hated by [Washington, D.C.], which gave him 4 percent of its votes, as much as Nixon was. And the deep-state determination to bring him down is as great as it was with Nixon. By 1968, the liberal establishment had lost the mandate it had held since 1933, but not lost its ability to wound and kill [Republican] presidents. Though Nixon won 49 states, that establishment took him down. Though Ronald Reagan won 49 states, that establishment almost took him down in the Iran-Contra affair. And that is the end they have in mind for President Trump”)


18 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

End The Careers Of RINOS Curbelo And Amash Now!

RINO Watch

Breitbart has reported:

As Washington D.C. was gripped once more by anti-Trump hysteria Wednesday, some Republican lawmakers scrambled to be the loudest in their condemnation of the President — with one lawmaker going so far as to contact a left-wing publication to let them know that he was the first Republican to mention a possible impeachment.

The furor gripping Capitol Hill and the mainstream media was triggered by a New York Times report Tuesday outlining a memo by fired FBI Director James Comey. The memo reportedly said that Trump had asked Comey to quash the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

While some Republicans were skeptical about what was essentially a report about part of a memo about a conversation, some anti-Trump Republican lawmakers pounced. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a long-time Trump opponent, told CBS News’s Bob Schieffer, “It’s reaching the point where it’s of Watergate size and scale.”

“Every couple of days, there’s a new aspect of this really unhappy situation… None of us, no matter what our political leanings are, no matter how we feel about Trump, feel this is not good for America,” McCain said.

On Wednesday, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), told reporters that if the details in the memo were true, it would merit impeachment. According to The Hill, Amash was also asked if he trusted Comey or Trump’s word more. He responded: “I think it’s pretty clear I have more confidence in Director Comey.”

Quickly a number of outlets reported Amash’s remarks, calling him the first Republican to float Trump’s impeachment.

However, after left-wing outlet Mother Jones reported Amash’s remarks as such, the outlet said it was then contacted by a spokeswoman for Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), who reportedly told them: “Congressman Curbelo was actually the first Republican to mention impeachment.”

The spokeswoman was apparently referring to remarks Curbelo made Tuesday night on CNN in which he called for Comey to testify under oath, and said what was outlined in the Times report could be obstruction of justice.

“Obviously any effort to stop the federal government from conducting an investigation, any effort to dissuade federal agents from proceeding with an investigation, is very serious and could be construed as obstruction of justice,” Curbelo said.

While Curbelo said he wasn’t necessarily accusing anyone of anything, he later added, “Obstruction of justice, in the case of Nixon, in the case of Clinton in the late 90s, has been considered an impeachable offense.”

“This daily dose of controversy, of scandal, of instability, is bad for the government and I think it’s also very taxing on the American people,” he said.

Mother Jones editor Jeremy Schulman referenced the Curbelo conversation as proof of “how bad it’s gotten for Trump.”

See (“REPUBLICAN Lawmakers Fight Over Who Floated Trump Impeachment First“) (emphasis added)

A RINO is a “Republican In Name Only.” Lots of us voted for John McCain when he ran for the presidency; and as each day passes, we regret having done so.

Curbelo is a freshman Member of Congress; and next year, he must be swept from office. The same thing must happen with Amash.

Curbelo and Amash


18 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Special Prosecutor For Trump/Russia Investigation Is A Disaster [UPDATED]

EMP Attack on USA

In an article with the title above, political pundit and Trump supporter Dick Morris has written:

The Trump Administration may never recover from the decision of Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein to cave into Democratic pressure and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the totally fictitious “scandal” of Trump’s relationship with Putin.

The prosecutor, hired to investigate something that never happened, will not report Trump’s innocence. Special prosecutors never do. They justify their own existence, importance, budget, and staff by finding something to prosecute. Usually the “crime” they end up going after is one that his own investigation has created.

Remember the Valerie Plame affair? After years of work the special prosecutor found that no crime had occurred. The person who leaked her link to the CIA was authorized to do so. With no crime to come up with, Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, indicted poor Scooter Libby, an aide to VP Dick Cheney, for perjury, a crime that would never have taken place had there been no investigation.

That’s how special prosecutors work.

In the meantime, they hobble the president, drain away his political credibility, separate him from his supporters, and paralyze his administration. No legislator is willing to lend his support for fear of what the prosecutor might find. Each one will run for cover rather than work with Trump to get something done.

In appointing a prosecutor, Rosenstein has killed this Administration’s ability to function. No health care overhaul. No tax cuts. No government reform. All while we await the results of a nothing investigation into a nothing scandal.

And did Mr. Rosenstein get vested with this power to destroy? The Democrats sidelined Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General for doing his job as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and meeting with the Russian ambassador. He was forced to recuse himself when he said he knew of no instance of a Trump campaign official or aide meeting with the Russians. Of course, Sessions was no campaign aide but a Senator doing his job.

Mueller is a fair man and perhaps he will resist the temptation to look under rocks that aren’t there in search of scandal that never happened. Let us pray.

See (emphasis added); see also (“The Special Counsel Mistake”—”[Mr. Mueller will] no doubt bring on young attorneys who will savor the opportunity to make their reputation on such a high-profile investigation”)

The one thing that I learned by working in the U.S. Senate is that everyone is out to screw everyone else. Destroying the lives and reputations of others is “blood sport” on Capitol Hill. Since I left there, it has only gotten far worse. Any notions of “bipartisanship,” comity and respect went out the window years ago.

The whole atmosphere is poisonous and noxious; and having watched congressmen and senators bedding young female staffers, no older than about 28, I vowed that my kids would never work there. Only one word truly fit: S-I-C-K.

See, e.g., (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It“)

Fast forward to today, and I lived through Watergate too. It was breaking when I was still in the Senate; and I predicted Richard Nixon’s demise as I was leaving the Hill.

Donald Trump is essentially an Independent, and perhaps the first truly independent president in our history. This has its virtues and its vices. He is beholden to neither “establishment” political party, which is why lots of American love him and elected him.

However, he has made plenty of enemies in reaching our nation’s highest office, who want to see his presidency destroyed and Trump run out of Washington in utter disgrace. More than just reversing last year’s election results, they want to demonstrate to the nation and to the world who is really in charge of the United States.

Leave aside the fact that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who should be in prison, Trump’s enemies want to destroy him. They must be beaten, and they must be disgraced. Too much is at stake to do otherwise. North Korea and other enemies want to destroy us; and we are “inches” away from that happening.

See (“North Korea Prepares EMP Catastrophe For America“); see also (“North Korea Capable Of EMP Attack On USA“) and (“FBI Warns of Cyber Threat to Electric Grid”—”[The Department of Homeland Security (DHS}] and the FBI began a nationwide program warning of the dangers faced by U.S. utilities from damaging cyber attacks like the recent hacking against Ukraine’s power grid. The nationwide campaign by DHS and the FBI began March 31[, 2016] and includes 12 briefings and online webinars for electrical power infrastructure companies and others involved in security, with sessions in eight U.S. cities, including a session next week in Washington”)

This is what is at stake, and it is frightening. The “gotcha” politics of Capitol Hill and Washington are insane when viewed in the context of the dangers facing our country and every American. With the prospect of only 30 million of us surviving a nation-ending EMP Attack, a nuclear war seems to pale by comparison, and remarkably so.

. . .

Lastly, and a footnote to all of this, the first thing I did on Capitol Hill was to represent the Senate on a Joint Senate-House commission, the Presidential Commission on Mortgage Interest Rates. We had subpoena powers; and we spent months trying to reach a consensus before our final report and recommendations were made.

Young members of Robert Mueller’s staff will be cutting their teeth and building reputations and careers, just like Hillary Clinton and others have done before them. Dick Morris is correct: we can only hope and pray, for our great nation and—this time—its survival.


21 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The American Left Needs To Understand: Democracy Is Not Your Plaything [UPDATED]

Donald Trump arrives . . .

Peggy Noonan has written in the Wall Street Journal:

This will be unpleasantly earnest, but having witnessed the atmospherics the past 10 days it’s what I think needs saying:

Everyone, get serious.

Democracy is not your plaything.

This is not a game.

The president of the United States has produced a building crisis that is unprecedented in our history. The question, at bottom, is whether Donald Trump has demonstrated, in his first four months, that he is unfit for the presidency—wholly unsuited in terms of judgment, knowledge, mental capacity, personal stability. That epic question is then broken down into discrete and specific questions: Did he improperly attempt to interfere with an FBI criminal investigation, did his presidential campaign collude with a foreign government, etc.

But the epic question underlies all. It couldn’t be more consequential and will take time to resolve. The sheer gravity of the drama will demand the best from all of us. Are we up to it?

Mr. Trump’s longtime foes, especially Democrats and progressives, are in the throes of a kind of obsessive delight. Every new blunder, every suggestion of an illegality, gives them pleasure. “He’ll be gone by autumn.”

But he was duly and legally elected by tens of millions of Americans who had legitimate reasons to support him, who knew they were throwing the long ball, and who, polls suggest, continue to support him. They believe the press is trying to kill him. “He’s new, not a politician, give him a chance.” What would it do to them, what would it say to them, to have him brusquely removed by his enemies after so little time? Would it tell them democracy is a con, the swamp always wins, you nobodies can make your little choices but we’re in control? What will that do to their faith in our institutions, in democracy itself?

These are wrenching questions.

But if Mr. Trump is truly unfit—if he has demonstrated already, so quickly, that he cannot competently perform the role, and that his drama will only get more dangerous and chaotic, how much time should pass to let him prove it? And how dangerous will the proving get?

Again, wrenching questions. So this is no time for blood lust and delight. Because democracy is not your plaything.

The president’s staffers seem to spend most of their time on the phone, leaking and seeking advantage, trying not to be named in the next White House Shake-Up story. A reliable anonymous source who gives good quote will be protected—for a while. The president spends his time tweeting his inane, bizarre messages—he’s the victim of a “witch hunt”—from his bed, with his iPad. And giving speeches, as he did this week at the Coast Guard Academy: “No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.” Actually Lincoln got secession, civil war and a daily pounding from an abolitionist press that thought he didn’t go far enough and moderates who slammed his brutalist pursuit of victory. Then someone shot him in the head. So he had his challenges.

Journalists on fire with the great story of their lives—the most bizarre presidency in U.S. history and the breaking news of its daily missteps—cheer when their scoop that could bring down a president gets more hits then the previous record holder, the scoop that could bring down the candidate.

Stop leaking, tweeting, cheering. Democracy is not your plaything.

There’s a sense nobody’s in charge, that there’s no power center that’s holding, that in Washington they’re all randomly slamming into each other.

Which is not good in a crisis.

For Capitol Hill Democrats the crisis appears to be primarily a chance to showboat. Republicans are evolving, some starting to use the word “unfit” and some, as a congressman told me, “talking like they’re in a shelter for abused women. ‘He didn’t mean to throw me down the stairs.’ ‘He promised not to punch me again.’ ”

We’re chasing so many rabbits, we can’t keep track—Comey, FBI, memoranda; Russia, Flynn, the Trump campaign; Lavrov, indiscretions with intelligence. It’s become a blur.

But there’s an emerging sense of tragedy, isn’t there? Crucially needed reforms in taxing, regulation and infrastructure—changes the country needs!—are thwarted, all momentum killed. Markets are nervous.

The world sees the U.S. political system once again as a circus. Once the circus comes to town, it consumes everything, absorbs all energy.

I asked the ambassador to the U.S. from one of our greatest allies: “What does Europe say now when America leaves the room?” You’re still great, he said, but “we think you’re having a nervous breakdown.”

It is absurd to think the president can solve his problems by firing his staff. They are not the problem. He is the problem. They’re not the A-Team, they’re not the counselors you’d want, experienced and wise. They’re the island of misfit toys. But they could function adequately if he could lead adequately. For months he’s told friends he’s about to make big changes, and doesn’t. Why? Maybe because talented people on the outside don’t want to enter a poisonous staff environment just for the joy of committing career suicide. So he’s stuck, surrounded by people who increasingly resent him, who fear his unpredictability and pique and will surely one day begin to speak on the record.

A mystery: Why is the president never careful? He doesn’t act as if he’s picking his way through a minefield every day, which he is. He acts like he’s gamboling through safe terrain. Thus he indulges himself with strange claims, statements, tweets. He comports himself as if he has a buffer of deep support. He doesn’t. Nationally his approval numbers are in the mid to high 30s.

His position is not secure. And yet he gambols on, both paranoid and oblivious.

History is going to judge us by how we comported ourselves in this murky time. It will see who cared first for the country and who didn’t, who kept his head and did not, who remained true and calm and played it straight.

Now there will be a special prosecutor. In the short term this buys the White House time.

Here’s an idea.

It would be good if top Hill Republicans went en masse to the president and said: “Stop it. Clean up your act. Shut your mouth. Do your job. Stop tweeting. Stop seething. Stop wasting time. You lost the thread and don’t even know what you were elected to do anymore. Get a grip. Grow up and look at the terrain, see it for what it is. We have limited time. Every day you undercut yourself, you undercut us. More important, you keep from happening the good policy things we could have done together. If you don’t grow up fast, you’ll wind up abandoned and alone. Act like a president or leave the presidency.”

Could it help? For a minute. But it would be constructive—not just carping, leaking, posing, cheering and tweeting but actually trying to lead.

The president needs to be told: Democracy is not your plaything.

See (“Democracy Is Not Your Plaything“) (emphasis added)

I have seldom if ever agreed with Noonan, certainly in recent years. At best, she is one of the Neanderthals in the GOP—like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, George Will and Bill Kristol—who symbolize why lots of us left the party years ago and have never looked back. They did not elect President Trump. His dedicated supporters did.

Many Americans felt and still feel just as passionately about Barack Obama as others do about President Trump today, but they did not try to destroy the Obama presidency or advocate his assassination as many in the destroy-Trump movement have and continue to do.

They believed and continue to believe, with good reason, that Obama was and is a black racist and un-American. If anyone has any doubts whatsoever that he is a racist and a divider, please read his book Dreams from My Father, which sets forth his core beliefs that undergirded his eight years in the presidency.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

The Democrats or so-called “progressives” or far-Left and their captive Mainstream Media (or “MSN”), along with despicable elements of Neanderthals in the GOP, are literally trying to bring about a coup before the Trump presidency gets under way in earnest. They are like ugly vultures circling their prey.

I was working in the U.S. Senate when Watergate began; and as I left there, I predicted that the Nixon presidency would end. I hailed from California; and my parents were dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republicans. My mother even had a photo of “Dick and Pat” in our living room; and I had three chances to vote for him and never did.

I am not a “fan” of the totally Narcissistic Noonan who considers herself one of Washington’s “elites,” and seldom read her, but she asks the right question:

What would it do to them, what would it say to them, to have [President Trump] brusquely removed by his enemies . . . ?

Put succinctly, it would shatter our democracy. This is not the Watergate era that I lived through as I was leaving the U.S. Senate. “Gotcha politics” prevailed in Washington then, and the “feeding frenzy” has begun again.

The despicable Left and its alter ego in the so-called MSM are literally salivating—and so are our enemies around the world. The “blood sport” has begun again; and for lots of us who worked on Capitol Hill, this is merely the latest chapter and déjà vu.

Noonan’s mention of Lincoln’s travails is apt. History may be repeating itself.

See (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond“)

Noonan’s statement that this may be “the most bizarre presidency in U.S. history” speaks volumes about her, not the Trump presidency. She adds: “[T]here’s an emerging sense of tragedy, isn’t there?” The tragedy is that anyone takes her seriously, or anyone else in the MSM or the thoroughly-despicable Left.

Next, she writes:

Once the circus comes to town, it consumes everything, absorbs all energy.

The “circus” never left Washington, D.C. It is a circus town, which is why it is poison and noxious to so many Americans in the “Flyover States” and elsewhere.

See, e.g., (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It“)

Like so many “Never Trump” speakers and writers, who never wanted Donald Trump to become our president and want to destroy his presidency now, Noonan has no credibility with those of us who believe in this president, his lofty goals for our great nation and its people, and his place in history.


3 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Handed Trump A Weapon To Cripple Obamacare

Obama hangs

The New York Times has reported:

Obama administration officials knew they were on shaky ground in spending billions of dollars on health insurance subsidies without clear authority. But they did not think a long-shot court challenge by House Republicans was cause for deep concern.

For one thing, they would be out of office by the time a final ruling in the case, filed in 2014, was handed down. They also believed that a preliminary finding against the administration would ultimately be tossed out. Finally, they figured that President Hillary Clinton could take care of the problem, if necessary.

Well, they are out of office, Mrs. Clinton is not president and the uncertain status of the cost-sharing payments now looms as the biggest threat to the stability of the insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act. A dubious decision made by the previous White House has handed the current administration a powerful weapon to wield against the health care legislation that it despises.

“The administration should not have found an appropriation where none existed,” said Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor who has studied and written about the issue. “The Obama administration argument that the Affordable Care Act included an appropriation for the cost-sharing payments never held water.”

Judge Rosemary M. Collyer agreed with that assertion last year. She ruled that the Obama administration had no explicit authority to pay as much as $130 billion over 10 years to insurance companies to cover out-of-pocket health costs for millions of lower-income Americans obtaining insurance on the new health exchanges. At the same time, she found that the Republican-led House had the standing to sue the administration — a potentially far-reaching decision that many constitutional law experts predicted would be overturned on appeal, causing the suit to be dismissed.

Then November’s election upended all the calculations. Donald J. Trump won, and his interest in defending the executive branch against the House lawsuit was nonexistent given his antipathy for the health care law.

But neither he nor congressional Republicans were in any hurry to drop the appeal initiated by the Obama administration because that would mean the subsidies would be immediately cut off, throwing the health insurance market into turmoil. Instead, the lawsuit has been essentially suspended and the payments have become a new bargaining chip in Washington. The administration is essentially doling them out on a month-to-month basis while Republicans struggle to come together on their own health care replacement plan.

Republicans say the fight over the subsidies is just one element contributing to a failure of the health care law.

“This law is in the middle of a collapse,” Speaker Paul D. Ryan told reporters before the House went on its Memorial Day break. “We need to bring down the cost of coverage, and we need to revitalize the market so that people have real choices and real access to affordable health care.”

Democrats and other critics say it is the Trump administration’s position on the cost-sharing payments that is a chief contributor to the shakiness in the market, with insurers abandoning the program or raising premiums in anticipation of the federal dollars disappearing. They say that the White House maneuvering on the subsidies is simply the latest in a series of calculated moves meant to sabotage the insurance program, starting with an order to end enforcement of the requirement that people obtain insurance.

While some Democrats acknowledge that the Obama administration left the law vulnerable to attack with the way it funded the subsidies, they say it is Republicans who will now pay politically if the program collapses on their watch.

“This would put their hands on the bloody knife,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who is heading the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Mr. Bagley, the law school professor, agrees that Republicans would be held accountable for a failure in the marketplace. He says they should be because of the actions they have taken to undermine it.

“The biggest source for the instability in the markets in 2018 is the president,” he said, warning of a run of damaging headlines for Republicans beginning this fall if things proceed on their current course.

Republicans dismiss such talk and say that the public knows just where the problems with the health care law originated — and it is not with them.

“The blame belongs with Obamacare,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said recently. “There’s just no serious way to now try and spin away these years and years of Obamacare failures on cost.”

The ongoing debate overlooks an underlying problem with the Affordable Care Act. In the past, disputes such as the funding fight would have been resolved with corrective legislation.

Congress has traditionally taken years to resolve disagreements and unintended consequences arising from complex pieces of social legislation, as they continue to do with Medicare, which became law in the 1960s. But the bitter partisan divide over health care has prevented any such tweaking.

What to do about the payments will no doubt arise in budget talks between Capitol Hill and the White House.

The Trump administration could try again to extract concessions from Democrats by trading a commitment to continue funding the subsidies even though the White House was unsuccessful in doing so this year.

And if the Republican effort to find a substitute to the health care law ends in failure, which now seems a real possibility, perhaps Republicans and Democrats could find a way to come together to make repairs to the Affordable Care Act and resolve doubts surrounding the payments.

But for now, the uncertainty continues to imperil both the Affordable Care Act and the politicians who could be held accountable for any failure.

See (“Obama Unwittingly Handed Trump a Weapon to Cripple the Health Law“) (emphasis added)


15 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

The gunman who was killed by cops after opening fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice on Wednesday, the president’s 71st birthday, was a Trump-hating Democrat and Bernie Sanders supporter with a long criminal history which included of domestic violence.

James T. Hodgkinson, 66, from Belleville, Illinois, was killed by Capitol Police after firing up to 100 rounds from an assault rifle at a baseball park in Alexandria, Virginia, leaving five injured including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise at 7am on Wednesday.

Scalise’s condition worsened throughout the afternoon and was deemed critical by hospital staff at around 2pm after undergoing emergency surgery on his hip.

The shooter was a staunch Sanders supporter and campaigned for the left-wing senator to get the Democratic nomination for president last year.

A married union tradesman with a home inspection business, Hodgkinson had threatened to ‘destroy’ the president and his administration on social media but was not known to Secret Service.

His criminal record included arrests for punching a woman in the face in 2006 then pointing a gun at her boyfriend. Other charges include DUI and obstructing a police officer.

According to the gunman’s family, he was distraught about Trump’s November election win. They said he traveled to Virginia two months ago and had signed up for a membership at the YMCA opposite the baseball field he attacked.

Relatives said he had been living ‘out of a gym bag’ and had set up a mailbox at a UPS near the baseball field which he visited several times before carrying out his bloody attack.

Shortly after 7am on Wednesday, Hodgkinson opened fire from behind the third base dugout after asking one of the lawmakers if they were Republican or Democrat.

Two Capitol Police officers who were accompanying Scalise were shot as they returned fire. As bullets flew across the field, the congressmen fled to a dugout and huddled on top of one another, using their belts as makeshift tourniquets to treat the wounds of those who were shot.

Zachary Barth, a congressional staffer for Texas Rep. Roger Williams, was shot in the leg but is expected to recover. The two Capitol Police officers, Krystal Griner and David Bailey, are also expected to make a full recovery.

Lobbyist Matt Mika was also injured and is in hospital while Scalise is in critical condition at MedStar Washington Center after undergoing emergency surgery on his hip. Hodgkinson died in hospital.

Afterward the shooting, witnesses told how the shooter turned the park into a ‘killing field’ and seemed determined to murder ‘as many Republicans as possible’.

Hodgkinson documented his hatred for the president in Facebook and Twitter posts where he threatened to ‘destroy Trump & co’ and labeled him a ‘traitor’.

He has a history of gun violence, previously pointing one at a man during a family argument in 2006. He was once arrested for domestic battery and faced other charges for DUI, attempting to elude police and obstructing a police officer.

In 2006, he was arrested for punching a woman in the face. A separate incident, which was recorded in a police report obtained by The Daily Beast, says he also beat his underage daughter.

In that report, officers described how he was seen throwing her around a bedroom. When she tried to escape him, they said he pulled her hair. Another incident involved him cutting the girl’s seat-belt with a knife.

His violent tendencies came as a surprise to people who worked with him on Sanders’ 2016 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

One told The Washington Post: ‘I met him on the Bernie trail in Iowa, worked with him in the Quad Cities area.

‘He was this union tradesman, pretty stocky, and we stayed up talking politics. He was more on the really progressive side of things,’ Charles Orear said, adding that Hodgkinson was ‘quite mellow’.

A friend of the man spoke outside his home in Belleville, Illinois – 800 miles from where the shooting occurred – to say he was a ‘nice guy’.

Despite his hateful social media posts and criminal history, sources told CNN the man was not on the Secret Service’s radar.

Sanders resisted criticism directed at him on Wednesday, and his aides stayed between him and reporters milling near the Senate chamber.

The Vermont democratic socialist said in a statement on the Senate floor that he was aware the shooter ‘apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign.’

‘I am sickened by this despicable act,’ he said. ‘Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.’

‘Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values.’

The president spoke at a White House press conference at around 11am.

He made a plea for unity and thanked the police and emergency responders involved, making no mention of the gunman other than to confirm his death.

President Trump revealed he had spoken to Scalise’s wife to offer her his support and described the injured Whip as a ‘true friend’ and ‘patriot’.

Scalise was shot in the hip and taken to hospital by air ambulance shortly after the attack. Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks tried to stop the bleeding from his wound as Sen. Paul, a trained doctor, cut his baseball uniform to examine the injury.

Scalise was on the field when he was shot but was able to drag himself to safety in the dugout, where the other men were hiding, as the two Capitol Police who had accompanied him for the practice exchanged gunfire.

Michigan Rep. Mike Bishop earlier described how one man – thought to be part of Scalise’s Capitol Police protection detail – stood his ground to return fire as the congressmen and at least one of their children dove for cover in a dugout and Scalise dragged himself across the field after being hit, leaving a trail of blood behind him.

He told CBS Detroit: ‘As we were standing here this morning, a gunman walked up to the fence line and just began to shoot. I was standing at home plate and he was in the third base line. He had a rifle that was clearly meant for the job of taking people out, multiple casualties, and he had several rounds and magazines that he kept unloading and reloading.’

He said: ‘The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover.’

‘We were inside the backstop and if we didn’t have that cover by a brave person who stood up and took a shot themselves, we would not have gotten out of there and every one of us would have been hit — every single one of us.’

‘He was coming around the fence line and he was looking for all of us who had found cover in different spots. But if we didn’t have return fire right there, he would have come up to each one of us and shot us point-blank.’


Trump pleads for unity after GOP baseball shooting as Donald Jr. says attack proves why jokes about his father’s assassination AREN’T funny

The president pleaded for unity at a White House press conference to address an attack on his GOP colleagues on Wednesday.

Speaking hours after leaders including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and four others were injured by gunman James Hodgkinson, Trump said: ‘We are stronger when we are unified and when we work together for the common good.’

Trump referred to the gunman once to confirm his death, describing him only as ‘the assailant’. He devoted the rest of his speech to praising the Capitol Police and emergency responders who attended the attack.

‘Melania and I are grateful for their heroism and praying for the swift recovery of all victims. Congressman Scalise is a friend and a very good friend, He is a patriot and a fighter and he will recover from this assault.

‘Steve, I want you to know, you have the prayers not only of the entire city but of an entire nation and, frankly, the entire world. America is praying for you and America is praying for all of the victims of this shooting. I have spoken with Steve’s wife Jennifer and I pledged to her our full and absolute support. Anything she needs, we are with her and the entire Scalise family.

‘I have also spoken with Chief Matthew Verderosa (of the Capitol Police), he’s doing a fantastic job, to express our sympathies for his wounded officers and to express my admiration for their officers. They perform a challenging job with incredible skill and their sacrifice makes democracy possible.

‘We also commend the brave first responders from Alexandria Fire and Rescue who rushed to the scene. Everyone on that field is a public servant – our courageous police, our aides, and our dedicated members of congress who represent our people.

We can all agree that we are blessed to be Americans and that our children deserve to grow up in a nation of safety and peace,’ he said.

Donald Jr. had an angrier public response. He re-tweeted a post which read: ‘Events like today are EXACTLY why we took issue with NY elites glorifying the assassination of our President.’

He was referring to New York’s Public Theatre and its current production of Julius Caesar in which the doomed emperor is portrayed as his father. The play has sparked outrage and accusations that its directors are glorifying violence against the president.

It comes after the comedian Kathy Griffin’s shocking participation in a photo-shoot in which she appeared to be holding a fake representation of the president’s severed head. She apologized for the stunt after receiving angry backlash.


The group was practicing for a charity game which is due to take place on Thursday at Nationals Park when they were attacked. Three men escaped and took shelter in an apartment building nearby.

Another witness, Marty Lavor, dove on top of a congressman. He told CNN that after the gunman’s first shot, there was a break in the gunfire but it began shortly afterwards.

Republican Rep. Mo Brooks was also there but was not hurt. He described using his belt as a tourniquet to stop the bleeding on Scalise’s leg.

Speaking to FM Talk 1065 moments after the shooting, he told how the group was practicing batting when he suddenly saw the shooter.

‘Suddenly there’s this face. I noticed the guy’s got a rifle and he’s shooting at us,’ he said.

As he took shelter with others in the group, which also included Rep. Gary Palmer, Brooks said he watched Scalise crawl to them as the police exchanged gunfire with pistols.

‘He was dragging his body away from second base to get away from the shooter. He was shot in the hip. I think it was not a life-threatening wound. … There was no exit wound I could see.’

‘There was a blood trail about 10 to 15 yards long from where he was shot to wear he crawled to right field,’ he told CNN.

Brooks caught a brief glimpse of the shooter and described him as a white, middle-aged male. He said he described him as being ‘a little on the chubby side’ but not obese. No more information about him is being offered by police.

Scalise, as a member of the House leadership, was the only one in the group who had been accompanied by a Capitol Police security detail.

Senator Rand Paul, who was not hurt, said that without the armed officers, all of those targeted would have died.

‘Had they not been there, it would have been a massacre. As terrible as it is, it could have been a lot worse.

‘Had it not been for them, we would have been at the mercy of the shooter and he had a lot of ammo. All we would have had was baseball bats.’

‘The Capitol Hill police cannot get enough praise for really saving everyone’s life out there,’ he said.

Describing the scene as a ‘killing field’, he added: ‘He would have shot anybody who ran out.’

Ohio Republican Rep. Brad Robert Wenstrup, a doctor and an Army Reserve officer, was on the scene and helped treat the wounded before paramedics arrived.

‘I felt like I was back in Iraq, but without my weapon,’ he told Fox News. Arizona Rep. Senator Jeff Flake described watching as the gunman sprayed bullets on the field, where Scalise lay on the ground.

As his Capitol Hill protection officers exchanged fire, he said the group were helpless. ‘I wanted to get to Steve Scalise, laying out there in the field, but while there were bullets flying overhead, I couldn’t,’ he told ABC.

Scalise’s office initially said while he was undergoing emergency surgery at MedStar Washington Hospital Center that he was in ‘stable condition.’

‘Prior to entering surgery, the Whip was in good spirits and spoke to his wife by phone,’ a spokesperson said.He is grateful for the brave actions of U.S. Capitol Police, first responders, and colleagues.’

The two Capitol Police officers who were shot are both in a ‘good condition’ and are expected to recover.

All who have spoken since the attack said they were saved by having two trained doctors, including Wenstrup, on the team.

He administered immediate aid to Scalise before handing over to Brooks while he cut off his clothing. ‘We were very fortunate to have a physician on the team.’

Sen. Paul is a trained opthalmologist. He said he was unable to get to Scalise because he was separated by part of the field and a fence while the active situation was ongoing.

One local resident was in his apartment with his wife when they were woken by the gunshots. They sheltered three members of the team after seeing them run for their lives from the field.

‘We were able to get them in a safe space for a couple of minutes. They were pretty shaken up,’ he said.

President Trump issued a statement shortly after the shooting to say he was ‘deeply saddened’ and was monitoring the situation closely.

‘We are deeply saddened by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the members of Congress, their staffs, Capitol Police, first responders and all others affected,’ the president said.

Vice President Mike Pence cancelled a scheduled speech in order to meet with the president at The White House.

By mid-morning, the president had canceled a planned 3:00 p.m. event at the Department of Labor that was to have focused on his apprenticeship initiative.

All members of the House of Representatives were summoned to a private 11:15 a.m. briefing about the shooting investigation, and all votes were canceled for the day.

Scalise is the Republican majority whip in the House of Representatives – the congressman responsible for counting votes and maintaining party discipline.

The Louisianan, a 51-year-old father of two, is counted among conservatives in Congress who tend to back President Donald Trump’s more controversial initiatives, including calling his famous travel ban a ‘prudent’ measure. [H]e endorsed Trump unreservedly last year.

Scalise came under fire in 2014 for remarks he made in 2002 at a conference run by a group that he later learned was a white supremacist organization.

The infamous former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, who founded the group, blasted Scalise as a ‘sellout’ for apologizing.

The congressional baseball game is an annual tradition pitting members of the Democratic and Republican parties against each other. The game is set to take place on Thursday at Nationals Park.

Democratic members of Congress canceled their own baseball practice on Wednesday morning after news broke about the shooting. Many of those lawmakers gathered to pray for their political opponents in a concrete dugout before leaving under the guard of a Capitol Police escort.

As talk in Washington turned to the political ramifications of a high-profile shooting that affected lawmakers, fault lines began to emerge.

‘This kind of mindless violence must stop,’ California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in a statement that hinted at her longstanding support for gun-control laws.

‘I’m dedicated to doing all I can to putting an end to these senseless tragedies.’

On the other side of the aisle, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said he doesn’t know who the shooter is ‘or how he got a gun.’

‘We’ve got plenty of gun laws,’ Graham told a Bloomberg reporter. ‘I own a gun. I don’t go around shooting people with it.’

‘People get shot, run over by cars, stabbed, it’s just a crazy world,’ he said. ‘If we had that debate it’d end like it always ends. We’re not going to tell law-abiding people they can’t own a gun because of some nut-job.’

‘One thing I hope we’ll all do is just watch our words a little bit,’ Graham added. ‘Knock down the rhetoric. That’d be a good thing.’

In corners of the U.S. Capitol where business resumed as usual, the shooting seemed to hit home.

‘Several members of this committee were there,’ Republican Rep. Ed Royce of California declared as he convened a hearing featuring Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

‘This is a sad day for our country.’

‘We still don’t have all the details,’ said Royce, ‘but we do know that there are those who want to use acts of violence to create chaos, to disrupt our democracy.’

‘The American people will not let them win.’

See (“Congress baseball gunman was a Trump-hating Bernie supporter: Hero cops kill white Illinois man, 66, who opened fire on Republican lawmakers on the President’s birthday, leaving five injured“) (emphasis added); see also (“Donald Trump Jr weighs in on Congress shooting as he retweets post saying it shows why ‘we took issue with New York elites glorifying assassination’ of his father“) and (Killer was “SUPERFAN” of dike Rachel Maddow—”One of my favorite TV shows is ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ on MSNBC”) and (Ann Coulter: “The ‘Resistance’ Goes Live-Fire”—”The explosion of violence against conservatives across the country is being intentionally ginned up by Democrats, reporters, TV hosts, late-night comedians and celebrities, who compete with one another to come up with the most vile epithets for Trump and his supporters. They go right up to the line, trying not to cross it, by, for example, vamping with a realistic photo of a decapitated Trump or calling the president a ‘piece of s—’ while hosting a show on CNN. The media are orchestrating a bloodless coup, but they’re perfectly content to have their low-IQ shock troops pursue a bloody coup”—”There is more media coverage for conservatives’ ‘microaggressions’ toward powerful minorities -– such as using the wrong pronoun — than there is for liberals’ physical attacks on conservatives, including macings, concussions and hospitalizations. And now some nut Bernie Sanders-supporter confirms that it’s Republicans standing on a baseball field, before opening fire”—”The fake news insists that Trump’s White House is in ‘chaos.’ No, the country is in chaos. But just like Kathy Griffin and her Trump decapitation performance art — the perpetrators turn around in doe-eyed innocence and blame Trump”) and (“A partial list of threats against GOP and Trump from Hollywood celebrities“)

Obviously, Donald Trump, Jr. and Ann Coulter are correct. Not since the last Civil War—which produced Abraham Lincoln’s assassination—have Americans experienced such viciousness, sedition and treason . . . which has been fanned by the black racist Barack Obama.

If anyone has any doubts whatsoever that he is a despicable racist, please read his book “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there, in his own words and beliefs, which undergirded eight years of his failed presidency—and gave rise to racial and political divisions not seen in our great country in decades.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“); see also (“Classified Documents Show Obama Illegally Spied On Americans For Years“)

As I have stated previously:

A criminal conspiracy has existed between Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Comey, Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch and others, which must be investigated thoroughly—and the participants must be indicted, convicted and sent to prison.

This is the scandal that is plaguing America, aside from the “deep-state” leaks and the despicable efforts to destroy the Trump presidency and change last November’s election results—which go to the very essence of our democracy!

See (“The Fix Was In On The Hillary Investigation From The Start“); see also (“America Is In A Civil War”)

The latest is a move by special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, Robert Mueller, to widen the probe to include an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

See (“Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say”—”Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing”); see also (“SUMMER SHOWDOWN: Mueller Adds Muscle To Russia Investigation“)

For those of us who lived through Watergate, as I did when I was leaving the U.S. Senate, such investigations take on an insidious and odious life of their own. The Department of Justice, from which Mueller and Comey hail—along with Rod Rosenstein who appointed Mueller—is totally corrupt. Mueller, Rosenstein and others should be fired immediately; and the Mueller witch hunt should be shut down completely.

See, e.g., (“Another Despicable At The Department Of Injustice“) and (“[Newt] Gingrich: Republicans Would Do Well to Emulate Sessions”—”Republicans need to realize that ‘this is a real war,’ the former speaker said, as ‘the left wants to destroy them, and being passive and being slow doesn’t count'”—”‘If we elect a Republican to follow Trump, the left is going to keep going crazy'”) and (Renowned civil-rights lawyer and a long-time Harvard Law professor, Alan Dershowitz: “The fact that Mueller is opening an investigation on obstruction doesn’t answer the two basic questions. One — can a president be indicted while sitting? And two — can a president be indicted for obstruction — which is simply doing his job, being the head of the executive branch? I think the answer to both of these questions is still going to be no and no. . . . I think Trump benefits from the fact that [Mueller is] hiring experts on a president’s power, because I think they’ll tell him that the president’s power [is legitimate] ending the investigation”)

The forces within the United States that are trying to destroy the democratically-elected Trump presidency are every bit as evil as external enemies such as North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and ISIS. They must be destroyed, summarily.

Nothing less will suffice.


20 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Round One Goes To President Trump

President Donald J. Trump

Conrad Black—the Canadian-born British former newspaper publisher, author and life peer—has written in the New York Sun:

It is easy to forget that the credibility battle between President Trump and James Comey is just the latest round in Donald Trump’s long struggle to overwhelm, single-handedly at first, the entire national political power structure. No one who followed closely really believed that the war was over on election night.

The Democrats contested some local results, unsuccessfully, and then, in their stark disbelief, took out television advertisements reaching tens of millions of people, to ask some of the 538 people elevated to the electoral college to break their pledges and vote for Clinton instead of Trump. It was an absurd fiasco.

Democratic Senate leaders Charles Schumer and Richard Durbin made prodigious efforts to block virtually every nominee of the incoming administration to high office. Apart from knocking down Trump’s first candidate for labor secretary, their only achievement was delay and harassment.

From the day after the election Mrs. Clinton fabricated the contention that, first among all those responsible for her defeat (amongst whom she never thought of herself), were the Russians. This wild allegation was first advanced by the egregious John Podesta, Democratic campaign chairman, who had extensive links to Russia himself.

It was then amplified by former Senate leader Harry Reid, and then Mrs. Clinton got the bit in her teeth. Alleging collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign quickly became the favorite theme of the Democratic leaders in the Congress, and the vast gallery of Never-Trump fanatics in the national press, their ranks swollen and made more raucous by the self-exiled snobs of the intellectual conservative movement.

Since Mr. Trump had gone to war against all factions of both parties; Hollywood, Wall Street, the national press, academia, the lobbyists, and the bureaucracy, there could not be a honeymoon, merely a few pleasantries on inauguration day, like a Christmas truce on the Western Front in World War I, followed by the resumption of hostilities. The outgoing Obama administration helpfully conducted surveillance in the Trump Tower and unmasked and leaked to the press the names of prominent Republicans, which had arisen in these dubious practices, but no evidence was found.

The Russians jubilantly exploited the near anarchy in the angry and terrified Washington political and press elites, by an imaginative campaign of disinformation. They planted the infamous Steele dossier, including the claim that Mr. Trump had organized a group urination by prostitutes on a bed in a Moscow hotel because the Obamas had once slept there.

The upper reaches of the Washington civil-service became spigots of malicious and almost certainly criminal leakage to the Trumpophobic press. Every charge, no matter how fantastic, against the incoming president was given immense play by the morally bankrupt, unrelievedly partisan mainstream press, led by the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC. All of these outlets had gagged on election night, and all of them refused to accept the legitimacy of the new administration.

There had never been an argument to reelect the Democrats on the merits of the largely failed Obama administration, so their entire campaign was a smear job on Trump. This continued with the Russian collusion scam and as soon as the administration was in place, with the nonsense about racism over the partial travel ban. (The Supreme Court will almost certainly take immigration back from the district and circuit courts and restore it to the president.)

Donald Trump definitely did not make his task easier by some of the bumptious and tasteless comments that he made as this war unfolded. He has generally held the support of his followers, who understood that his assault upon the political establishment was so comprehensive, it would require a full term to implement.

Those well acquainted with the key Democratic personalities in Washington confirm that they realize that they have absolutely nothing to work with for an impeachment but are aiming at the immobilization of the regime until the mid term elections of 2018 when the Democrats will try to retake at least part of the Congress against a do-nothing, blustering government.

Mr. Trump has fought like a fearless but calculating bull. His greatest problem is not spurious charges or press hostility, which is not uniform and provokes a heavy backlash, but the cowardice of congressional Republicans. Most of them are in the Washington sleaze factory Trump initially attacked, but they owe their majority status and the House passage of repeal of Obamacare to the president.

Speaker Paul Ryan was unable as the appointment of a special counsel was announced, even to allow the president a presumption of innocence, and confined himself to declining “to prejudge” the outcome. Soon, they will have to realize that the anti-Trump campaign is just a mudslide and that their only chance of retaining control of the Congress is to pull together and put the president’s radically sensible program through.

The firing of FBI director James Comey, apparently for needlessly dragging out the Russian collusion nonsense, though his ham-handed political meddling had irritated both parties, and his appearance before the Senate intelligence committee last week, and Trump’s press conference the following day, have torqued up the war to new heights of acrimony, but Mr. Trump is finally winning.

Even relatively unbiased commentators have failed to see how one-sided the exchange has been, though the comparisons with Richard Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox, like the collusion charge itself, the complaints of a back-channel between the Russians and the president’s son-in-law, and the charge of misuse of Israeli intelligence (denied by Prime Minister Netanyahu), have vanished, almost forgotten.

Mr. Comey conceded that he did not object when former Attorney General Lynch told him to refer to the Clinton investigation as the Clinton “matter.” He admitted, as Mr. Trump had claimed and Mr. Comey had not previously acknowledged and the press failed to publish, that even after many months of investigation Mr. Trump was not suspected of collusion with the Russians. He acknowledged that while Russia had tried to interfere with the election, there was no evidence that their efforts had changed any votes.

Mr. Comey admitted that he had leaked his hotly contested version of a conversation with the president about the investigation of former national security advisor General Michael Flynn, in order to prompt the appointment of a special counsel. He did attack the press, and generated a retraction at CNN and extreme evasions by the New York Times.

No one is satisfied with Mr. Comey’s explanation of why he took it upon himself as a police chief to recite the likely offenses of Mrs. Clinton with her emails and then declare she should not be prosecuted, which was not his decision to make; nor why he reopened and then quickly closed the “Clinton matter” in the last week of the campaign.

In all of these areas, there is little argument that Mr. Comey exceeded the powers of his position, and compromised the political impartiality and integrity of the Bureau. The chief takeaways are that the Russian collusion argument against Mr. Trump is dead and that the obstruction argument is reduced to trying to claim, as no sane prosecutor would, that the president’s unwise and inconsequential expression of a hope that General Flynn would not be prosecuted constituted an obstruction of justice.

The chances of getting any traction on this issue are also zero. Even the endless brayings of Mr. Schumer and Adam Schiff, the unfeasibly sanctimonious congressman from Hollywood, and Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate intelligence Committee, may have to be modulated, (to the acoustical relief of the nation). There is little chance that Special Counsel Mueller will find anything that significantly embarrasses the president.

Donald Trump has won this round, but the war will continue for a while longer.

See (“Round One Goes To Trump, Even If More Tests Await the New President”) (emphasis added); see also (“Conrad Black“)

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Black when he states:

The Supreme Court will almost certainly take immigration back from the district and circuit courts and restore it to the president.

Our Supreme Court is as corrupt as any other political institution in this great country. Anyone who has practiced law at the highest levels knows this, in spades.

It is a disgrace.


22 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


President Donald J. Trump

The Hill has reported:

The Republican sweep of four contested House special elections this year has handed President Trump and his party a much-needed boost to move a healthcare bill and perhaps more of their stalled legislative agenda.

GOP officials in Washington breathed a sigh of relief after their candidate, Karen Handel, fended off Democrat Jon Ossoff in a Georgia runoff election Tuesday night — a race that Democrats had poured tens of millions of dollars into and billed as a referendum on the unpopular president and his policies.

Republican Ralph Norman on Tuesday defeated Democrat Archie Parnell by an even narrower margin — a little more than 3 percentage points — in a South Carolina race that received far less national attention.

If energized Democrats had claimed either of those long-held GOP seats, they could have argued that even traditionally red seats are in play in 2018 and Republicans who back Trump’s agenda do so at their own peril.

But the GOP’s perfect 4-0 contested special-election record in 2017 now gives Capitol Hill Republicans some cover to pass their ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill, a major tax-reform package and other legislative priorities. And the media will shift its focus from the special elections back to policy, lawmakers said, even as the Russia investigation continues to dominate the headlines.

“It certainly boosts Republican morale,” said Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the House GOP’s campaign arm.

“There are local reasons [why Ossoff lost]. He didn’t live in the district,” added Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.). “But I think it bodes well for the president’s agenda for now.”

More specifically, staunch repeal advocates will point to the Georgia results to argue that skeptical Senate Republicans can back repeal of the health law without risking reelection. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to unveil his own healthcare bill on Thursday and put it on the floor next week.

“Clearly Karen Handel defended us on [healthcare] and ran on ‘We need to get this stuff done. This is something we need to finish,’ ” Cole said, “so I think that’s an important message from our base to our members.”

The White House, too, sees the GOP victories in Georgia and South Carolina Tuesday night as a clear-cut vote of confidence for its policy agenda — and proof the Democrats don’t have a winning platform.

“They thought the elections last night were going to be a referendum on this president,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday on “Fox and Friends.” “And once again, he proved, never underestimate him, and that the American people put him and other Republicans in place for a reason: They have an agenda.”

She added, “Frankly, I think Republicans are going to get tired of winning at some point if the Democrats don’t ever get an agenda.”

While many Republicans took a victory lap on Wednesday, not all had been so confident about holding the 6th District seat in the Atlanta suburbs.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who ran the NRCC during the 2014 and 2016 cycles, said he thought Democrats were going to pull off the victory. After all, he said, Democrats appeared to be more energized, had a bigger army of volunteers and outspent the GOP roughly $32 million to $23 million in what was the most expensive House race in U.S. history.

“I didn’t think we were going to win in Georgia three weeks ago … given the overall political environment, the ‘Resist’ movement, the hyperactivity at our town halls,” Walden told The Hill. But the voters “decided the Democrat brand didn’t have the right message, that you can’t just be against something.”

Trump last year narrowly won Georgia’s 6th District, which was vacated when Tom Price became secretary of Health and Human Services.

Vulnerable Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), a top 2018 Democratic target who voted for ObamaCare repeal in May, also called the Georgia victory a “surprise” and “impressive win.”

“Obviously, I wasn’t too confident about it, as the Democrats had this massive fundraising advantage and there was all of this enthusiasm” on the left, said Curbelo, who represents a district that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won last year.

But he said he wouldn’t take his foot off the gas after the Georgia win: “We always run like we’re behind. Either you run scared or unopposed.”

Publicly, Democratic leaders aren’t panicking. Despite their four defeats in the Kansas, Montana, South Carolina and Georgia specials, Democrats said they see a silver lining.

“If you look at the numbers, these are all seats where just seven months ago [Republicans] won by double digits, and they were nail-biters after Trump takes office,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. “I think that shows that people have serious questions about whether the Trump agenda is working for them.

“I look at the results and say, ‘Let’s keep competing in places like Georgia and South Carolina where we didn’t necessarily compete before,’ ” he continued. “If people understand that we are for them and he has not delivered for them, I think 2018’s in play.”

To win back the House next year, Democrats need to pick up 24 seats.

See (“Special election sweep boosts Trump agenda“) (emphasis added); but see (“End The Careers Of RINOS Curbelo And Amash Now!“)

It is time to shut down the Robert Mueller investigation completely; fire Rod Rosenstein; and indict, convict and imprison James Comey, Hillary Clinton and others!


25 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Donald Skunks the Democrats [UPDATED}

President Donald J. Trump

This is the title of an article by Leftist Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, which states:

YOU know who is really sick and tired of Donald Trump winning, to the point where they beg, “Please, Mr. President, sir, it’s too much”?


The Democrats just got skunked four to nothing in races they excitedly thought they could win because everyone they hang with hates Trump.

If Trump is the Antichrist, as they believe, then Georgia was going to be a cakewalk, and Nancy Pelosi was going to be installed as speaker before the midterms by acclamation. But it turned into another soul-sucking disappointment.

“It’s Trump four and us zero,” says the Democratic congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio. “I don’t want to admit that. When it comes out of my mouth, it bothers me. But Trump does robo calls. He tweets. He talks about the races. He motivates his base, and he moves the needle, and that’s a problem for us. Guys, we’re still doing something wrong here because a) he’s president and b) we’re still losing to his candidates.”

The 43-year-old Ryan, who failed to unseat Pelosi as House minority leader last year, says that the Democrats’ brand is toxic, and in some places worse than Trump’s. Which is beyond pathetic.

The Republicans have a wildly unpopular, unstable and untruthful president, and a Congress that veers between doing nothing and spitting out vicious bills, while the Democratic base is on fire and appalled millennials are racing away from Trump. Yet Democrats are stuck in loser gear.

Trump’s fatal flaw is that he cannot drag himself away from the mirror. But Democrats cannot bear to look in the mirror and admit what is wrong.

“We congenitally believe that our motives are pure and our goals are right,” Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago, told me. “Therefore, we should win by default.” But, he added dryly: “You’ve got to run a good campaign. In elections, politics matter. Oooh, what a surprise.”

As Ryan sighs: “If you don’t win, you don’t have power, and you can’t help on any of these issues we care about.”

Democrats cling to an idyllic version of a new progressive America where everyone tools around in electric cars, serenely uses gender-neutral bathrooms and happily searches the web for the best Obamacare options. In the Democrats’ vision, people are doing great and getting along. It is the opposite of Trump’s dark diorama of carnage and dystopia — but just as false a picture of America.

With Jon Ossoff, as with Hillary Clinton, the game plan was surfing contempt for Trump and counting on the elusive Obama coalition. Heavy Hollywood involvement is not necessarily a positive in Georgia, though. Alyssa Milano drove voters to the polls but couldn’t bewitch the Republicans. And not living in the district is bad anywhere.

Democrats are going to have to come up with something for people to be for, rather than just counting on Trump to implode. (Which he will.) The party still seems flummoxed that there are big swaths of the country where Democrats once roamed that now regard the Democratic brand as garbage and its long-in-the-tooth leadership as overstaying its welcome. The vibe is suffocating. Where’s the fresh talent?

In a new piece in The Atlantic, Emanuel and Bruce Reed — who engineered their party’s last takeover of Congress in 2006, the first since 1994 — argue that Democrats need to channel their anger and make 2018 a referendum on Trump’s record, not his impeachment.

In dwindling swing districts, Emanuel told me, Democrats need to choose candidates who are pro-middle class, not merely pro-poor.

They can’t just waltz in and win seats held by Republicans. And they can’t go full Bernie. They have to drum up suburban candidates who reflect their districts, Emanuel says, noting that they wrenched back control of Congress by recruiting a football player in North Carolina, an Iraq veteran in Pennsylvania and a sheriff in Indiana.

It’s shocking that Hillary couldn’t be bothered to come up with an economic message or any rationale other than “It’s My Turn.” “Hillary never got a real message out,” Michael Bloomberg, who eviscerated Trump at Hillary’s convention, told Anderson Cooper. “It was ‘Don’t vote for that guy’ and the gender issue. Whereas Donald had us saying ‘Make America Great Again.’ ”

Ryan says Democrats need to stop microtargeting. “They talked to a black person about voting rights, a brown person about immigration, a gay about gay rights, a woman about choice and on and on, slicing up the electorate,” he said. “But they forgot that first and foremost, people have to pay their mortgages and get affordable health care.”

He also urged his fellow Democrats to stop obsessing about Trump and Russia and start obsessing on globalization, automation and wage stagnation.

“The crazy thing is that there’s a great opportunity here, because neither party has figured out how to thrive in the new economy,” he said.

Carrier and Boeing, where Trump visited to boast about saving jobs, announced layoffs last week, and Ford is shifting some production to China. And news flash for Donald: King Coal has been dethroned.

“Trump leveraged his wealth to convince working-class people that he could deal with these changes,” Ryan said. “But just saying, ‘The Chinese rent from me,’ doesn’t mean he’s figured this stuff out.”

Trump may be nuts enough to blow up the world. But the Democrats are nuts if they think his crazy is enough to save them.

See (emphasis added)

Liberal Dan Balz has added in the Washington Post:

The loss in last week’s special congressional election in Georgia produced predictable hand-wringing and finger-pointing inside the Democratic Party. It also raised anew a question that has troubled the party through a period in [which] it has lost ground politically. Simply put: Do Democrats have a message?

Right now, the one discernible message is opposition to President Trump. That might be enough to get through next year’s midterm elections, though some savvy Democratic elected officials doubt it. What’s needed is a message that attracts voters beyond the blue-state base of the party.

The defeat in Georgia came in a district that was always extremely challenging. Nonetheless, the loss touched off a hunt for scapegoats. Some Democrats, predictably, blamed the candidate, Jon Ossoff, as failing to capitalize on a flood of money and energy among party activists motivated to send a message of opposition to the president. He may have had flaws, but he and the Democrats turned out lots of voters. There just weren’t enough of them.

Other critics went up the chain of command and leveled their criticism at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She has held her party together in the House through many difficult fights — ask veterans of the Obama administration — but she also has become a prime target for GOP ad makers as a symbol of the Democrats’ liberal and bicoastal leanings. Pelosi, a fighter, has brushed aside the criticism.

Perhaps Democrats thought things would be easier because of Trump’s rocky start. His presidency has produced an outpouring of anger among Democrats, but will that be enough to bring about a change in the party’s fortunes?

History says a president with approval ratings as low as Trump’s usually sustain substantial midterm losses. That could be the case in 2018, particularly if the Republicans end up passing a health-care bill that, right now, is far more unpopular than Obamacare. But Trump has beaten the odds many times in his short political career. What beyond denunciations of the Republicans as heartless will the Democrats have to say to voters?

Though united in vehement opposition to the president, Democrats do not speak with one voice. Fault lines and fissures exist between the ascendant progressive wing at the grass roots and those Democrats who remain more business-friendly. While these differences are not as deep as those seen in Trump’s Republican Party, that hasn’t yet generated a compelling or fresh message to take to voters who aren’t already sold on the party.

Hillary Clinton, whose rhetoric often sounded more poll-tested than authentic, never found that compelling message during her 2016 campaign. She preferred to run a campaign by demonizing Trump and, as a result, drowned out her economic platform. This was a strategic gamble for which she paid a high price.

The absence of a convincing economic message did not start with Clinton. Former president Barack Obama struggled with the same during his 2012 reelection. He wanted to claim credit for a steady but slow recovery while acknowledging forthrightly that many Americans were not benefitting from the growth. It was a muddle at best, but he was saved by the fact that Mitt Romney couldn’t speak to those stressed voters either. In 2016, however, Trump did.

Clinton’s loss forced Democrats to confront their deficiencies among white working-class voters and the vast areas between the coasts that flipped in Trump’s direction. Their defection from the Democratic Party began well before Trump, but until 2016, Democrats thought they could overcome that problem by tapping other voters. Trump showed the limits of that strategy.

The Georgia loss put a focus on a different type of voter, the well-educated suburbanites, particularly those who don’t live in deep-blue states. While losing ground among working-class whites, Democrats have been gaining support among white voters with college degrees. In the fall, Clinton advisers believed she would do well enough with those college graduates to overcome projected erosion among those without college educations. She fell short of expectations, however, allowing Trump to prevail in the pivotal Midwest battlegrounds.

The Georgia district had the highest percentage of college graduates of any in the nation. Ossoff tried to win over those suburban voters with a moderate message on economic issues, but it wasn’t powerful or persuasive enough to overcome the appeal of the Republican brand in an election in which the GOP made Pelosi-style Democrats a focus. Loyalty to party was strong enough to allow Karen Handel to prevail.

The long-running debate over the Democrats’ message probably will intensify as the party looks to 2018 and especially to 2020. It is a debate that the party needs. Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, writing in the American Prospect, sees a problem that goes beyond white working-class voters to those within the Democratic base who also were left behind by the post-2008 economic gains. He argues that the party’s problem is with working-class voters of all types, not just whites.

Greenberg has long been critical of the tepidness of the party’s economic message and puts some of the blame on Obama. He believes the former president’s economic message in 2012 and 2016 focused on progress in the recovery largely to the exclusion of the widespread pain that still existed. “That mix of heralding ‘progress’ while bailing out those responsible for the crisis and the real crash in incomes for working Americans was a fatal brew for Democrats,” he argues.

For progressives, the answer to this problem is clear: a boldly liberal message that attacks big corporations and Wall Street and calls for a significant increase in government’s role in reducing income and wealth inequality. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been aggressive in promoting exactly that, as he did during the 2016 campaign, with calls for a big investment in infrastructure and free college tuition at public colleges and universities. He has said he intends to introduce legislation he calls “Medicare for All.”

That kind of message probably will spark more internal debate, particularly among Democrats from swing districts or swing states. It points to one of the biggest challenges Democrats face as they move beyond being the anti-Trump party. That is the question of whether they are prepared to make a robust and appealing case in behalf of government in the face of continuing skepticism among many of the voters they are trying to win over. Trump might not succeed in draining the swamp, but he has tapped into sentiments about Washington that Democrats ignore at their peril.

Nor can Democrats ignore voters’ concerns about immigration. The Democrats’ message on immigration and immigrant rights (and some other cultural issues) plays well in many blue states, but it draws a much more mixed reception in those parts of the country where Trump turned the election in his direction.

In this divided era, it’s easy for either party to look at the other and conclude the opposition is in worse shape. That’s the trap for Democrats right now as they watch Trump struggle in office. But Democrats are in the minority in the House, Senate, governorships and state legislatures. Clinton may have won the popular vote, but that proved about as satisfying as coming close while losing last week in Georgia. It’s no substitute for the real thing. If continued frustration with losing doesn’t prompt rethinking about the message, what will?

See (“Beyond opposing Trump, Democrats keep searching for a message“) (emphasis added)

Notwithstanding all the hang-wringing by the looney and totally-despicable Left, it is clear that Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein must be fired; Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and others must be investigated, indicted, convicted and imprisoned; and Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings, Rachel Maddow and others must be destroyed politically.

Nothing less will suffice.

See, e.g.,–House%20Democrats-Pelosi/id-874858ed7bcf46978f9adbb98ff04e7a (“Some House Democrats mull over how to oust Pelosi as leader“) and (“Senate announces probe of Loretta Lynch behavior in 2016 election“) and (“Sketchy firm behind Trump dossier is stalling investigators“) and (“NAPOLITANO: FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL LYNCH COULD FACE 5-10 YEARS IN PRISON“) and (“Gingrich: Mueller’s Team of Liberal Lawyers on ‘Hunting Expedition'”)


25 06 2017

From top to bottom, America’s legal system is a travesty, unjust, corrupt, a disgrace, shameful and lawless.

Agreed. Nothing else will suffice.

Liked by 1 person

25 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thanks, Rick.

I have a new article on this subject, which will be published in the not-too-distant future. 😊


8 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

With Energy Prices Falling, Trump Has Putin Over The Barrel

American conservative commentator, economic analyst, television personality, and newspaper columnist, Lawrence Kudlow, has written in the New York Sun:

A few years back, in one of his finest moments, Senator McCain said on a Sunday talk show that “Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country.” It was right when he said it, and it’s even more right today.

Vladimir Putin’s circle of corrupt oligarchs gouge whatever money they can from the impoverished Russian economy and move it to bank accounts overseas. They do this after giving President Putin his cut, after which he apparently also sends the money overseas.

Many say Mr. Putin is the richest man in Russia, worth billions and billions. So the old Soviet model of the nomenklatura communist bureaucrats getting rich while the rest of the country declines is still in place.

With energy prices falling, though, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has essentially been in a recession for the past four years. With oil at $50 or less a barrel, Russian budgets plunge deeper into debt. It’s even doubtful the Russians have enough money to upgrade their military-energy industrial complex.

Through crafty press relations and his own bravado, a deluded Mr. Putin struggles to maintain the illusion that Russia is a strong economic power. It isn’t. Not even close.

Now, Russia still has a lot of oil and gas reserves. It uses this to bully Eastern and Western Europe. It threatens to cut off these resources if Europe dast complain about Mr. Putin’s power grabs in the Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, the Baltics, and elsewhere.

Enter President Trump. In his brilliant speech at Warsaw earlier this week, he called Mr. Putin’s energy bluff.

It may well have been the best speech of his young presidency. Mr. Trump delivered a stirring leadership message, emphasizing the importance of God, freedom, strong families, and democratic values.

While pledging to uphold NATO’s Article 5 — committing the members to protect one another — Mr. Trump went even deeper: “The fundamental question of our time,” he said, “is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost?”

He said, “if we do not have strong families and strong values then we will be weak and we will not survive.” He also spoke several times of the religious leadership and bravery of Pope John Paul II.

It was a bold strike for the West.

In an absolutely key part of the speech, he took direct aim at Mr. Putin’s energy bullying.

President Trump said, “We are committed to securing your access to alternative sources of energy, so Poland and its neighbors are never again held hostage to a single supplier of energy.” Italics are all mine.

Mr. Trump has quickly made it clear that President Obama’s war on business is over. He’s also made it clear, through regulatory rollbacks of breathtaking scope, that the Obama war on fossil fuels is over.

Our new president wants America to achieve energy dominance. He withdrew from the costly Paris climate accord, which would have severely damaged the American economy. He directed the EPA to rescind the Obama Clean Power Plan, which would have led to skyrocketing electricity rates.

He fast-tracked the Keystone XL pipeline. He reopened the door for a modernized American coal industry. He’s overturning all the Obama obstacles to hydraulic fracturing, which his presidential opponent, Secretary Clinton, would have dramatically increased. He has opened the floodgates wide to energy exports.

Right now, U.S. oil reserves are almost in parity with those of Saudi Arabia. We have the second-most coal reserves in the world. There are enough American gas reserves to last us a century. We have already passed Russia as the world’s top natural-gas producer.

We are the world’s top producer of oil and petroleum hydrocarbons. Exports of liquified national gas are surging, with the Energy Department rapidly approving new LNG projects and other export terminals.

All these America-first energy policies are huge economic-growth and high-wage-job producers at home. In the Warsaw speech, Mr. Trump made it clear that America’s energy dominance will be used to help our friends across Europe. No longer will our allies have to rely on Russian Gazprom supplies with inflated, prosperity-killing prices.

In short, with the free-market policies he’s putting in place in America’s energy sector and throughout the American economy, the businessman president fully intends to cut into Russia’s energy-market share. As that takes hold, Russia’s gas-station economy will sink further.

As that takes hold, the bully-boy Mr. Putin will have to think twice about Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltics. He’ll have to think twice about his anti-American policies in the Middle East and North Korea. He’ll have to think twice about his increasingly precarious position as the modern-day Russian tsar.

The world may yet become a safer place.

Mr. Trump has Mr. Putin over a barrel.

See (emphasis in original)

Taking this discussion beyond Mr. Kudlow’s fine article, it is time to crush Russia’s killer Putin, as I have written previously:

Putin is a killer, and Stalin’s heir. After World War II, he came to prominence as a KGB operative in East Germany—or the DDR, as it was known before the collapse of Erich Honecker’s government—which was one of the most repressive regimes in the Soviet Union’s orbit, or the Evil Empire. Following the USSR’s implosion, Putin and his thugs and cronies hijacked Russia’s incipient democracy, and have been exploiting it ever since.

Despite being a “public servant” all of his life, Putin has amassed a fortune estimated to be $70 billion; “Versailles” has been built for him already; and his cronies have amassed billions of dollars too, and are living like kings outside of Russia. The Russian people need to recover what Putin and his cronies have stolen from them, and then terminate all of them—like the last Czar and his family, and Italy’s Benito Mussolini. Nothing less will suffice.

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


11 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Obama-Merkel Vision Of A New World Order Is A Utopian Fantasy And Orwellian [UPDATED]

Animal Farm in America

The efforts of Barack Obama, Germany’s Angela Merkel and others of their ilk are the fulfillment of George Orwell’s timeless Animal Farm, where all of the animals were equal until the Pigs reigned supreme and subjugated the other animals.

See (“Animal Farm”)

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

At the G-20 in Hamburg, it is said, President Trump was isolated, without support from the other G-20 members, especially on climate change and trade.

Perhaps so. But the crucial question is not whether Trump is alone, but whether he is right. Has Trump read the crisis of the West correctly? Are his warnings valid? Is not the Obama-Merkel vision of a New World Order a utopian fantasy?

At the monument to the patriots of the Warsaw Uprising, Trump cited Poland as exemplar of how a great people behaves in a true national crisis.

Calling the Polish people “the soul of Europe,” he related how, in the Miracle of the Vistula in 1920, Poland, reborn after 12 decades of subjugation, drove back the invading Red Army of Leon Trotsky.

He described the gang rape of Poland by Nazis and Soviets after the Hitler-Stalin pact. He cited the Katyn Forest massacre of the Polish officer corps by Stalin, and the rising of the Polish people against their Nazi occupiers in 1944, as the vulturous legions of Stalin watched from the safe side of the river.

When the Polish Pope, John Paul II, celebrated his first Mass in Victory Square in 1979, said Trump, “a million Polish men, women and children raised their voices in a single prayer. . . . ‘We want God.’ . . . Every Communist in Warsaw must have known that their oppressive system would soon come crashing down.” And so it did.

The crisis of the West today, said Trump, is akin to what Poland faced. For it is about the survival of a civilization, rooted in Christianity, that has made the greatest of all contributions to the ascent of man.

What enabled the Poles to endure was an unshakable belief in and a willingness to fight for who they were — a people of God and country, faith, families, and freedom — with the courage and will to preserve a nation built on the truths of their ancient tribe and Catholic traditions.

Given the threats to the West, from within and without, said Trump, we need such a spirit now. What are those threats?

“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?

“We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.”

Trump professed confidence in the West’s will to survive. But whether the West still has the character seems an open question.

Across the West, the traditional family has been collapsing for decades. Not one European nation has a birth rate that will enable its people to survive many more generations. Uninvited migrants in the millions have poured in — are pouring in — from Africa and the Middle East. The elite of Europe have been gladly surrendering their national sovereignties to transnational institutions like the EU.

Christianity is more of a dying than a thriving faith on the Old Continent. And as the churches empty out, the mosques are going up. Before our eyes, the West is being remade.

In June, gays and lesbians celebrated in Berlin as the German Parliament voted to approve same-sex marriage.

In Moscow, from May to July, a million Russians stood in lines a mile long to view and venerate a relic of the 4th-century bishop, St. Nicholas, on display in a glass case in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, rebuilt under President Putin.

Liberated from Leninism, Russia returns to the old faith, as Germany returns to Weimar.

At that G-20 gathering in Hamburg, hundreds of criminal thugs went on a three-day rampage — rioting, burning, looting and battling police, some 300 of whom were injured.

Were the autocrats of the G-20 — Xi Jinping of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Narendra Modi of India — impressed with the resolute response of Angela Merkel — the media-designated new “Leader of the West” — to mobs rioting in Germany’s second city?

At Harvard, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described what was on display in Hamburg: “A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. … Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite.”

Secularist and hedonist, New Europe worships at the altars of mammon. Handel’s “Messiah” cannot compete with moonwalking Michael Jackson’s “We Are the World.”

Once Europe went out to convert, colonize and Christianize the world. Now the grandchildren of the colonized peoples come to Europe to demand their share of their inheritance from a West besotted with guilt over its past sins that cannot say “No!”

See (emphasis added)

Donald Trump is leading America away from (1) the false gods of globalism, (2) the Great Green Con of man-made “global warming,” (3) the infanticide of abortions, (4) atheism in America and other countries, (5) borderless countries devoid of meaning or identity, (6) weakness in the face of global threats, and (7) chaos in all of its various manifestations.

See, e.g., (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming“) and (“Abortions And Autos Kill More In America Than Guns“) and (“What And Where Is God?“) and (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple“) and (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive“) and (“The Next Major War: Korea Again?“) and (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War“) and (“China Is America’s Enemy: Make No Mistake About That“) and (“Global Chaos And Helter Skelter“)

Like the Lilliputians who were at first hospitable to Gulliver in Jonathan Swift’s tales, but also wary of the threat that his size posed to them, Republicans like Vice President Mike Pence and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan cannot be trusted. They are not our president’s constituency—the American people are.

He is our first Independent president, and his—and our—”enemies” consist of members of his own party, America’s Left in the form of the Democrats and others, and of course the Leftist media that hates him.

His triumphs are and will be our triumphs.

See (“Gulliver’s Travels“)


14 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Do Not Blame Trump: Clinton And Bush Are Two Failed Ex-Presidents, And Obama Is A Racist

Clinton and Bush

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Taking veiled jabs at President Donald Trump, former US presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton told a forum in Dallas on Thursday that they were able to forge mutual bonds of respect and friendship because the other had been gracious in victory and respectful of presidential power.

The two did not mention Trump once during a nearly hour-long discussion where they traded quips and insights.

But they offered indirect references that many in the crowd of about 300 people at the George W. Bush Presidential Library took to be references to the current president.

‘He (Clinton) was humble in victory, which is very important in dealing with other people,’ Bush said at the event to mark a graduation at the Presidential Leadership Scholars program, a partnership among the Bush, Clinton, Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush presidential centers.

The 43rd president said he was impressed by the fact that his predecessor was gracious to his father when he defeated him to win the presidency in 1992.

‘[It] starts with [him] being a person refusing to lord his victory over dad,’ Bush said.

‘Dad was willing to rise above the political contest. Both men displayed strong character. Why do I have a friendship with him? Well, he’s called a brother with a different mother.’

Clinton said: ‘If you want to be president, realize it’s about the people, not about you.

‘You want to be able to say “things were better off when I quit, kid´s had a better future, things were coming together”. You don´t want to say, “God, look at all the people I beat”.’

Current President Trump has come under criticism from Democrats who have said he fires off excessive and unwarranted criticism against his predecessor, Democratic President Barack Obama and the person he beat in the election, Democrat Hillary Clinton.



When asked by a moderator what is the most important attribute for anyone who aims to be president of the United States, Bush said: ‘Humility.’

‘I think it’s really important to know what you don’t know and listen to people who do know what you don’t know,’ Bush added.

‘Realize it’s about the people, not you,’ Clinton said.

‘A lot of these people who are real arrogant in office, they forget. … You don’t want to say, “God, look at all those people I beat”.’

Bush spoke of the friendship that developed between Clinton and his father, George H.W. Bush.

‘[Clinton] was humble in victory which is very important in dealing with other people,’ Bush said.

‘And I think Dad was willing to rise above the political contest.

‘In other words, it starts with the individual’s character and both men, in my judgment, displayed strong character.’


Republican Bush said while in office he sought Democrat Clinton’s advice.

Clinton said when he left office he told incoming President Bush that he would offer him help and treat him with respect.

Bush and Clinton said they have enjoyed their lives after the presidency but would not trade their current status for their eight years in office.

‘The decisions you make have a monumental effect on people,’ Bush said, adding humility is a key quality for any president.

‘Presidency is often defined by the unexpected. It makes the job interesting,’ he said.

Clinton said: ‘If you don´t deal with the incoming fire, it will undermine your ability to do anything else. If all you deal with is incoming fire, you can´t keep the promises you made when you were running.’

The two also exchanged jokes about being grandfathers, with Bush saying his grandchildren call him ‘jefe,’ Spanish for ‘chief.’

‘The best thing that can happen to you when you are in politics is to be consistently underestimated,’ Clinton said.

‘I was pretty good at that,’ Bush returned.



Political opposites turned friends, former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush could easily be mistaken for a comedy routine when they get together.

The two former presidents – one a Democrat, the other a Republican – shared laughs and a buddy-like banter on stage Monday, talking about presidential leadership while trading stories about their famous families and life after the White House.

Bill Clinton said he and Bush laughed about people coming up to them at restaurants and asking to take ‘selfie’ photos.

Quipped Bush: ‘At least they’re still asking.’

Clinton revealed that he and Bush would speak twice a year during Bush’s second term, 30-to-45 minute conversations about policy and politics.

While they didn’t always agree, Clinton said he never talked about their discussions and said the talks ‘meant a lot to me.’

Clinton said the test of any democracy is finding ways of having a vigorous debate and still reaching resolution to the nation’s problems.

‘If you read the Constitution, it ought to be subtitled: “Let’s make a deal”,’ Clinton said.

Assessing each other’s leadership qualities, Clinton said Bush did things he thought was right and ‘consistently benefited by being underestimated – and so did I for totally different reasons.’

Bush said Clinton was empathetic and ‘an awesome communicator’ who could ‘really lay out a case and get people all across the political spectrum.’

Ending his comments, he asked Clinton: ‘Is that enough?’

George W. Bush campaigned for president in 2000 on restoring ‘honor and dignity’ to the White House following Clinton’s impeachment over a sex scandal.

But the two former presidents have developed a bond, strengthened by their mutual admiration for the elder Bush, whom Clinton has visited in Maine.

Clinton and the younger Bush worked together on relief efforts after Haiti’s devastating earthquake in 2010 and have been active in the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa.

Bush noted that his book, called ’41: A Portrait of My Father,’ is a ‘love story. It’s a story about seeing someone you admire and learning from them.’

See (“‘He’s my brother with a different mother’: George W. Bush gushes over his tight friendship with Bill Clinton as both former presidents hit out at Trump with some veiled jabs about ‘humility’ and ‘arrogance'”) (emphasis added)

Both Clinton and Bush are failed ex-presidents, whose terms in office opened the way for eight years of a black racist being elected.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

Clinton should be in prison with his wife, Hillary.

Lots of us voted for Bush, and are ashamed now that we did so. He and the neocons and their state sponsor were responsible for the Iraq War in which thousands of Americans were killed or maimed, and trillions of dollars were wasted, for nothing.

To defame President Trump diminishes their tawdry statures and legacies even more, not his. They are part and parcel of the “swamp” that must be drained.

It is sickening to watch these two abject failures, Clinton and Bush, berating their successor. Needless to say, our enemies both domestically and abroad (e.g., North Korea, Russia, China) are salivating.


2 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

President Trump Is Correct: China Is Making Money From Afghanistan’s $1 Trillion In Rare Minerals While American Troops Are Dying

President Trump

See (“Trump Says U.S. ‘Losing’ Afghan War in Tense Meeting With Generals“)


19 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

President Trump addresses the United Nations


22 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Mr. President

Trump signs tax legislation

Francesca Chambers and David Martosko have reported in the UK’s Daily Mail:

President Donald Trump signed his tax cut bill on Friday morning in the Oval Office with little fanfare in his final order of business before the start of his Christmas holiday away from the White House.

Calling it ‘the biggest tax cut, the biggest reform of all time’ he said ‘the numbers will speak’ for themselves when taxpayers start to see results.

‘I think it’s selling itself,’ Trump said of the landmark legislation. ‘It’s becoming very popular. You’ll see something on February 1 when they open up the paycheck.’

Rather than holding an elaborate signing ceremony in early January, he said he rushed to turn the bill into law before December 25 to honor a pledge to make tax cuts his Christmas present to the American people.

‘I didn’t want you folks to say that I wasn’t keeping my promise,’ he told the press. ‘I’m keeping my promise. I’m signing the bill before Christmas.’

And in a holiday truce with the journalists he loves to hate, he distributed official signing pens to some of them.

‘Many of you have worked very fairly, and we appreciate that,’ Trump said.

The president also signed a last-minute resolution to keep the government’s lights on through January 19, averting a partial shutdown.

Trump highlighted a provision that sets aside $4.6 billion for missile defense before he affixed his signature to the bill, saying in a tweet that the funds were ‘much needed.’

He took a swipe at his political opponents on Capitol Hill, saying that ‘the Democrats will really regret, the Democrats already regret’ opposing him.

‘They wanted to be a part of it,’ he claimed, predicting that he’ll get more bipartisan support during next year’s push to fund far-reaching infrastructure projects.

The president is making his way now to Palm Beach, Florida, where his family has been awaiting his arrival for days at Mar-a-Lago, the private resort he has turned into his Winter White House.

Trump held a mass celebration on the White House’s South Lawn on Wednesday to hail his tax cut victory as the start of ‘a very special period of time’ in America. He promised them that the reforms would lead to ‘jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.’

‘We are making America great again!’ he said at the outdoor ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House with Republican lawmakers.

Vice President Mike Pence, who was up late the night before presiding over the final vote in the Senate, declared the bill’s passage a ‘middle class miracle’ and shouted, ‘Merry Christmas America!’

Trump was handed an immediate Christmas bonus of his own as AT&T announced it would give its more than 200,000 workers a $1,000 bonus once the tax cut is signed into law, and Wells Fargo, Boeing, Sinclair and Comcast, which owns NBC Universal, quickly followed suit with boosts for their workforces.

The president thanked them all as at he signed the tax reform bill on Friday in the Oval Office.

‘They all have made tremendous contributions to their employees, and tremendous contributions to spending money in this country, because of the tax bill. And they all said it’s because of the tax bill,’ he said. ‘So they are making tremendous investments. That means jobs, that means a lot of things. we are very happy.’

GOP leaders were the first to congratulate Trump on the legislative achievement – the first major one of his presidency – praising him one-by-one in remarks Wednesday that characterized him as the greatest executive officeholder in decades.

‘Something this big, something this generational, something this profound could not have been done without exquisite presidential leadership. Mr. President, thank you for getting us over the finish line,’ said House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell likewise said, ‘America is going to start growing again. Thank you Mr. President for all you’re doing.’

‘But for your leadership, we would not be here today,’ House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady piled on.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, at his turn said, ‘This is a big day for America. This is America’s comeback.

‘Come February check your check, because that will be the pay raise of the vote for Donald Trump,’ McCarthy stated.

Senator Orrin Hatch, the Senate Finance Chairman, effusively said that Trump was ‘one heck of a leader’ and the bill ‘could not have passed without you.’

‘We’re making headway. This is just the beginning,’ the Utah senator who has not declared his intent to run for re-election next year said. ‘I just hope that we call get behind him every way we can and we’ll get this country turned around in ways that will benefit the whole world.’

Hatch said, ‘We’re gonna make this the greatest presidency that we’ve seen not only in generations but maybe ever. God bless all of you.’

The president told lawmakers in his remarks that the negotiation process has ‘been an amazing experience,’ and Republicans have now ‘broke every record’ with the size of tax slash.

‘It was a lot of fun. It’s always fun when you work hard and win,’ Trump assessed. ‘If you work hard and lose, that’s not acceptable.’

The biggest publicity coup for Trump may well be the immediate move by corporate giants to pass some of their winnings to workers.

AT&T said that it will pay $1,000 bonuses to more than 200,000 employees – and promised to make $1 billion in new investments in the United States next year – once the tax reform bill is signed into law.

As part of that bill, the tax rate on corporations will drop from 35 per cent to 21 per cent. Trump previously called the measure ‘rocket fuel’ for the economy.

After AT&T’s announcement, other companies followed suit.

Comcast NBCUniversal said it would award $1,000 bonuses to more than 100,000 workers, ‘based on the passage of tax reform’ and a recent FCC decision to repeal ‘net neutrality’ rules.

The cable and Internet giant also boasted that it ‘expects to spend well in excess of $50 billion over the next five years investing in infrastructure.’

Boeing said it would make a ‘$300 million employee-related and charitable investment as a result of #TaxReform legislation.’

And Fifth Third Bancorp in Cincinnati, Ohio said it will pay $1,000 bonuses to more than 13,500 employees and raise the minimum wage for its workforce to $15 per hour because its tax rate is about to plummet.

Wells Fargo matched that $15 per hour minimum wage hike and said it was prompted by the tax plan. The San Francisco-based bank also said it would make $400 million in donations to nonprofit charities and other community organizations in 2018.

FedEx also showed optimism, with its CFO saying during an earnings call that the package shipping giant will likely expand if the tax cuts lead to larger national economic growth.

‘GDP could increase materially next year as a result of U.S. tax reform. If this occurs, we would likely increase capital expenditures and hiring,’ Alan Graf told investors.

Sinclair said Friday morning as Trump was about to sign the tax cut bill that it would give its employees Christmas bonuses of $1,000, too, a move that Trump quickly applauded.

The Senate passed the GOP’s $1.5 trillion tax cut early Wednesday morning, leaving just one technical hurdle in the House and Trump’s signature as the final steps before the Republican president’s top legislative priority became a reality.

Trump was not able to sign the bill on Wednesday but delivered afternoon remarks at the White House anyway, where he was flanked roughly 100 Republican lawmakers.

He took an early victory lap in his cabinet meeting that morning and in a statement released by the White House just after the final congressional vote.

‘I promised the American people a big, beautiful tax cut for Christmas. With final passage of this legislation, that is exactly what they are getting,’ he said. ‘I would like to thank the members of Congress who supported this historic bill, which represents an extraordinary victory for American families, workers, and businesses.’

Trump predicted that tax reform would lead to an even greater reduction in unemployment, new highs for the stock market and an increase in wages.

‘By cutting taxes and reforming the broken system, we are now pouring rocket fuel into the engine of our economy,’ he said. ‘America is back to winning again, and we’re growing like never before. There is a great spirit of optimism sweeping across our land. Americans can once again rest assured that our brightest days are still to come.’

During an afternoon cabinet meeting, Trump said that the bill will provide ‘a tremendous amount of relief for the middle class, including a doubling of the child tax credit and a nearly doubling of the standard deduction.’

‘That’s going to be tremendous for people. They’re going to start seeing the results in February. This bill means more take home pay,’ he said.

Trump proclaimed the GOP tax cut plan a ‘historic victory’ in the meeting as the House headed to the floor for final passage.

‘It will be an incredible Christmas gift for hard-working Americans. I said I wanted to have it done before Christmas. We got it done,’ the president said.

See (“Trump signs tax cut bill and resolution to keep the government’s lights on over Christmas before leaving the White House to join his family in Palm Beach“) (emphasis added; videos omitted)


29 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


President Trump

Mark Landler has written in the New York Times:

President Trump was already revved up when he emerged from his limousine to visit NATO’s new headquarters in Brussels last May. He had just met France’s recently elected president, Emmanuel Macron, whom he greeted with a white-knuckle handshake and a complaint that Europeans do not pay their fair share of the alliance’s costs.

On the long walk through the NATO building’s cathedral-like atrium, the president’s anger grew. He looked at the polished floors and shimmering glass walls with a property developer’s eye. (“It’s all glass,” he said later. “One bomb could take it out.”) By the time he reached an outdoor plaza where he was to speak to the other NATO leaders, Mr. Trump was fuming, according to two aides who were with him that day.

He was there to dedicate the building, but instead he took a shot at it.

“I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost,” Mr. Trump told the leaders, his voice thick with sarcasm. “I refuse to do that. But it is beautiful.” His visceral reaction to the $1.2 billion building, more than anything else, colored his first encounter with the alliance, aides said.

Nearly a year into his presidency, Mr. Trump remains an erratic, idiosyncratic leader on the global stage, an insurgent who attacks allies the United States has nurtured since World War II and who can seem more at home with America’s adversaries. His Twitter posts, delivered without warning or consultation, often make a mockery of his administration’s policies and subvert the messages his emissaries are trying to deliver abroad.

Mr. Trump has pulled out of trade and climate change agreements and denounced the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. He has broken with decades of American policy in the Middle East by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And he has taunted Kim Jong-un of North Korea as “short and fat,” fanning fears of war on the peninsula.

He has assiduously cultivated President Xi Jinping of China and avoided criticizing President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — leaders of the two countries that his own national security strategy calls the greatest geopolitical threats to America.

Above all, Mr. Trump has transformed the world’s view of the United States from a reliable anchor of the liberal, rules-based international order into something more inward-looking and unpredictable. That is a seminal change from the role the country has played for 70 years, under presidents from both parties, and it has lasting implications for how other countries chart their futures.

Mr. Trump’s unorthodox approach “has moved a lot of us out of our comfort zone, me included,” the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, said in an interview. A three-star Army general who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and wrote a well-regarded book about the White House’s strategic failure in Vietnam, General McMaster defined Trump foreign policy as “pragmatic realism” rather than isolationism.

“The consensus view has been that engagement overseas is an unmitigated good, regardless of the circumstances,” General McMaster said. “But there are problems that are maybe both intractable and of marginal interest to the American people, that do not justify investments of blood and treasure.”

Mr. Trump’s advisers argue that he has blown the cobwebs off decades of foreign policy doctrine and, as he approaches his first anniversary, that he has learned the realities of the world in which the United States must operate.

They point to gains in the Middle East, where Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is transforming Saudi Arabia; in Asia, where China is doing more to pressure a nuclear-armed North Korea; and even in Europe, where Mr. Trump’s criticism has prodded NATO members to ante up more for their defense.

The president takes credit for eradicating the caliphate built by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, though he mainly accelerated a battle plan developed by President Barack Obama. His aides say he has reversed Mr. Obama’s passive approach to Iran, in part by disavowing the nuclear deal.

While Mr. Trump has held more than 130 meetings and phone calls with foreign leaders since taking office, he has left the rest of the world still puzzling over how to handle an American president unlike any other. Foreign leaders have tested a variety of techniques to deal with him, from shameless pandering to keeping a studied distance.

“Most foreign leaders are still trying to get a handle on him,” said Richard N. Haass, a top State Department official in the George W. Bush administration who is now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. “Everywhere I go, I’m still getting asked, ‘Help us understand this president, help us navigate this situation.’

“We’re beginning to see countries take matters into their own hands. They’re hedging against America’s unreliability.”

Difficulties With Merkel

Few countries have struggled more to adapt to Mr. Trump than Germany, and few leaders seem less personally in sync with him than its leader, Chancellor Angela Merkel, the physicist turned politician. After she won a fourth term, their relationship took on weighty symbolism: the great disrupter versus the last defender of the liberal world order.

In one of their first phone calls, the chancellor explained to the president why Ukraine was a vital part of the trans-Atlantic relationship. Mr. Trump, officials recalled, had little idea of Ukraine’s importance, its history of being bullied by Russia or what the United States and its allies had done to try to push back Mr. Putin.

German officials were alarmed by Mr. Trump’s lack of knowledge, but they got even more rattled when White House aides called to complain afterward that Ms. Merkel had been condescending toward the new president. The Germans were determined not to repeat that diplomatic gaffe when Ms. Merkel met Mr. Trump at the White House in March.

At first, things again went badly. Mr. Trump did not shake Ms. Merkel’s hand in the Oval Office, despite the requests of the assembled photographers. (The president said he did not hear them.)

Later, he told Ms. Merkel that he wanted to negotiate a new bilateral trade agreement with Germany. The problem with this idea was that Germany, as a member of the European Union, could not negotiate its own agreement with the United States.

Rather than exposing Mr. Trump’s ignorance, Ms. Merkel said the United States could, of course, negotiate a bilateral agreement, but that it would have to be with Germany and the other 27 members of the union because Brussels conducted such negotiations on behalf of its members.

“So it could be bilateral?” Mr. Trump asked Ms. Merkel, according to several people in the room. The chancellor nodded.

“That’s great,” Mr. Trump replied before turning to his commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, and telling him, “Wilbur, we’ll negotiate a bilateral trade deal with Europe.”

Afterward, German officials expressed relief among themselves that Ms. Merkel had managed to get through the exchange without embarrassing the president or appearing to lecture him. Some White House officials, however, said they found the episode humiliating.

For Ms. Merkel and many other Germans, something elemental has changed across the Atlantic. “We Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands,” she said in May. “The times in which we can fully count on others — they are somewhat over.”

Concerns on Statecraft

Mr. Trump gets along better with Mr. Macron, a 40-year-old former investment banker and fellow political insurgent who ran for the French presidency as the anti-Trump. Despite disagreeing with him on trade, immigration and climate change, Mr. Macron figured out early how to appeal to the president: He invited him to a military parade.

But Mr. Macron has discovered that being buddies with Mr. Trump can also be complicated. During the Bastille Day visit, officials recalled, Mr. Trump told Mr. Macron he was rethinking his decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord.

That prompted French diplomats to make a flurry of excited calls to the White House for clarification the following week, only to find out that American policy had not changed. White House officials say that Mr. Trump was merely reiterating that the United States would be open to rejoining the pact on more advantageous terms.

But the exchange captures Mr. Trump’s lack of nuance or detail, which leaves him open to being misunderstood in complex international talks.

There have been fewer misunderstandings with autocrats. Mr. Xi of China and King Salman of Saudi Arabia both won over Mr. Trump by giving him a lavish welcome when he visited. The Saudi monarch projected his image on the side of a hotel; Mr. Xi reopened a long-dormant theater inside the Forbidden City to present Mr. Trump and his wife, Melania, an evening of Chinese opera.

“Did you see the show?” Mr. Trump asked reporters on Air Force One after he left Beijing in November. “They say in the history of people coming to China, there’s been nothing like that. And I believe it.”

Later, chatting with his aides, Mr. Trump continued to marvel at the respect Mr. Xi had shown him. It was a show of respect for the American people, not just for the president, one adviser replied gently.

Then, of course, there is the strange case of Mr. Putin. The president spoke of his warm telephone calls with the Russian president, even as he introduced a national security strategy that acknowledged Russia’s efforts to weaken democracies by meddling in their elections.

Mr. Trump has had a bumpier time with friends. He told off Prime Minister Theresa May on Twitter, after she objected to his exploitation of anti-Muslim propaganda from a far-right group in Britain.

“Statecraft has been singularly absent from the treatment of some of his allies, particularly the U.K.,” said Peter Westmacott, a former British ambassador to the United States.

Mr. Trump’s feuds with Ms. May and other British officials have left him in a strange position: feted in Beijing and Riyadh but barely welcome in London, which Mr. Trump is expected to visit early next year, despite warnings that he will face angry protesters.

Aides to Mr. Trump argue that his outreach to autocrats has been vindicated. When Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visited the White House in March, the president lavished attention on him. Since then, they say, Saudi Arabia has reopened cinemas and allowed women to drive.

But critics say Mr. Trump gives more than he gets. By backing the 32-year-old crown prince so wholeheartedly, the president cemented his status as heir to the House of Saud. The crown prince has since jailed his rivals as Saudi Arabia pursued a deadly intervention in Yemen’s civil war.

Mr. Trump granted an enormous concession to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he announced this month that the United States would formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. But he did not ask anything of Mr. Netanyahu in return.

That showed another hallmark of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy: how much it is driven by domestic politics. In this case, he was fulfilling a campaign promise to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. While evangelicals and some hard-line, pro-Israel American Jews exulted, the Palestinians seethed — leaving Mr. Trump’s dreams of brokering a peace accord between them and the Israelis in tatters.

With China, Mr. Trump’s cultivation of Mr. Xi probably persuaded him to put more economic pressure on its neighbor North Korea over its provocative behavior. But even the president has acknowledged, as recently as Thursday, that it is not enough. And in return for Mr. Xi’s efforts, Mr. Trump has largely shelved his trade agenda vis-à-vis Beijing.

“It was a big mistake to draw that linkage,” said Robert B. Zoellick, who served as United States trade representative under Mr. Bush. “The Chinese are playing him, and it’s not just the Chinese. The world sees his narcissism and strokes his ego, diverting him from applying disciplined pressure.”

Mr. Trump’s protectionist instincts could prove the most damaging in the long term, Mr. Zoellick said. Trade, unlike security, springs from deeply rooted convictions. Mr. Trump believes that multilateral accords — like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, from which he pulled out in his first week in office — are stacked against America.

“He views trade as zero-sum, win-lose,” Mr. Zoellick said.

Globalist vs. Nationalist

For some of Mr. Trump’s advisers, the key to understanding his statecraft is not how he deals with Mr. Xi or Ms. Merkel, but the ideological contest over America’s role that plays out daily between the West Wing and agencies like the State Department and the Pentagon.

“There’s a chasm that can’t be bridged between the globalists and the nationalists,” said Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s former chief strategist and the leader of the nationalist wing, who has kept Mr. Trump’s ear since leaving the White House last summer.

On the globalist side of the debate stand General McMaster; Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis; Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson; and Mr. Trump’s chief economic adviser, Gary D. Cohn. On the nationalist side, in addition to Mr. Bannon, stand Stephen Miller, the president’s top domestic adviser, and Robert Lighthizer, the chief trade negotiator. On many days, the nationalist group includes the commander in chief himself.

The globalists have curbed some of Mr. Trump’s most radical impulses. He has yet to rip up the Iran nuclear deal, though he has refused to recertify it. He has reaffirmed the United States’ support for NATO, despite his objections about those members he believes are freeloading. And he has ordered thousands of additional American troops into Afghanistan, even after promising during the campaign to stay away from nation-building.

This has prompted a few Europeans to hope that “his bark is worse than his bite,” in the words of Mr. Westmacott.

Mr. Trump acknowledges that being in office has changed him. “My original instinct was to pull out,” he said of Afghanistan, “and, historically, I like following my instincts. But all my life I’ve heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”

Yet some things have not changed. Mr. Trump’s advisers have utterly failed to curb his Twitter posts, for example. Some gamely suggest that they create diplomatic openings. Others say they roll with the punches when he labels Mr. Kim of North Korea “Little Rocket Man.” For Mr. Tillerson, however, the tweets have severely tarnished his credibility in foreign capitals.

“All of them know they still can’t control the thunderbolt from on high,” said John D. Negroponte, who served as the director of national intelligence for Mr. Bush.

The tweets highlight that Mr. Trump still holds a radically different view of the United States’ role in the world than most of his predecessors. His advisers point to a revealing meeting at the Pentagon on July 20, when Mr. Mattis, Mr. Tillerson and Mr. Cohn walked the president through the country’s trade and security obligations around the world.

The group convened in the secure conference room of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a storied inner sanctum known as the tank. Mr. Mattis led off the session by declaring that “the greatest thing the ‘greatest generation’ left us was the rules-based postwar international order,” according to a person who was in the room.

After listening for about 50 minutes, this person said, Mr. Trump had heard enough. He began peppering Mr. Mattis and Mr. Tillerson with questions about who pays for NATO and the terms of the free trade agreements with South Korea and other countries.

The postwar international order, the president of the United States declared, is “not working at all.”

See (emphasis added)


15 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Americans Do Not Covet The Love Of Europeans

The end of Obama, the Clintons and others

Someone who is described as the UK Economist‘s “Washington bureau chief” has written the following about President Trump and the Iran nuclear deal:

ONCE again, through gritted teeth, President Donald Trump has granted a stay of execution for the Iran nuclear deal brokered by his predecessor, Barack Obama. But this is the last time he will do so, he announced on January 12th. This fresh reprieve for the Iran agreement—which on the campaign trail Mr Trump called “the worst deal ever” and promised to tear up—highlights the dilemma faced by America’s closest allies, notably in Europe.

A big part of Mr Trump’s climb-down is due to public pressure from allies such as Britain, France and Germany, whose governments made clear that they think this deal is the best available; they would not join Mr Trump in negotiating a replacement if he blows this one up. But even as he swallowed his pride and signed off on an extension for the agreement for a further 120 days, the president said that he would still walk away from the deal if it is not toughened by allies and by Congress, and soon.

In part as a face-saving measure, Mr Trump imposed new sanctions that target 14 Iranian individuals and entities, including the head of the Iranian judiciary, Sadeq Larijani, whose brother is the speaker of parliament.

In a statement Mr Trump called his decision to keep the deal alive a “last chance”. In the absence of an agreement in which Congress and European allies [f]ix “significant flaws” in the pact, “the United States will not again waive sanctions to stay in the Iran nuclear deal,” he declared.

European allies fear that there are few realistic prospects of the Iranian regime agreeing to Mr Trump’s most urgent demands—namely, to make the bargain permanent rather than time-limited and to link fresh concessions, for instance involving inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, to “triggers” that would otherwise automatically cause sanctions to “snap back”. Ultimately Mr Trump would like an agreement that ranges well beyond the narrow question of nuclear arms so that it covers a wide array of provocative Iranian conduct in the Middle East. Europeans and other world powers believe that it was only the narrowness of the original deal that secured Iranian co-operation in 2015. As a result, a geopolitical crisis has been postponed, but not avoided.

To put it plainly, European allies have discovered that with a lot of pushing they can stop Mr Trump from pursuing what they consider disastrous foreign policies. What they cannot do is secure for him the concessions that he sees as necessary to make better, properly “America First” policies.

Mr Trump’s allies are learning how to play defence with this most alarming of American leaders. They have yet to figure out how to work constructively with him, to shape the sort of world order that is to his tastes. That—more than any urgent headlines generated by the president saying he does not want people from “shithole countries” moving to America—is the dilemma faced by his allies.

In technical terms, Mr Trump grudgingly agreed to continue to suspend economic sanctions on Iran’s central bank and on oil exports, which were first lifted to reward Iran for freezing nuclear weapons work under an agreement reached with America and other world powers in 2015. Thanks to legislation passed by a sceptical, Republican-led Congress during the Obama era, the legal waivers allowing Iran sanctions to be lifted must be renewed every several weeks. This was the third time that Mr Trump was persuaded by his most senior national security officials and the leaders of allied governments that the costs of blowing up the deal outweigh the benefits.

As the deadline to approve a fresh set of waivers drew near, the gulf between Mr Trump’s worldview and those of his aides and allies was freshly exposed. Iran has been convulsed by anti-government protests for since late December, leading to the deaths of at least 21 people and thousands of detentions and arrests. The sight of the protests reportedly made the president more reluctant than ever to extend the life of the nuclear deal, which he scorns as an appeasement of an Islamic regime that funds terrorist groups, armed militants and rebel factions across the Middle East and wider region, while pursuing ballistic missile programmes that put Israel and other American allies in harm’s way.

However Mr Trump’s own national security staff and foreign allies take away a different lesson from those same protests: that walking away from the Iran deal now could play into the hands of the hard-liners atop the clerical establishment that runs the country. The pressure from allies has been unusually public. President Emmanuel Macron of France telephoned Mr Trump to reaffirm his country’s determination both to see the Iranian deal “strictly enforced” and to see “all of its signatories abide by it.”

In an apparent show of solidarity with relative moderates in the elected Iranian government, European foreign ministers in Brussels met their Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, on Thursday. Though the Europeans pressed Mr Zarif about Iranian trouble-making in its backyard, they also issued ringing declarations about the continued worth of the nuclear deal, saying in the words of Boris Johnson, the British foreign secretary, that it “makes the world safer” and that nobody has so far produced a better alternative. Late last year, in equally striking comments, the German ambassador to Washington warned that tearing up the nuclear deal when Iran is abiding by its requirements risked sending a dangerous message to North Korea, should a nuclear pact with that country become possible.

Assuming that Mr Trump is not bluffing, that gap of perceptions must either be bridged soon, or his America First policy towards Iran will look more like America Alone.

See (“Donald Trump gives the Iran nuclear deal a ‘last chance’“) (emphasis added)

It is clear that the Economist‘s Washington bureau chief should be fired immediately.

To describe President Trump’s policies as “disastrous,” and our president as “this most alarming of American leaders,” demonstrates biases beyond all reason. No one should ever take this person’s writings seriously again, nor should any readers respect a publication that retains the services of such a misfit.

Barack Obama is the worst president in America’s history, and a pure racist. President Trump is trying to remedy the monumental and treasonous policies that Obama put into place. Indeed, it is possible that Obama will go to prison, along with Hillary and Bill Clinton and their cronies.

See (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) (see also the comments beneath the article)

Europe is disintegrating, as we write or read these words. If its countries want to take in immigrants from all over the world, without any restrictions, be Americans’ guests. You can have them . . . for soon, they will be deciding European policies; and a once-vibrant European “civilization” will no longer exist.

And no, Americans do not covet the love of Europeans. Indeed, without us, most Europeans would be speaking German today, instead of merely having Germany rule them via the EU.


31 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


See also (Text of President Donald J. Trump’s State of the Union Address)


31 01 2018
Karen R Scott (@my640)

Best President ever!!!

Liked by 1 person

31 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Karen.

His speech last night was brilliant and masterful.

After 8 years in the presidency, I will make your assessment. But so far, he is excellent. 😊

Washington, Lincoln and Reagan were very special too.


22 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


[Trump roasts Clinton at 2016 Al Smith charity dinner in New York City]


30 10 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump’s Reality-Show Midterm Campaign Could Yield An Unexpected Ending [UPDATED]

Democrats are losers

Andrew Malcolm has written for McClatchy:

For many of us, politics is a fascinating spectator sport with human drama and ambition, races, big money, a chance to take part, secret results until the end and high stakes with real-life consequences.

This year is full of all that, and more.

The advent of a president who revels in controversy and roiling established methods and media adds spice. And now comes a series of opinion polls that are counterintuitive to widespread expectations about this midterm’s results. It doesn’t get much better for storytelling than a real-life reality show with no script and unexpected endings.

According to historical patterns for first midterm elections, the president’s party should be mired in deep trouble and on track to lose on average 30 House seats. Possibly more because Donald Trump’s job approval remains below 50 percent.

That would put Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats in charge there, setting up legislative gridlock and a subpoena surplus for the last half of Trump’s first term. Impeachment efforts likely would follow.

But wait. There’s more. Instead of passively sticking to campaign fundraising, as many presidents do in such times when their name is on no ballot, Trump has gone all in to preserve even a slim GOP hold on both houses of Congress. His unannounced travel schedule for the final days reveals laser focus on motivating the GOP base in key Senate contests.

This sets the now familiar Trumpian stage for a high-stakes big win or big loss. Which makes you want to stay tuned, right? After these important messages.

Originally, this president scheduled 40 days of campaigning, which is a lot. Now, he’s added nearly a dozen more stops before Nov. 6. Conventional wisdom holds that this could energize Democrats, still psychologically reeling and angry from this crude upstart’s stunning upset in 2016.

Of course, the number of presidential campaign days does not guarantee electoral success. In his first midterm election in 2010, Barack Obama made about three dozen campaign forays. His party took a historical shellacking anyway, losing 63 House and six Senate seats. And Obama was more popular at the time than Trump is now.

But Trump appears certain his efforts will energize the smaller Republican base even more. Who’s going to tell him he’s wrong? And anyway, what else could Trump conceivably do to bait Democrats into a more energized opposition?

Now, add to this toxic political stew an astutely-timed and seemingly inexorable immigrant march of Central Americans on the U.S. border, plus the unusually harsh and overly dramatic Senate confirmation struggle over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Both parties think these events will help them in November. What do you think? Intuition based on traditional politics would seem to favor Democrats, who remain motivated by their 2016 defeat and who now want to pass a negative interim judgment on a distasteful president.

Indeed, professionals who study Congress and candidates district by district have been moving more of them toward the D-column the last few weeks.

Polls find more intense interest in voting this fall than in any of the last six midterms. And they’ve also discovered that about two-thirds of both parties’ voters say Trump figures largely in their voting decisions.

Naturally, Trump agrees. “This (election) is a referendum about me,” he said at an early October rally in Mississippi. “And the gridlock they’ll put this country through.”

This is a fascinating twist. Usually when a president is popular, his party nationalizes the election about him. When he’s unpopular, the party emphasizes local issues.

This time both sides, including Trump, are making it about Trump.

Many elections, especially for president, are about seeking the middle to gain the widest appeal. Not this one. It’s about the two polarized bases corralling the maximum number of loyalists. And don’t forget 37 states have early voting, which precludes any change of minds.

This time, the middle independents, who can swing some close battles, are left to themselves.

Though they inevitably complain about Washington gridlock, Americans display a long-term preference for divided government. They’ve voted for and gotten divided government for 36 of the last 50 years. Democrat Jimmy Carter was the last president whose party held Congress his entire term.

State and internal campaign polls appear to indicate that a combination of the Kavanaugh fight and Trump’s voluble, in-state presence have awakened GOP voters and are shifting a number of Senate races into or further into the Republican column.

Polls, of course, are snapshots, not predictions. Ask Hillary Clinton. But they do suggest the GOP could actually grow a Senate majority beyond its current 51 seats, while losing the more volatile House.

Such collective voter wisdom would benefit both parties and arrange a hyper-partisan 24 months leading up to Nov. 3, 2020. But then, you may have become accustomed to that. If not, you better get on it.

See (“Stay tuned: Trump’s reality-show midterm campaign could yield an unexpected ending“) (emphasis added); see also (“Is Another Silent Red Wave Coming?“)

It may be wishful—and yes, naïve—thinking to believe that Donald Trump will lose the GOP House of Representatives, much less the U.S. Senate where I worked.

And yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.


20 12 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Build The Wall, Mr. President!

Border wall

Political pitbull and lawyer Ann Coulter has written for

If you were elected president after decades of politicians doing nothing about the millions of illegals pouring into our country every year, committing crimes, dealing drugs, driving drunk, molesting children and killing Americans like Kate Steinle, and your central campaign promise — repeated every day — was to build a wall, wouldn’t you have spent the entirety of your transition period working on getting it done?

Wouldn’t you have been building prototypes, developing relationships with key congressional allies and talking to military leaders about using the Seabees or the Army Corps of Engineers to build the wall?

Wouldn’t you skip the inauguration and take the oath of office in San Diego so you could get started on supervising wall construction immediately after putting your hand on the Bible and being sworn in as the leader of the free world?

You would if you meant it.

Well, Donald Trump didn’t do that.

OK, sure he could have taken the oath in D.C., gone to a few balls, then started the wall on day two of his presidency. But he didn’t do that either.

Maybe I’m a literalist. A zealot. When people kept telling me to be patient — the wall is coming! — I nursed a private hope that I was wrong, and they were right.

It is now crystal clear that one of two things is true: Either Trump never intended to build the wall and was scamming voters all along, or he has no idea how to get it done and zero interest in finding out.

He sacrifices every opportunity to make the wall happen.

For two years, Trump pretended to believe the president of the United States needs express authorization from Congress to defend the nation’s borders and blamed the Republican majority for not “funding” the wall.

In a few weeks, he’ll start blaming the Democratic House.

Last week — several whole days ago — Trump said over and over again that he would shut down the government if he didn’t get funding for the wall — the precise thing he claims he needs. “We need border security. The wall is a part of border security,” he said. “If we don’t have border security, we’ll shut down the government.”

Trump wore the shutdown over the wall as a badge of honor: “You want to know something? OK, you want to put that on me. I’ll take it. You know what I’ll say? Yes, if we don’t get what we want … I will shut down the government. Absolutely.”

One week later, The Drudge Report:


In other words, Trump is doing exactly what I feared he would do in the worst conceivable way. He’s not building the wall, while making ridiculous promises right up until the second before he folds.

The Washington Post loves to find the one crazy, trailer park lady who supports Trump because she’s had religious ecstasies about him, but most people who voted for him did so with a boatload of qualms.

The basic factory setting on the perception of Trump is: gigantic douchebag. This is a man who manufactured fake Time magazine covers featuring himself with the headline, “Donald Trump: The ‘Apprentice’ is a television smash!” so that he could put framed copies of it on the walls of his clubs.

His business is convincing people with lowbrow taste to give him their money.

He’s a vulgar publicity hound who used to call reporters in a fake voice and pretend to be his own PR agent, “John Miller” or “John Barron,” so he could brag that actresses wanted to date him.

On one “Apprentice” episode, the reward for the winning team was: to see Trump’s apartment. Not to eat there or spend the night. They got to see it. “As a little treat,” he said, “you’re gonna see the nicest apartment in New York City.” He added: “I show this apartment to very few people. Presidents, kings …”

It’s not as if a majority of his voters weren’t clear-eyed about what kind of man he is. If anything, Trump’s vulgar narcissism made his vow to build a wall more believable. Respectable politicians had made similar promises over the years — and they always betrayed the voters. Maybe it took a sociopath to ignore elite opinion and keep his word.

On the basis of his self-interest alone, he must know that if he doesn’t build the wall, he has zero chance of being re-elected and a 100 percent chance of being utterly humiliated.

But when Trump is alone with Ivanka, they seem to agree that the wall has nothing to do with it. The people just love him for who he is! In a country of 320 million people, I’m sure there are some, but I have yet to meet a person who said, Yeah, I don’t really care about immigration or trade, I just love his personality!

What else were we going to do? He was the only one talking sense. Unfortunately, that’s all he does: talk. He’s not interested in doing anything that would require the tiniest bit of effort.

In the end, we’ll probably find out “wall” was Trump’s “safe word” with Stormy Daniels. It’s just something he blurts out whenever he’s in trouble.

He’s in trouble now. As absurd as the Russia nonsense is, the details about Trump’s sleazy associates, the porn star, the Playboy playmate and his seedy business practices leave his supporters feeling queasy, even if he hasn’t committed any crimes.

Instead of joining a fight that will make his most ardent supporters cringe no matter how it comes out, why not choose a battleground where he’s guaranteed a win? If Trump used the military to build the wall — actually build it, not keep telling us he’s going to build it — the Democrats will go mad.

They’ll hold impeachment hearings, file a million lawsuits, produce weeping children reading from phony scripts written by immigrant rights groups — and Trump will win. The public will support Trump overwhelmingly, and the left will be forced to keep reminding voters why they hate Democrats.

Instead, what he’s doing now absolutely guarantees that the next president will be a Democrat and, given today’s Democratic Party, that president will be Kamala Harris.

See (“Gutless President in Wall-less Country“)

Ann Coulter has gotten more obnoxious over the years, and is seldom invited on Fox shows anymore; and when she is, her views are truncated, if not censored. Also, her columns have often taken on the feeling of rambling streams of consciousness.

However, this column is different. It is tight and succinct, and written like a legal brief or opinion. She has marshaled her facts, and presented them in an orderly fashion. This causes the most ardent Trump loyalists to stop and scratch their heads, and say or think: maybe she’s right.

Divert money from every source, including our aid to “sacred cows” like Israel, and just build the wall, Mr. President. Enough is enough. Stop the Kate Steinle-killers once and for all; and show the eco-Nazis and other Leftist true-believers that they don’t matter or count at all. Their feelings are worthless.

And stick it to the illegal immigrants who have invaded our great nation. Let them eat crumbs, or nothing at all. They should “rebuild” the countries that they left, not ours. They are not welcome here, period.

See, e.g., (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple“)


25 12 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Merry Christmas To All [UPDATED]

Jesus' feet

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

“Deck the halls with boughs of holly,” goes the old Christmas carol. “‘Tis the season to be jolly.” Yet if there were a couplet less befitting the mood of this capital city, I am unaware of it.

“The wheels are coming off,” was a common commentary on the Trump presidency on Sunday’s talk shows. And the ostensible causes of what is looking like a panic in the political establishment?

The December crash of the stock and bond markets, the worst since the Great Recession. The shutdown of a fourth of the U.S. government over the Trump border wall. The president’s decision to pull 2,200 troops out of Syria. Resignation, in protest of Donald Trump’s treatment of U.S. allies, by Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

But there has to be more to it than this. For America has endured, in the lifetime of its older generations, far worse Christmases than this.

By Christmas 1941, America had just suffered the worst attack in her history. At Pearl Harbor, on Dec. 7, some 2,400 soldiers, sailors and Marines had died, six battleships were destroyed or crippled, and scores of warplanes were smashed on their runways.

By Christmas 1941, the Japanese had landed in the Philippines where, in six months, they would inflict on the United States the worst military defeat in its history with the loss of 23,000 troops killed or captured, most of them on Bataan Peninsula and the island fortress of Corregidor.

Franklin Roosevelt had temporarily abandoned the Philippines as indefensible, as they were on the far side of the Pacific, and had adopted a “Europe First” strategy, believing Nazi Germany to be the greater threat.

For, by Christmas 1941, Hitler controlled all of Europe from the Pyrenees and the Atlantic to the suburbs of Leningrad and Moscow, and from northern Norway above the Arctic Circle to the Western Sahara.

Beyond Hitler’s empire lay Stalin’s. Beyond that lay Japan’s Empire of the Sun, which occupied Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, the coast of China and much of Southeast Asia.

By Christmas 1941, a Japanese attack on the Malay Peninsula was underway that would lead to the surrender of Singapore in February, the greatest strategic defeat ever suffered by the British empire.

Nine years later, at Christmas 1950, thousands of American troops were being evacuated from Hungnam, the North Korean port city to which they had retreated before hordes of Chinese troops.

Veterans of Mao’s revolution had been sent to drive Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s forces away from the Yalu River on China’s border, and back across the 38th parallel into South Korea.

The Korean War would end in bloody stalemate, after Harry Truman, facing defeat, declined to run again and left office with only a fourth of the nation behind him, and his nemesis Sen. Joe McCarthy victorious and exultant in 1952, along with President Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.

Does our situation at Christmas 2018 remotely compare in gravity with those times? Does whether Bashar Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies prevail in Syria remotely compare in seriousness with whether Hitler or his former ally and successor in tyranny, Stalin, would prevail?

An unacknowledged cause of establishment frustration and rage at Trump’s pullout from Syria and Afghanistan is the growing realization that the post-Cold War new world order it has sought and still seeks to create is likely never to be. Indeed, it is now visibly slipping away. The American people refuse to subscribe to its global agenda.

They will not pay the price in blood, treasure and distraction from our own troubles here at home. Trump’s victory was America’s way of saying, “Goodbye to all that!” And it is this dawning recognition that helps explain the establishment’s exasperation.

While cable news and social media are on fire over the shutdown and the pullout from Syria, the Silent Majority, one imagines, is more focused on an earlier event, 2,000 years ago, that has made a far greater impact upon mankind, and that yet inspires hope that, in the end, all can be well. That event was perhaps best described in the last Advent gospel of Luke:

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

And a Merry Christmas to all.

See (“Christmas 2018: Not the Worst of Times“) (emphasis added); see also (“Can America Fight Two Cold Wars At Once?“) and (“China’s Christians Forced to Find Places to Worship as Crackdown on Churches Continues“)


Three crosses


25 01 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

One And Done? [UPDATED]

Donald Trump

Lots of us voted for our President, and have been strong supporters of his. We were there at the beginning; and almost without fail, we have watched his speeches to adoring supporters in the Flyover States and nationwide.

See, e.g., (“Boycott The GOP And Ignore Foreign Naysayers“) and (“The President And First Lady“) and (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond“) and (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) and (“Robert Mueller Should Be Executed For Treason“) and (“What Atrocities Did Robert Mueller Commit In Vietnam?“) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?“) and (“The Department Of Injustice’s Inspector General Is Complicit In The Deep-State Cover-Up!“) and (“The American Left’s Feeding Frenzy“) and (“It Is Time For Trump Supporters To Fight Back“) and (“Has Jeff Sessions Harmed America Irreparably?“) and (“Will Kavanaugh Prove Disastrous For The Democrats?“) (see also the extensive comments beneath each of these articles)

However, today he caved on building the ENTIRE southern border wall NOW; and we will likely stay home on election day in 2020. We are boycotting Paul Ryan’s despicable GOP already. And yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for any of them again.

Ann Coulter spoke for us when she wrote: “Break Ground, Not Promises.”


Geoff Earle and Francesca Chambers have written for the UK’s Daily Mail:

President Donald Trump announced Friday that negotiators had reached a deal to end the 35-day government shutdown – in a dramatic reversal on deal that does not include funding for his border wall.

Trump said a plan had been reached to reopen the government for three weeks, and said negotiators would use that time for talks on a wall – a demand he walked away from after making it a condition for reopening the government.

‘I am very proud to announce today that we have reached a deal to end the shutdown and reopen the federal government,’ Trump said at the Rose Garden after being applauded by his cabinet members and staff.

The deal includes no funding for the wall beyond existing authorities for repair of existing structures. But Trump referenced a ‘very powerful alternative’ that he has – a reference to emergency powers he claims he has but ‘hopefully’ won’t have to use.

He said a bipartisan committee of lawmakers would meet to discuss border security needs.

After delivering extended remarks on what he considers the virtues of a wall and tough border security – carried live by TV networks closely following the shutdown – the president issued yet another shutdown threat.

‘Let me be very clear. We really have no choice but to build a powerful wall or steel barrier,’ Trump said.

‘If we don’t get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on February 15 – again – or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws and the Constitution of the United States to address this emergency. We will have great security and I want to thank you all very much,’ Trump said, ending his remarks.

He was likely referencing emergency powers that presidents have invoked for imposing sanctions and other issues.

Even as he capitulated to Democrats on Day 35 of the shutdown, Trump hailed walls as a powerful tool.

‘It’s just common sense. Walls work,’ Trump said. He then delivered extended remarks on the virtue of border barriers.

He hit back at Democrats who called the wall a ‘medieval’ approach.

‘They keep drugs out and they dramatically increase efficiency,’ Trump said. ‘These barriers are made of steel. Have see through-visibility, which is very important,’ he said.

‘No matter where you go, they work,’ Trump said, citing Israel’s use of a wall to separate Israeli territory from the West Bank. He also spoke repeatedly about drug smugglers and human traffickers, delivering extended remarks on women he claimed have their mouths duct-taped being sneaked across the border.

‘This is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone do a defeat lap,’ quipped Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee of Michigan following Trump’s remarks.

This never should have happened,’ said Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whose state has a large percentage of federal employees and who is one of the handful of Republicans who backed a Democratic bill to reopen government without a wall.

Since Thursday, negotiators were focused on a deal to keep the government open for three weeks, until Feb. 15, allowing broader talks could continue.

Nevertheless, Trump has repeatedly insisted he would only sign legislation to reopen the government if Democrats included $5.7 billion for a border wall. Democrats have refused, and balked at what they termed hostage-taking.

Trump and lawmakers from both parties could use the three-week period to continue negotiations over the wall, although Democrats have called the issue a dead-end.

If Trump takes the route of the emergency declaration, Democrats have vowed to sue.

The short-term extension would continue current-year funding for wall repairs and fencing, at a rate of $1.3 billion for the year, CNN reported.

The president has continued to hint at other actions he could try to take unilaterally, including using emergency powers to build a wall.

Although this might not withstand a court challenge, it could provide a way for Trump to agree to reopen the government while stating that he was not backing down on the wall – a chief promise of his presidential campaign.

Negotiators in Congress finally began making strides after the defeat of two separate bills to reopen shuttered agencies were defeated in the Senate Friday.

Trump was to speak from the Rose Garden, the White House said. There was no official announcement of a deal, but Senate negotiators had been haggling over a three-week short extension of government funding.

Trump has demanded a ‘downpayment’ on the border wall but later called for ‘pro rated’ funding.

CBS News reported that senior administration officials expected Trump to endorse a short-term funding deal. The Hill reported that it could run to 45 days, but there was no talk of a ‘big deal’ including major immigration changes of the kind being advocated over the weekend.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders didn’t hint at the outlines of any deal or mention Trump’s coveted border wall in a Friday tweet.

‘The President will make remarks regarding the shutdown in the Rose Garden today at 1:30pm. This will be an open press event,’ she wrote.

Trump’s statement came after signs of both a bit of legislative movement after a month-long stalemate – and new demonstrations of the power of the partial shutdown to deal an economic blow to the nation while endangering the safety of citizens.

Airport travel chaos swept the northeast coast on Friday after the FAA ordered a brief ground stop on flights bound for LaGuardia Airport and delaying planes at Newark and Philadelphia due to air traffic control staff shortages caused by the government shutdown.

In a quick-fire series of alerts shortly after 10am on Friday, the FAA advised that it had implemented a ‘traffic management program’ at LaGuardia, one of New York’s major hub airports.

The airport, one of the busiest and one Trump knows well.

The president also was to speak just hours after his longtime advisor Roger Stone was indicted on charges of lying to investigators and witness tampering.

In Trump’s only earlier Friday communication, he blasted the Mueller probe as a ‘witch hunt’ and compared it to treatment of Drug Dealers and human traffickers – hinting at the immigration issues that have been on his mind as he fought for a border wall.

The first burst of movement came Thursday after Senate leaders arranged for side-by-side votes on President Trump’s plan, which included his demand for $5.7 billion in border wall funding, and a Democratic plan to reopen government without it.

The Democratic plan fared better, and six Republicans including new Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah voted for it. Trump’s plan only got 50-47 support, not enough to clear a 60-vote filibuster threshold that was needed.

Immediately afterward, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer – who Trump has mocked as ‘Cr[]yin’ Chuck’ throughout the shutdown – entered the office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for talks that have continued.

Negotiators focused on a short-term ‘continuing resolution’ to get the government open while negotiations continued.

Trump ally Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he spoke to the president about a three-week funding bill. Trump at first said it would contain a ‘downpayment’ on wall funding, according to the White House. Trump in public remarks later Thursday referenced pro rated wall funding.

Democrats have dug in against the wall, insisting the president first reopen government and then negotiate.

GOP lawmakers turned on party leaders during a weekly caucus meeting on Thursday afternoon.

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson exploded to McConnell that it was his fault that the party’s strategy to reopen the government was poised to fail.

‘Are you suggesting I’m enjoying this?’ McConnell responded.

Johnson’s spokesman confirmed the angry exchange to The Washington Post.

Other senators were at each other’s throats in the closed-door luncheon that preceded two mostly-party line votes in the United States Senate on bills pertaining to the government shutdown.

‘Nobody was blaming the president,’ Sen. John Cornyn told the Post. ‘But there was a lot of frustration expressed about the situation we find ourselves in.’

See (“Trump caves on wall and agrees to open the government for just THREE WEEKS after 35-day shutdown – but warns he’ll shut it down again or declare a national emergency and build his ‘smart wall’ without Congress if they don’t fund it“)

This is a load of rubbish, and nothing more than Washington “double-speak.”

Again, Ann Coulter spoke for us. Sadly—and perhaps tragically—our President didn’t.

Also, lots of us remember his campaign promises that Mexico would pay for the wall. If that was true now, our President would not be having to ask Congress for a penny; and all of this (e.g., the government shutdown) would not have happened.

Many of the President’s most ardent supporters feel betrayed. Hopefully the ship can be righted.

See also (“Post-ABC poll: Trump disapproval swells as president, Republicans face lopsided blame for shutdown“) and (“Dick Morris: President Trump, Build the Wall Anyway!“) and (“Ann Coulter says Trump is biggest wimp ever to serve as President“) and (“PIERS MORGAN: Pelosi has played Trump for a chump – time to do a deal“) and (“Democrats uneasy about potential Howard Schultz bid“) and (“‘Wrong track’: Public sours on nation’s direction after shutdown”)


25 01 2019
Phyllis Preston

I think trump lost. The big dealmaker fell on his face, as he has with every venture he attempted. The only money trump has made was obtained by cheating, lying and scamming everyone, including the IRS.


25 01 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Phyllis, for your comments.

The national debate with respect to the “wall” is not over yet; and what has just happened may not be the end result.

Also, I realize that there are strong opinions about our President, on both ends of the political spectrum (and in between), just as there were and are about Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton . . . and the list goes on and on.

We have a very divided and polarized country, which is unfortunate. Hopefully another national tragedy such as 9/11 is not necessary to bring us back together as Americans.


25 01 2019

[Responding to Phyllis Preston]

Give the guy a break.. What the hell was he supposed to do…?!?

Liked by 1 person

25 01 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, as always for your comments.

First, I continue to support the President, even though I believe there were other options that he might have pursued at this juncture. It seems that he wanted to “ease the bleeding,” and take the government shutdown “off the table,” which is understandable.

Second, we have enough economic leverage with Mexico today to demand that it pays for the wall. We could literally shut off imports and/or exports from and to that country, or simply nullify the new trade agreement with Mexico until it ponies up the cost of the entire wall.

Mexico has enormous problems; and the last thing that it needs is a trade war with the United States.

Third, the President can invoke emergency powers, and bypass Congress, and build the wall anyway. Might it be challenged in courts? Possibly, but soon Ruth Bader Ginsburg will leave the Supreme Court; and the President will have the chance to make his third appointment to that court.

My guess is that the Court will approve his exercise of emergency powers, now or in the future.

Fourth, you might wish to read (or reread) the article by Ann Coulter, which is cited above. I do not always agree with her, but I agree with this article.


Fifth, it would be wise to always remember, and never forget that George H.W. Bush’s tax pledge—”Read my lips: no new taxes”—came back to haunt him. The same might be true of President Trump’s pledge to build the border wall, and have Mexico pay for it. I hope this is not the case though.

See (“Read my lips: no new taxes”)

Lastly, it is always nice to hear from you. 🙂


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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: