America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond

16 05 2017

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus.  John Merryman, a state legislator from Maryland, was arrested for attempting to hinder Union troops from moving from Baltimore to Washington, and he was held at Fort McHenry by Union military officials:

Federal judge Roger Taney, the chief justice of the Supreme Court . . . issued a ruling that President Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln didn’t respond, appeal, or order the release of Merryman. But during a July 4 speech, Lincoln was defiant, insisting that he needed to suspend the rules in order to put down the rebellion in the South.[2]

We may be approaching a series of crises in which President Donald Trump will have to act boldly and defiantly, and adopt harsh measures similar to those of Lincoln.

President Trump was elected by the American people.  There are a myriad of persuasive arguments why his opponent, Hillary Clinton, should be indicted, convicted and imprisoned for the rest of her life.[3]  Yet, the drumbeat among Democrats, so-called “progressives” and the far-Left is to destroy the Trump presidency before it has begun.[4]

Many Americans felt just as strongly about the black racist Barack Obama[5], but they did not try to destroy his presidency or advocate his assassination as many in the anti-Trump camp have.  Their seditious, subversive and treasonous conduct strongly suggests that they pose a danger to our system of government. They should be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned.

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

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.[6]

The United States and the American people are facing threats to our existence, which are unprecedented in our history, far surpassing 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.[7]  We cannot permit the seditious, subversive and treasonous conduct of some to pose a danger to our system of government and way of life.

© 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 the University of California, Los Angeles (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 (see, e.g., 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

[2]  See (“President Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War”)

[3]  See, e.g. (“Clinton Fatigue”)

[4]  See, e.g. (“Impeachment: The Democrats’ Loonies And Wackos Are Frothing At The Mouth”)

[5]  If anyone has any doubts whatsoever that Obama is a racist, please read his book “Dreams from My Father” that sets forth his core black racist beliefs in his own words, which have undergirded his presidency.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

[6]  See (“Comey & The Saturday Night Massacre”)

[7]  See, e.g. (“North Korea Prepares EMP Catastrophe For America”)



65 responses

18 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

End The Careers Of RINOS Curbelo And Amash Now! [UPDATED]

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); see also (“Conservatives begin to whisper: President Pence“)

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.


18 05 2017

Not good Timothy. Not good at all. Between Trump’s woes, and an EMP attack.. Yeash.. At least I bought some military EMP proof generators that run on heating oil…

Liked by 1 person

18 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Rick.

Obviously, we do not need any of this. However, the Dems are masters at spinning falsehoods; and most Republicans are rank amateurs, if not outright stupid.

Regarding an EMP Attack, it would produce chaos, anarchy, roaming gangs, total lawlessness, and cannibalism as food stocks disappear. Also, if your generator was not stolen from you violently, you would have to find heating oil, which might be impossible.

You might wish to watch Denzel Washington’s film, “The Book of Eli.” My guess is that it approximates what life would be like in America after an EMP Attack.

See (“The Book of Eli”)


18 05 2017

The coup has begun. Wake up !


18 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

How nice to hear from you, Smilin Jack. It has been a while. 😊

. . .

If it happens, and let’s hope it does not, targets should be put on the backs of every Democrat, Liberal, far-Leftist, and GOP Neanderthal who made it happen; and there should be “open season” with respect to each of them.

This is not the Watergate era when the “Silent Majority” went silently. The “Flyover States” will be enraged, and their anger will know no bounds.


19 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Another Despicable At The Department Of Injustice [UPDATED]

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

“With the stroke of a pen, Rod Rosenstein redeemed his reputation,” writes Dana Milbank of The Washington Post.

What had Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein done to be welcomed home by the Post like the prodigal son?

Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency.

Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation.

Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses. What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up.

Also to be investigated is whether the president tried to curtail the FBI investigation with his phone calls and Oval Office meetings with FBI Director James Comey, before abruptly firing Comey last week.

Regarded as able and honest, Mueller will be under media pressure to come up with charges. Great and famous prosecutors are measured by whom they convict and how many scalps they take.

Moreover, a burgeoning special counsel’s office dredging up dirt on Trump and associates will find itself the beneficiary of an indulgent press.

Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him?

Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation.

After being approved 94-6 by a Senate that hailed him as a principled and independent U.S. attorney for both George Bush and Barack Obama, Rosenstein found himself being pilloried for preparing the document White House aides called crucial to Trump’s decision to fire Comey.

Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump’s orders, put the hit on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat.

Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done.

As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller’s investigation seems certain to drag on for years.

All that time, there will be a cloud over Trump’s presidency that will drain his political authority. Trump’s enemies will become less fearful and more vocal. Republican Congressmen and Senators in swing states and marginal districts, looking to 2018, will have less incentive to follow Trump’s lead, rather than their own instincts and interests. Party unity will fade away.

And without a united and energized Republican Party on the Hill, how do you get repeal and replacement of Obamacare, tax reform or a border wall? Trump’s agenda suddenly seems comatose. And was it a coincidence that the day Mueller was appointed, the markets tanked, with the Dow falling 372 points?

Markets had soared with Trump’s election on the expectation that his pro-business agenda would be enacted. If those expectations suddenly seem illusory, will the boom born of hope become a bust?

A White House staff, said to be in disarray, and a president reportedly enraged over endless press reports of his problems and falling polls, are not going to become one big happy family again with a growing office of prosecutors and FBI agents poking into issues in which they were involved.

Nor is the jurisdiction of the special counsel restricted to alleged Russia interference in the campaign. Allegations about Trump’s taxes, investments, and associates, and those of his family, could be drawn into the maw of the special counsel’s office by political and business enemies enthusiastic about seeing him brought down.

More folks in Trump’s entourage will soon be lawyering up.

While it’s absurd today to talk of impeachment, that will not deter Democrats and the media from speculating, given what happened to Nixon and Clinton when special prosecutors were put on their trail.

Another consequence of the naming of a special counsel, given what such investigations have produced, will be that Vice President Pence will soon find himself with new friends and admirers, and will begin to attract more press as the man of the future in the GOP.

A rising profile for Pence is unlikely to strengthen his relationship with a besieged president.

In the United Kingdom, the odds are growing that Trump may not finish his term.

So how does he regain the enthusiasm and energy he exhibited in previous crises, with such talk in the air?

A debilitating and potentially dangerous time for President Trump has now begun, courtesy of his deputy attorney general.

See (“Rosenstein Joins the Posse“); see also (“The United States Department of Injustice“) and (“Rosenstein Defends Memo Condemning Comey Before Trump Fired Him“)

Cowardly and thoroughly despicable Rosenstein should be fired next!

Coward Rod Rosenstein


20 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.


23 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Bringing Down A President Is Exhilarating

Dike Rachel Maddow

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

Who is the real threat to the national security?

Is it President Trump who shared with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov the intelligence that ISIS was developing laptop bombs to put aboard airliners?

Or is it The Washington Post that ferreted out and published this code-word intelligence, and splashed the details on its front page, alerting the world, and ISIS, to what we knew.

President Trump has the authority to declassify security secrets. And in sharing that intel with the Russians, who have had airliners taken down by bombs, he was trying to restore a relationship.

On fighting Islamist terror, we and the Russians agree.

Five years ago, Russia alerted us that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had become a violent radical Islamist. That was a year and a half before Tsarnaev carried out the Boston Marathon bombing.

But upon what authority did The Washington Post reveal code-word intelligence secrets? Where in the Constitution or U.S. law did the Post get the right to reveal state secrets every U.S. citizen is duty bound to protect?

The source of this top secret laptop-bomb leak that the Post published had to be someone in the intel community who was violating an oath that he had sworn to protect U.S. secrets, and committing a felony by leaking that secret.

Those who leaked this to hurt Trump, and those who published this in the belief it would hurt Trump, sees themselves as the “Resistance” — like the French Resistance to Vichy in World War II.

And they seemingly see themselves as above the laws that bind the rest of us.

“Can Donald Trump Be Trusted With State Secrets?” asked the headline on the editorial in The New York Times.

One wonders: Are these people oblivious to their own past?

In 1971, The New York Times published a hoard of secret documents from the Kennedy-Johnson years on Vietnam. Editors spent months arranging them to convince the public it had been lied into a war that the Times itself had supported, but had turned against.

Purpose of publication: Damage and discredit the war effort, now that Richard Nixon was commander in chief. This was tantamount to treason in wartime.

When Nixon went to the Supreme Court to halt publication of the Pentagon Papers until we could review them to ensure that sources and methods were not being compromised, the White House was castigated for failing to understand the First Amendment.

And for colluding with the thieves that stole them, and for publishing the secret documents, the Times won a Pulitzer.

Forty years ago, the Post also won a Pulitzer — for Watergate.

The indispensable source of its stories was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt, who repeatedly violated his oath and broke the law by leaking the contents of confidential FBI interviews and grand jury testimony.

Felt, “Deep Throat,” was a serial felon. He could have spent 10 years in a federal penitentiary had his identity been revealed. But to protect him from being prosecuted and sent to prison, and to protect themselves from the public knowing their scoops were handed to them by a corrupt FBI agent, the Post kept Felt’s identity secret for 30 years. Yet, their motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Which brings us to the point.

The adversary press asserts in its actions a right to collude with and shelter disloyal and dishonorable officials who violate our laws by leaking secrets that they are sworn to protect.

Why do these officials become criminals, and why do the mainstream media protect them?

Because this seedy bargain is the best way to advance their common interests.

The media get the stolen goods to damage Trump. Anti-Trump officials get their egos massaged, their agendas advanced and their identities protected.

This is the corrupt bargain the Beltway press has on offer.

For the media, bringing down Trump is also good for business. TV ratings of anti-Trump media are soaring. The “failing New York Times” has seen a surge in circulation. The Pulitzers are beckoning.

And bringing down a president is exhilarating. As Ben Bradlee reportedly said during the Iran-Contra scandal that was wounding President Reagan, “We haven’t had this much fun since Watergate.”

When Nixon was brought down, North Vietnam launched a spring offensive that overran the South, and led to concentration camps and mass executions of our allies, South Vietnamese boat people perishing by the thousands in the South China Sea, and a holocaust in Cambodia.

When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.

Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by normal security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through the intel community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack Obama, to seed the bureaucracy to sabotage the Trump presidency before it began.

See (“A Special Prosecutor for Criminal Leaks“)

Those seeking to overthrow Donald Trump’s presidency, and to bring about a coup, must be destroyed. Nothing less will suffice.

They are our enemies, every bit as much as Kim Jong-un of North Korea is.


24 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Classified Documents Show Obama Illegally Spied On Americans For Years [UPDATED}


John Solomon and Sara Carter have written for Circa:

The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.

More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.

The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm. Trump was elected less than two weeks later.

The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.

The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans.

Circa has reported that there was a three-fold increase in NSA data searches about Americans and a rise in the unmasking of U.S. person’s identities in intelligence reports after Obama loosened the privacy rules in 2011.

Officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice have argued their activities were legal under the so-called minimization rule changes Obama made, and that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored to avoid abuses.

The intelligence court and the NSA’s own internal watchdog found that not to be true.

“Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collections under Section 702,” the unsealed court ruling declared. “The Oct. 26, 2016 notice informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries inviolation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”

The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard American’s privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.

“I think what this emphasizes is the shocking lack of oversight of these programs,” said Neema Singh Guliani, the ACLU’s legislative counsel in Washington.

“You have these problems going on for years that only come to the attention of the court late in the game and then it takes additional years to change its practices.

“I think it does call into question all those defenses that we kept hearing, that we always have a robust oversight structure and we have culture of adherence to privacy standards,” she added. “And the headline now is they actually haven’t been in compliacne for years and the FISA court itself says in its opinion is that the NSA suffers from a culture of a lack of candor.”

The NSA acknowledged it self-disclosed the mass violations to the court last fall and that in April it took the extraordinary step of suspending the type of searches that were violating the rules, even deleting prior collected data on Americans to avoid any further violations.

“NSA will no longer collect certain internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target,” the agency said in the statement that was dated April 28 and placed on its Web site without capturing much media or congressional attention.

In question is the collection of what is known as upstream “about data” about an American that is collected even though they were not directly in contact with a foreigner that the NSA was legally allowed to intercept.

The NSA said it doesn’t have the ability to stop collecting ‘about’ information on Americans, “without losing some other important data. ” It, however, said it would stop the practice to “reduce the chance that it would acquire communication of U.S. persons or others who are not in direct contact with a foreign intelligence target.”

The NSA said it also plans to “delete the vast majority of its upstream internet data to further protect the privacy of U.S. person communications.”

Agency officials called the violations “inadvertent compliance lapses.” But the court and IG documents suggest the NSA had not developed a technological way to comply with the rules they had submitted to the court in 2011.

Officials “explained that NSA query compliance is largely maintained through a series of manual checks” and had not “included the proper limiters” to prevent unlawful searches, the NSA internal watchdog reported in a top secret report in January that was just declassified. A new system is being developed now, officials said.

The NSA conducts thousand of searches a year on data involving Americans and the actual numbers of violations were redacted from the documents Circa reviewed.

But a chart in the report showed there three types of violations, the most frequent being 5.2 percent of the time when NSA Section 702 upstream data on U.S. persons was searched.

The inspector general also found noncompliance between 0.7 percent and 1.4 percent of the time involving NSA activities in which there was a court order to target an American for spying but the rules were still not followed. Those activities are known as Section 704 and Section 705 spying.

The IG report spared few words for the NSA’s efforts before the disclosure to ensure it was complying with practices, some that date to rules issued in 2008 in the final days of the Bush administration and others that Obama put into effect in 2011.

“We found that the Agency controls for monitoring query compliance have not been completely developed,” the inspector general reported, citing problems ranging from missing requirements for documentation to the failure to complete controls that would ensure “query compliance.”

The NSA’s Signal Intelligence Directorate, the nation’s main foreign surveillance arm, wrote a letter back to the IG saying it agreed with the findings and that “corrective action plans” are in the works.

See (“Obama intel agency secretly conducted illegal searches on Americans for years“) (emphasis added; chart omitted); see also (“Investigate Obamagate!“)

Also, there are reasons to believe that Barack Obama knowingly let in MS-13 gang members, which is despicable unto itself.

See, e.g., (“Obama admin knew gang members were part of illegal immigrant surge: Whistleblower“)


28 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Evil Dems In Disarray

Hillary for Prison 2016

The New York Times has reported:

The Democratic defeat in a hard-fought special House election in Montana on Thursday highlighted the practical limitations on liberal opposition to President Trump and exposed a deepening rift between cautious party leaders, who want to pick their shots in battling for control of Congress in 2018, and more militant grass-roots activists who want to fight the Republicans everywhere.

Rob Quist, the Democratic nominee in Montana, staked his campaign on the Republican health care bill, but he still lost by six percentage points, even after his Republican opponent for the state’s lone House seat, Greg Gianforte, was charged with assaulting a reporter on the eve of the election.

The margin in this race was relatively small in a state that Mr. Trump carried by more than 20 percentage points last year. But Mr. Quist’s defeat disappointed grass-roots Democrats who financed nearly his entire campaign while the national party declined to spend heavily on what it considered, from the outset, an all-but-lost cause in daunting political territory.

This tension — between party leaders who will not compete for seats they think they cannot win and an energized base loath to concede any contests to Republicans — risks demoralizing activists who keep getting their hopes up. It also points to a painful reality for Democrats: Despite the boiling fury on the left, the resistance toward Mr. Trump has yet to translate into a major electoral victory.

In part, this is because the few special elections for Congress so far have taken place in red-leaning districts, where the near-daily barrage of new controversies involving Mr. Trump has not damaged him irreparably and where he remains fairly popular.

The Montana contest was the second special House election this year in a conservative district where rank-and-file progressives rallied behind their candidate only to see Washington-based Democrats shrink from the fight as Republicans launched ferocious attacks to ensure victory.

In Kansas last month — in a Wichita-area district that is even more conservative than Montana — national Republican groups stepped in to ensure that another lackluster candidate, Ron Estes, pulled out a win, while the Democratic nominee, James Thompson, waited in vain for his party’s cavalry to ride in.

“If the national Democratic Party would start getting more involved in these races earlier, then maybe we could flip them,” Mr. Thompson said in an interview. “It’s frustrating.”

For Republicans, the outcome in Montana, where Mr. Gianforte apologized in his victory speech late Thursday night to the reporter he had attacked, is likely to calm nerves at least for a while, staving off what the party feared would be a full-blown panic if Mr. Gianforte lost on such favorable turf. Washington-based Republican strategists had grown increasingly pessimistic about the race in recent weeks, bemoaning their candidate’s political deficiencies and predicting a narrow victory.

For Democrats, though, the contest pointed to an increasingly heated disagreement over where the party has a realistic chance to win. Party officials in Montana and progressive activists beyond the state’s borders grew frustrated last month watching outside Republican groups savage Mr. Quist as Democratic groups remained on the sidelines.

After a special House election in Georgia in which the Democrat Jon Ossoff received more than 48 percent of the vote — nearly averting a runoff and demonstrating the extent of voter enthusiasm on the left — Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat facing re-election next year, called Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the chairman of the House Democratic campaign arm, and implored him to consider spending money on Mr. Quist in the final weeks of the Montana race, according to two Democratic strategists briefed on the call. Mr. Tester also contacted the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, to see if he would carry the same message to the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California.

But House Democratic officials make no apology for their prudence, believing they are more likely to claim the 24 seats needed to capture the House majority in suburban districts with highly educated voters, where anger at Mr. Trump runs high. That includes districts like the one in suburban Atlanta, previously represented by Health Secretary Tom Price, where both parties have poured tens of millions of dollars into a contest that looms all the more consequential after the Democratic defeats in Kansas and Montana.

Even this week, just two days before the Montana vote, Mr. Luján announced new spending in the Georgia race. And in private, Mr. Luján was telling other House Democrats that Mr. Quist stood little chance, based on private polls showing Mr. Gianforte with a healthy, consistent lead of about 10 percentage points, according to one of those present at a closed-door meeting of the caucus. After the election was called, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee circulated a memo declaring that it had “refused to waste money on hype.”

On Friday, Democratic leaders emphasized that Mr. Quist had performed better than the party’s past congressional candidates in Montana, apparently benefiting from the enthusiasm of rank-and-file Democrats even as he fell well short of victory. The party’s nominees, they noted, are outpacing their predecessors on fairly forbidding terrain, and Democratic voters are participating at higher rates than Republicans, despite being outnumbered in these districts.

But other Democrats acknowledged that they must work harder to make inroads with voters who live far beyond major cities and their suburbs, if they want to pick up seats like the one Mr. Gianforte just captured.

While both Mr. Trump and key Republican policy proposals, like the American Health Care Act, are broadly unpopular in public polling, the president and his party retain a strong hold over rural America, potentially limiting the map on which Democrats can compete next year.

Representative Joseph Crowley of New York, the chairman of the Democratic caucus, said that the outcome in Montana had come as little surprise, and that he took heart that it was “not an easy struggle” for Republicans to retain a normally safe seat.

But Mr. Crowley said that his party’s approach to competing in rural areas was a work in progress, and that Democrats were still honing a positive message on the economy and jobs ahead of the 2018 campaign.

“What it says is we can be competitive in rural districts in states like Montana,” Mr. Crowley said of the special election, adding: “With the right candidate, with the right resources.”

The first element of that formula was on the minds of many Democrats on Friday, looking back at the avalanche of opposition research Republicans used against Mr. Quist as a sign that party leaders need to intervene more in primaries to ensure better candidates.

“I’m for grass-roots politics, but if you’re going to actually win seats, you need to focus on helping candidates who will be the most potent for the general election,” said David Axelrod, the veteran Democratic strategist, holding up Mr. Ossoff as an example of someone party officials had coalesced around early. “That’s one of the reasons there’s a competitive race there now.”

National Democratic strategists were deeply skeptical of Mr. Quist from the outset: The party’s campaign committee and House Majority PAC, a Democratic “super PAC,” dedicated only modest sums to the contest. Both groups faced harsh criticism from the left for holding back while Republican groups pounded Mr. Quist early in the race, driving up his personal unpopularity and effectively disqualifying him in the eyes of many voters.

But by not finishing more closely, Mr. Quist mitigated the postelection grumbling on the left. Two groups that had stoked enthusiasm for him — Our Revolution, a committee backed by Senator Bernie Sanders, and Democracy for America, a grass-roots liberal organization — applauded Mr. Quist for his effort but declined to fan grievances against the Democratic Party establishment.

The party will face a more telling test of its favored strategy on June 20 in the Georgia runoff. Democrats are more optimistic about that contest, and the Montana defeat increases pressure on the party to deliver a special election victory at last.

“That race becomes more of an actual test of what might happen in 2018,” Mr. Axelrod said.

The good news for Democrats is that Republicans will be unable to replicate across the map next year the kind of multimillion-dollar spending blitzes they have mounted in this year’s special elections.

Yet while it may be possible for Democrats to win control of the House without staking their fortunes on states and districts like Montana’s at-large congressional seat, the implications of being less competitive in rural precincts could have graver consequences in the Senate, where Democrats are defending a cluster of seats in conservative, sparsely populated states — including Montana.

“Democrats have to compete in Western states and rural areas,” said Tom Lopach, a Democratic strategist and former chief of staff to Mr. Tester. “For Democrats to have a governing majority, they have to listen to folks in rural America.”

Mr. Lopach, who led the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2016, said that writing off rural voters would be a betrayal of “our governing philosophy of standing up for working folks and all Americans.”

See (“Liberals Wanted a Fight in Montana. Democratic Leaders Saw a Lost Cause“) (emphasis added); see also (“Greg Gianforte Victory in Montana Underscores Limits of Democrats’ Trump Resistance“)

How sweet it is! 🙂


31 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Donald Trump Is Securing Israel’s Future

Israel flag burning

George Melloan, a former deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, has written in the New York Sun:

Shortly before the Six-Day War broke out, I attended an Israeli Defense Forces demonstration of military prowess at a site outside Tel Aviv. We foreign reporters were unimpressed as young Israeli recruits scrambled clumsily over the sand dues.

That was exactly what the Israelis intended. The show of ineptitude was part of the Israeli plan to generate over-confidence among Arab forces threatening Israel’s southern and eastern borders. The Israelis even sold a highly respected New York Times military analyst on the myth that their tanks were so decrepit that they had to be hauled into battle on semi-trailers. It turns out that was the fastest way to move them — fueled, stocked with ordnance and with fresh crews — from front to front.

Egypt, Syrian and Jordan would learn the truth on June 5 when the Israeli air force launched a pre-emptive strike against Egyptian and Syrian air bases and wiped out most of their planes on the ground. The IDF thereby gained air superiority which turned Egyptian tanks in the Sinai, Jordanian armor on the west bank, and Syrian forces on the Golan Heights into shooting gallery targets for Israeli fighter-bombers.

The thing I remember best about that earlier flailing pretense of weakness was the pacifist-sounding talks I heard from a young IDF lieutenant involved in the exercise. “Wars don’t solve anything,” he said to a group of reporters with some fervor. Maybe it was premonition. He was killed in the Sinai on the first day when an Egyptian rocket-propelled-grenade hit the half-track from which he was directing fire on Egyptian infantry.

It’s a bitter irony that he was both wrong and right. The war did resolve some important matters, such as whether Israel would survive as a nation state. Israel indeed survived and has strengthened its position in the half-century since. It now has a formal peace with Egypt, thanks to the 1976 Camp David Accords and a largely tacit understanding with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Arab emirates that the main threat they all face is Iran.

He was right, though, in that the war that would kill him and those fought since would only further aggravate the personal hostility that separates Jews and Arabs living in the territory Israel now controls. I flew back to Israel on the fourth day of the war, landing in a blackout at Lod airport in a DC-10 piloted by the middle-aged managers of El-al, who had taken over from the younger pilots fighting the war. The few passengers, mostly reporters, cheered when they landed us safely.

On the way up to Jerusalem in a rented car next day, I gave a ride to four Israeli soldiers who were hitch-hiking, not unusual in an army noted for improvisation. I asked them if Israel was going to return the land they had just conquered. These were not the clumsy recruits the IDF had put on display weeks before, but tough, battle-hardened men with faces leathered by the desert sun. One, perhaps a Yemeni Jew, used an Arab word, sounding like “feesh,” in reply. Another, who spoke English, translated: “Nothing doing.”

Well, they were wrong about that too. Israel did give back the vast Sinai in return for peace with Egypt. It pulled its settlements out of Gaza with more ambiguous consequences. But it has kept the West Bank of the Jordan River with its largely Arab population under its effective control and shows little inclination to give up this contentious barrier to future aggression.

Israel is now a powerful state with its alliance with America under repair by the Trump administration. It has become a center for technological innovation as it has shed many of the cumbersome trappings of its socialist beginnings. With Syria crippled by civil war, the main threat it now faces is from the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah militia in Lebanon and its array of missiles.

No one can predict the future, especially in the Middle East, but the young IDF lieutenant would probably be reassured by Israel’s strategic position today, had he lived to see it.

See (“How Guile and Guts Won Israel’s Future, And Today’s Optimism“) (emphasis added}

If anyone thinks that Israel’s future would be bright with a Hillary Clinton presidency (i.e., a continuation of Barack Obama’s policies), they would be star-gazing.

Donald Trump is securing Israel’s future. No one should forget that, as the Democrats work toward his ouster.

Compare (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond“) with (“Is Israel Doomed?“)


1 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Victories Ahead, And Sedition

Donald Trump Memorial Day Arlington

The Hill has reported:

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks there’s a “55 percent chance” President Trump will be reelected in 2020.

Bloomberg, who politically identifies as independent, told New York Times columnist Frank Bruni that he thought Democrats didn’t have an effective message to win the 2016 election and could repeat that mistake in 2020.

“Hillary said, ‘Vote for me because I’m a woman and the other guy’s bad,’” Bloomberg said about 2016.

He said Democrats are still looking for issues and messages. And he worries that too many Democrats are eager to jump into the 2020 race.

“They’ll step on each other and re-elect Donald Trump,” Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and spoke at the Democratic National Convention, calling Trump a “dangerous demagogue.”

See (“Bloomberg: ’55 percent chance’ Trump will win reelection“) (emphasis added)

Bloomberg is correct.

The evil Dems and Neanderthals in the GOP, and the always-evil media, have been galvanizing the Trump faithful like never before to decimate these “enemies” and win even bigger next year and in 2020.

This is war; and they are far worse than Kim Jong-un or ISIS or Russia or Iran. They seek to destroy our great nation from within, and their practices constitute sedition and treason, as discussed in the article and comments above.


3 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Are Afghanistan And the Middle East Lost Causes?

Time cover

In earlier comments I raised the issue, “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan,” which was the title of a Time magazine cover story that featured an 18-year-old Afghan woman named Aisha, whose photo is shown above.

See (“’What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan‘”) and (“Why We Fight In Afghanistan, And Why American Women Should Demand Barack Obama’s Removal From Office By Impeachment Or Otherwise“)

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

“We are there and we are committed” was the regular retort of Secretary of State Dean Rusk during the war in Vietnam.

Whatever you may think of our decision to go in, Rusk was saying, if we walk away, the United States loses the first war in its history, with all that means for Southeast Asia and America’s position in the world.

We face a similar moment of decision.

Wednesday, a truck bomb exploded near the diplomatic quarter of Kabul, killing 90 and wounding 460. So terrible was the atrocity that the Taliban denied complicity. It is believed to have been the work of the Haqqani network.

This “horrific and shameful attack demonstrates these terrorists’ comp[l]ete disregard for human life and their nihilistic opposition to the dream of a peaceful future for Afghanistan,” said Hugo Llordens, a U.S. diplomat in Kabul.

The message the truck bombers sent to the Afghan people? Not even in the heart of this capital can your government keep civilian workers and its own employees safe.

Message to America: After investing hundreds of billions and 2,000 U.S. lives in the 15 years since 9/11, we are further from victory than we have ever been.

President Obama, believing Afghanistan was the right war, and Iraq the wrong war, ramped up the U.S. presence in 2011 to 100,000 troops. His plan: Cripple the Taliban, train the Afghan army and security forces, stabilize the government, and withdraw American forces by the end of his second term.

Obama fell short, leaving President Trump with 8,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and Kabul’s control more tenuous than ever. The Taliban hold more territory and are active in more provinces than they have been since being driven from power in 2001. And Afghan forces are suffering casualties at the highest rate of the war.

Stated starkly, the war in Afghanistan is slowly being lost.

Indeed, Trump has inherited what seems to be an unwinnable war, if he is not prepared to send a new U.S. army to block the Taliban from taking power. And it is hard to believe that the American people would approve of any large reintroduction of U.S. forces.

The U.S. commander there, Gen. John Nicholson, has requested at least 3,000 more U.S. troops to train the Afghan army and stabilize the country while seeking a negotiated end to the war.

Trump’s conundrum: 3,000 or 5,000 more U.S. troops can at best help the Afghan security forces sustain the present stalemate.

But if we could not defeat the Taliban with 100,000 U.S. troops in country in 2011, we are not going to defeat a stronger Taliban with a U.S. force one-seventh of that size. And if a guerrilla army does not lose, it wins.

Yet it is hard to see how Trump can refuse to send more troops. If he says we have invested enough blood and treasure, the handwriting will be on the wall. Reports that both Russia and Iran are already talking to the Taliban suggest that they see a Taliban takeover as inevitable.

Should Trump announce any timetable for withdrawal, it would send shock waves through the Afghan government, army and society.

Any awareness that their great superpower ally was departing, now or soon, or refusing to invest more after 15 years, would be a psychological blow from which President Ashraf Ghani’s government might not recover.

What would a Taliban victory mean?

The Afghan people, especially those who cast their lot with us, could undergo something like what befell the South Vietnamese and Cambodians in 1975. It would be a defeat for us almost as far-reaching as was the defeat for the Soviet Union, when the Red Army was forced to pull out after a decade of war in the 1980s.

For the USSR, that Afghan defeat proved a near-fatal blow.

And if we pulled up stakes and departed, the exodus from Afghanistan would be huge and we would face a moral crisis of how many refugees we would accept, and how many we would leave behind to their fate.

Fifteen years ago, some of us argued that an attempt to remake Afghanistan and Iraq in our image was utopian folly, almost certain, given the history and culture of the entire region, to fail.

Yet we plunged in.

In 2001, it was Afghanistan. In 2003, we invaded and occupied Iraq. Then we attacked Libya and ousted Gadhafi. Then we intervened in Syria. Then we backed the Saudi war to crush the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Given the trillions sunk and lost, and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, dead, how have we benefited ourselves, or these peoples?

As Rusk said, “We are there and we are committed.”

And the inevitable departure of the United States from the Middle East, which is coming, just as the British, French and Soviet empires had to depart, will likely do lasting damage to the American soul.

See (“Is Afghanistan a Lost Cause?“) (emphasis added); see also (“Are Afghanistan, Iraq And Pakistan Hopeless, And Is The Spread Of Radical Islam Inevitable, And Is Barack Obama Finished As America’s President?“) and (“Obama In Afghanistan: Doomed From The Start?“)

Will Aisha and so many other Afghan women, men and children have suffered in vain if we cut and run?


8 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Will Newsmax TV Replace FOX, And Star Bill O’Reilly? [UPDATED]

Bill O'Reilly

When Rupert Murdoch’s two far-Left sons fired Bill O’Reilly, they sent shock waves through America.

O’Reilly’s show on FOX had been the most-watched show on cable TV for more than 20 years, and suddenly he was gone. In his place came MSNBC’s resident dike, Rachel Maddow, who is an affront to everything that vast numbers of Americans hold sacred.

O’Reilly has been appearing on Newsmax TV (see, in unprofessional video interviews that do not do justice to either Newsmax or him.

The interviews must be professionally prepared, instead of looking like second-rate video conferencing. Also, “pros” must be hired from FOX or elsewhere, who will turn the somewhat “hokey” Newsmax TV into a real contender (e.g., jettisoning endless commercials targeted at the geriatric sector of Americans).

Missing from America today is a totally-professional forum that will mirror the voices of conservatives like FOX has in the past.

Will Newsmax TV fill that void, or be nothing more than “small potatoes” in the vast domestic and international media hierarchy? Will it emerge as the missing voice for conservatives and others, now that FOX is in ruins?

Only time will tell.

See also (“Double Down: Destroy America’s Left, And Boycott Political Correctness!“) and (“Bringing Down A President Is Exhilarating“) and (“Grrr 59% say news media make them angry, dissatisfied“) and (Media Mogul “Jerry Perenchio: Kind And Caring“); but see (“Charles Payne Will Return to Fox Business”—”Fox Business Network host Charles Payne will return to his early-evening perch at the outlet following an investigation into claims of sexual harassment”—”Payne was suspended in June after a female political analyst who had made regular appearances on Fox News and CNN contacted the law firm of Paul Weiss, which has been working for Fox for several months, and alleged she was banned from Fox after ending an extramarital affair she had with the anchor in 2015. The analyst alleged her Fox appearances were reduced after she terminated the relationship”—”21st Century Fox remains under scrutiny as it strives to acquire the remaining shares in European broadcaster Sky PLC that it does not own and its bid is examined by British government regulators. Proving that the company has taken steps to improve a working culture that had been rife with claims of harassment wouid serve to curtail criticism as its effort to buy Sky progresses. In recent months, the parent company has parted ways with former Fox News chief Roger Ailes, primetime host Bill O’Reilly[, Fox News host Eric Bolling] and Fox Sports programming chief Jamie Horowitz, all of whom had been accused of sexual harassment”); but see (“It’s WAR: Megyn Kelly goes after Bill O’Reilly and Fox News PR over $32M payout [reportedly to Lis Wiehl] – prompting disgraced anchor to say she is LYING before reading her multiple thank you notes and declaring he ‘dramatically helped her career'”)


9 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

This Is War: To Save Our Democracy, The Far-Left Media And Elites Must Be Destroyed

The Impeach Trump Conspiracy

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

Pressed by Megyn Kelly on his ties to President Trump, an exasperated Vladimir Putin blurted out, “We had no relationship at all. . . . I never met him. . . . Have you all lost your senses over there?”

Yes, Vlad, we have.

Consider the questions that have convulsed this city since the Trump triumph, and raised talk of impeachment.

Did Trump collude with Russians to hack the DNC emails and move the goods to WikiLeaks, thus revealing the state secret that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was putting the screws to poor Bernie Sanders?

If not Trump himself, did campaign aides collude with the KGB?

Now, given that our NSA and CIA seemingly intercept everything Russians say to Americans, why is our fabled FBI, having investigated for a year, unable to give us a definitive yes or no?

The snail’s pace of the FBI investigation explains Trump’s frustration. What explains the FBI’s torpor? If J. Edgar Hoover had moved at this pace, John Dillinger would have died of old age.

We hear daily on cable TV of the “Trump-Russia” scandal. Yet, no one has been charged with collusion, and every intelligence official, past or prevent, who has spoken out has echoed ex-acting CIA Director Mike Morrell:

“On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. . . . There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark.”

Where are the criminals? Where is the crime?

As for the meetings between Gen. Mike Flynn, Jared Kushner, Sen. Jeff Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, it appears that Trump wanted a “back channel” to Putin so he could honor his commitment to seek better relations with Russia.

Given the Russophobia rampant here, that makes sense. And while it appears amateurish that Flynn would use Russian channels of communication, what is criminal about this?

Putin is not Stalin. Soviet divisions are not sitting on the Elbe. The Cold War is over. And many presidents have used back channels. Woodrow Wilson sent Col. Edward House to talk to the Kaiser and the Brits. FDR ran messages to Churchill through Harry Hopkins.

As for Trump asking Director James Comey to cut some slack for Flynn, it is understandable in human terms. Flynn had been a loyal aide and friend and Trump had to feel rotten about having to fire the man.

So, what is really going on here?

All the synthetic shock over what Kushner or Sessions said to Kislyak aside, this city’s hatred for President Trump, and its fanatic determination to bring him down in disgrace, predates his presidency.

For Trump ran in 2016 not simply as the Republican alternative. He presented his candidacy as a rejection, a repudiation of the failed elites, political and media, of both parties. Americans voted in 2016 not just for a change in leaders but for a revolution to overthrow a ruling regime.

Thus this city has never reconciled itself to Trump’s victory, and the president daily rubs their noses in their defeat with his tweets.

Seeking a rationale for its rejection, this city has seized upon that old standby. We didn’t lose! The election was stolen in a vast conspiracy, an “act of war” against America, an assault upon “our democracy,” criminal collusion between the Kremlin and the Trumpites.

Hence, Trump is an illegitimate president, and it is the duty of brave citizens of both parties to work to remove the usurper.

The city seized upon a similar argument in 1968, when Richard Nixon won, because it was said he had colluded to have South Vietnam’s president abort Lyndon Johnson’s new plan to bring peace to Southeast Asia in the final hours of that election.

Then, as now, the “t” word, treason, was trotted out.

Attempts to overturn elections where elites are repudiated are not uncommon in U.S. history. Both Nixon and Reagan, after 49-state landslides, were faced with attempts to overturn the election results.

With Nixon in Watergate, the elites succeeded. With Reagan in Iran-Contra, they almost succeeded in destroying that great president as he was ending the Cold War in a bloodless victory for the West.

After Lincoln’s assassination, President Andrew Johnson sought to prevent Radical Republicans from imposing a ruthless Reconstruction on a defeated and devastated South.

The Radicals enacted the Tenure of Office Act, stripping Johnson of his authority to remove any member of the Cabinet without Senate permission. Johnson defied the Radicals and fired their agent in the Cabinet, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.

“Tennessee” Johnson was impeached, and missed conviction by one vote. John F. Kennedy, in his 1956 book, called the senator who had voted to save Johnson a “Profile in Courage.”

If Trump is brought down on the basis of what Putin correctly labels “nonsense,” this city will have executed a nonviolent coup against a constitutionally elected president. Such an act would drop us into the company of those Third World nations where such means are the customary ways that corrupt elites retain their hold on power.

See (“The Impeach-Trump Conspiracy“) (emphasis added); see also (“The United States Department of Injustice“) and (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War“)

Again, to save our democracy, the far-Left media and so-called elites must be destroyed. Nothing less will suffice.

See also (“Trump Victories Ahead, And Sedition“)


11 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

SUMMER SHOWDOWN: Mueller Adds Muscle To Russia Investigation [UPDATED]

Obama Mueller Comey

Mike Allen of Axios has written:

“The Worst Thing That Happened to Donald Trump this Week” — Paul Rosenzweig, on the Lawfare blog: Special counsel “Robert Mueller has hired Michael Dreeben, on a part-time basis, to help with his investigation. Dreeben, a deputy in the Office of the Solicitor General, has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court. His specialty has, for the last 20 years, been criminal matters and he has an encyclopedic knowledge of criminal law.”

Be smart: Mueller is amassing the talent arsenal you’d build to bring criminal charges.

• Why it matters: “[H]e is quite possibly the best criminal appellate lawyer in America (at least on the government’s side). That Mueller has sought his assistance attests both to the seriousness of his effort and the depth of the intellectual bench he is building.”

• National Law Journal: “The move signals that Mueller is seeking advice on the complexities that have arisen already in the investigations, including what constitutes obstruction of justice.”

• Mueller’s has had a spate of other high-octane hires, including Andrew Weissmann, chief of the fraud section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

• Weissmann was director of Justice’s Enron Task Force, where he oversaw the prosecutions of Jeffrey Skilling, Ken Lay, and Andrew Fastow. While at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, Weissmann helped prosecute high-ranking members of the Genovese, Colombo and Gambino crime families, and fought the infiltration of organized crime on Wall Street.

Coming attractions … Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was going to be pummeled with Russia questions during what was supposed to be a budget hearing before a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday, switched yesterday and will appear Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

• Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein will take his place answering appropriations questions. See Sessions’ letter to the Intelligence Committee.

• AP: “The House intelligence committee sent a letter Friday asking White House counsel Don McGahn whether any tape recordings or memos of Comey’s conversations with the president exist now or had existed in the past.”

• “The committee also sent a letter to Comey asking for any notes or memos in his possession about the discussions he had with Trump before being abruptly fired last month. The committee is seeking the materials by June 23.”

The takeaway: All these moves show the Russia probe will remain constantly in Washington’s forefront.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Special Prosecutor For Trump/Russia Investigation Is A Disaster”—”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”) and (“Robert Mueller Stocks Staff with Democrat Donors“)

It is clear that a witch hunt is underway, and the targets are Donald Trump and his presidency; and the goals are to reverse last November’s election results, and destroy a democratically-elected American presidency.

The players include Barack Obama, Comey and possibly Mueller himself, wittingly or unwittingly. They are handmaidens with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi (who may suffer from the onset of dementia), Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and others.

This is treason and sedition, and war; and it must be recognized as such, and dealt with accordingly.

See (“Trump attorney signals a firm stance in dealing with special prosecutor”—”Jay Sekulow . . . questioned the appropriateness of Mueller’s advance review of the prepared testimony that former FBI Director James B. Comey delivered last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee”—”Sekulow declined to rule out ordering at some later date the firing of the widely praised Mueller, who preceded Comey as FBI director”—”[B]y vetting his [prepared Senate testimony with Mueller and his aides], Comey provided Trump’s defense team an opening to question his coziness with Mueller. The two had worked together during the George W. Bush administration when Comey was deputy attorney general and Mueller was FBI director”)


13 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

America Is In A Civil War

[Donald Trump’s America]

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

President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.

We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart. A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.

That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret. Few deny it.

Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president.

Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president.

Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation, that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking of the DNC.

Comey’s deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president. And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey’s friend and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.

As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: “Look at who Mueller’s starting to hire. . . . (T)hese are people that . . . look to me like they’re . . . setting up to go after Trump … including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. . . .

“This is going to be a witch hunt.”

Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War.

The State Department was tasked with working out the details.

Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received “panicky” calls of “Please, my God, can you stop this?”

Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.

“It would have been a win-win for Moscow,” said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.

Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government, and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.

The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real criminal “collusion” in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.

Yet another example is the unfolding “unmasking” scandal.

While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump associates unmasked.

Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president.

The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.

Trump has had many accomplishments since his election. Yet his enemies in the media and their deep state allies have often made a purgatory of his presidency.

What he and his White House need to understand is that this is not going to end, that this is a fight to the finish, that his enemies will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace.

To prevail, Trump will have to campaign across this country and wage guerrilla war in this capital, using the legal and political weapons at his disposal to ferret out the enemies within his own government.

Not only is this battle essential, if Trump hopes to realize his agenda, it is winnable. For the people sense that the Beltway elites are cynically engaged in preserving their own privileges, positions and power.

If the president cannot rewrite Obamacare or achieve tax reform, he should not go around the country in 2018 wailing about Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. They are not the real adversaries. They are but interchangeable parts.

He should campaign against the real enemies of America First by promising to purge the deep state and flog its media collaborators.

Time to burn down the Bastille.

See (“Are We Nearing Civil War?“) (emphasis added)


13 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Fix Was In On The Hillary Investigation From The Start [UPDATED]

Ed Klein: Guilty As Sin

In comments entitled “When Comey Did Obama’s Bidding,” Edward Klein—one of America’s most celebrated journalists, and a New York Times best-selling author—has written:

Several people have asked me if I was shocked when James Comey, the former FBI director, admitted under oath that his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, ordered him to call the investigation of Hillary’s use of a private e-mail server “a matter”—which was how the Clinton campaign characterized it— rather than what it actually was, “a criminal investigation.”

I wasn’t.

Was I shocked that Comey agreed to Lynch’s language, using the excuse, “This isn’t a hill worth dying on, and so I just said, ‘OK’?

I wasn’t shocked about that, either.

The truth is, the fix was in on the Hillary investigation from the start. President Obama, you will recall, did his best to defend Hillary and her indefensible use of an unsecure and easily hackable e-mail system.

“This,” Obama told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft at the very beginning of the investigation, “is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

After that remark, Comey asked to meet with Obama. This wasn’t their first meeting; they had had dinner several months before. Apparently, Comey developed an aversion to meeting with a president only after Donald Trump moved into the White House.

In addition, Loretta Lynch paid visits to the White House to brief Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s consigliere, about the status of the investigation. It was Jarrett, acting on behalf of Obama, who urged Lynch to order Comey to call the investigation “a matter.”

The meeting between Comey and Obama didn’t go well.

“Comey and Obama held each other in contempt,” I wrote in my book, Guilty As Sin. “Comey complained to his top assistants that . . . the president treated him with a tone of condescension. To Obama, the FBI was like any other cop shop, not the premier law enforcement organization in the country.”

Comey was more worried about appearances than he was about substance. He didn’t want it to appear that the White House was pressuring him to let Hillary go free.

But that is exactly what Obama, Jarrett, and Lynch did.

And we all know how that turned out.

Though Comey found Hillary “extremely careless in the handling of classified information,” he did his bosses’ bidding and refused to press charges against her.

Emphasis added.

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 also (“SESSIONS HITS COMEY OVER TALK OF CLINTON EMAILS”—”Attorney General Jeff Sessions says fired FBI director James Comey’s decision to announce that Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted over her emails was a ‘usurpation’ of the Justice Department’s authority. Sessions says he recommended Comey’s firing after a number of concerns about his job performance. But his very public handling of the Clinton email investigation was chief among them. He says Comey’s decision to announce the results of the investigation without Justice Department approval was ‘a stunning development’ because ‘the FBI is the investigative team. They don’t decide prosecution'”) and (“The Comey Conundrum: Liberal critics embrace him now that he’s attacking Trump”—”This goes back to 2004, when Comey was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s deputy, got an urgent call and rushed to the bedside of his hospitalized boss. Comey was able to block other Bush administration officials from having Ashcroft sign a reauthorization of the president’s domestic surveillance program. And who did Comey take with him? FBI Director Robert Mueller, who’s now investigating Comey’s charges as special counsel in the Russia investigation”)


14 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


Nancy Pelosi

See (“Pelosi faces growing doubts among Dems after Georgia loss“) and (“Nancy Pelosi Faces Heat From Democrats After Georgia Loss“) and (“Cher: ‘GOP runs against’ Pelosi“) and (“Michael Moore: Dems have ‘no message, no plan, no leaders'”) and (“Democrats had the worst May fundraising since 2003“) and (“Pelosi’s Democratic critics plot to replace her“) and (“VIDEO: Pelosi repeats words, garbles speech, asks ‘So you want me to sing my praises?'”)

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

In the first round of the special election for the House seat in Georgia’s Sixth District, 30-year-old Jon Ossoff swept 48 percent. He more than doubled the vote of his closest GOP rival, Karen Handel.

A Peach State pickup for the Democrats and a huge humiliation for President Trump seemed at hand.

But in Tuesday’s final round, Ossoff, after the most costly House race in history, got 48 percent again, and lost. If Democratic donors are grabbing pitchforks, who can blame them?

And what was Karen Handel’s cutting issue?

Ossoff lived two miles outside the district and represented the values of the Democratic minority leader, whom he would vote to make the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

The Pelosi factor has been a drag on Democrats in all four of the special elections the party has lost since Trump’s November triumph.

Prediction: Democrats will not go into the 2018 Congressional elections with San Fran Nan as the party’s face and future. No way. As President Kennedy said, “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”

Post-Trump, it is hard to see Republicans returning to NAFTA-GATT free-trade globalism, open borders, mass immigration or Bushite crusades for democracy. A cold realism about America’s limited power and potential to change the world has settled in.

And just as Trump put Bush-Romney Republicanism into the dumpster in the 2016 primaries, Hillary Clinton’s defeat, followed by losses in four straight special elections, portend a passing of the guard in the Democratic Party.

So where is the party going?

Clearly, the energy and fire are on the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren left. Moreover, the crudity of party chair Tom Perez’s attacks on Trump and the GOP, being echoed now by Democratic members of Congress, suggest that the new stridency to rally the angry left is gaining converts.

Trump’s rough rhetoric, which brought out the alienated working class in the ten of thousands to his rallies, is being emulated by “progressives” — imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

Nor is this unusual. After narrow presidential defeats, major parties have often taken a hard turn back toward their base.

After Richard Nixon lost narrowly to JFK in 1960, the Republican right blamed his “me-too” campaign, rose up and nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964. A choice, not an echo.

After Hubert Humphrey lost narrowly to Nixon in 1968, the Democratic Party took a sharp turn to the left in 1972 and nominated George McGovern.

A 21st-century variant of McGovernism seems be in the cards for Democrats today. The salient positions of the party have less to do with bread-and-butter issues than identity politics, issues of race, gender, morality, culture, ethnicity and class.

Same-sex marriage, abortion rights, sanctuary cities, Black Lives Matter, racist cops, La Raza, bathroom rights, tearing down Confederate statues, renaming streets, buildings and bridges to remove any association with slave-owners or segregationists, putting sacred tribal lands ahead of pipelines, and erasing the name of the Washington Redskins.

The Democrats’ economic agenda?

Free tuition for college kids, forgiveness of student loan debt, sticking it to Wall Street and the 1 percent, and bailing out Puerto Rico.

And impeachment — though a yearlong FBI investigation has failed to find any Trump-Kremlin collusion to dethrone Debbie Wasserman Schultz or expose the debate-question shenanigans of Donna Brazile.

And where are the Democratic successes since Obamacare?

The cities where crime is surging, Baltimore and Chicago, have been run for decades by Democrats. The worst-run state in the nation, Illinois, has long been dominated by Democratic legislators.

The crisis of the old order is apparent as well across the pond.

Jeremy Corbyn, a Bernie Sanders radical socialist, led his party to major gains in the recent parliamentary elections, as Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May saw her majority wiped out and faces the same seditionist grumbling as Nancy Pelosi.

Western elites are celebrating the victory of Emmanuel Macron, the “youngest French President since Napoleon,” who defeated Marine Le Pen by a ratio of almost 2-to-1 and whose new party, En Marche! (In Motion!), captured the Assembly. But the celebrating seems premature.

For the first time in the history of De Gaulle’s Fifth Republic, neither the center-left Socialists nor center-right Republicans, the parties that have ruled France for 60 years, made it into the finals in a presidential election.

And while the first round of that election saw the ruling Socialist Party’s candidate run fifth, with 6 percent, the votes of the rightist Le Pen and far left-Communist Jean-Luc Melenchon together topped 40 percent. It is the flanks of European politics that seem still to be hard and growing, and the center that seems shaky and imperiled.

Moreover, Macron faces daunting problems. Unemployment is nearly 10 percent, with youth unemployment twice that. Terrorist attacks from within Muslim communities continue to rise, as do the number of boats of Third Worlders migrating from across the Med.

Can anyone believe that, as these trends continue, Europeans will continue to back centrist policies and moderate politicians to deal with them?

Dream on. That is not the history of Europe.

See (“The Passing of the Pelosi Era“) (emphasis added); see also (“Nancy Pelosi struggles to remember latest Russia accusation — 6 mins after making it!“)


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, Al Sharpton, 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'”)


1 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Trumps depart White House

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

A Democratic congressman has proposed convening a special committee of psychiatrists and other doctors whose job would be to determine if President Donald Trump is fit to serve in the Oval Office.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who also teaches constitutional law at American University, has predictably failed to attract any Republicans to his banner.

But the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment does allow for a majority of the president’s cabinet, or ‘such other body as Congress may by law provide,’ to decide if an Oval Office occupant is unable to carry out his duties – and then to put it to a full congressional vote.

Vice President Mike Pence would also have to agree, which could slow down the process – or speed it up if he wanted the levers of power for himself.

The 25th Amendment has been around since shortly after the John F. Kennedy assassination, but Congress has never formed its own committee in case it’s needed to judge a president’s mental health.

Raskin’s bill would allow the four Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to each choose a psychiatrist and another doctor. Then each party would add a former statesman – like a retired president or vice president.

The final group of 10 would meet and choose an 11th member, who would become the committee’s chairman.

Once the group is officially seated, the House and Senate could direct it through a joint resolution to conduct an actual examination of the president ‘to determine whether the president is incapacitated, either mentally or physically,’ according to the Raskin bill.

And if the president refuses to participate, the bill dictates, that ‘shall be taken into consideration by the commission in reaching a conclusion.’

Under the 25th Amendment, such a committee – or the president’s cabinet – can notify Congress in writing that a sitting president is unfit. In either case the vice president must concur, and he would immediately become ‘acting president.’

Presidents have voluntarily transferred their powers to vice presidents in the past, including when they are put under anesthesia for medical procedures.

In the case of Raskin’s plan, the Constitution holds that both houses of Congress would hold a vote within three weeks.

If two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate agreed that the president couldn’t discharge his duties, he would be dismissed.

Raskin’s plan could have a fatal flaw, however: Legal scholars tend to agree that when the Constitution’s framers first provided for the replacement of a president with an ‘inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office,’ they weren’t talking about mere eccentricities.

And when the 25th Amendment was sent to the states for ratification in 1965, the Senate agreed that ‘inability’ meant that a president was ‘unable to make or communicate his decisions’ and suffered from a ‘mental debility’ rendering him ‘unable or unwilling to make any rational decision.’

So far two dozen members of the House, all Democrats, have signed on to cosponsor the bill.

Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a far-left liberal Democrat, claimed Friday in a Fox Business Channel interview that Congress can remove ‘incompetent’ presidents.

‘The 25th Amendment is utilized when a president is perceived to be incompetent or unable to do his or her job,’ she said.

Raskin has made no bones about the fact that his intentions are specific to President Trump.

‘Trump’s mental incapacity is no laughing matter,’ he tweeted last month. ‘#25thAmendment gives us a way to deal with this problem.’

Raskin summed up his reasoning for Yahoo News on Friday: ‘In case of emergency, break glass.’

‘I assume every human being is allowed one or two errant and seemingly deranged tweets,’ he said.

‘The question is whether you have a sustained pattern of behavior that indicates something is seriously wrong.’

Also on Friday, MSNBC co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski authored an op-ed in The Washington Post whose headline argued ‘Donald Trump is not well.’

The pair were responding to a widely criticized tweet in which Trump complained about their behavoior around the New Year and alleged that Brzezinski was bleeding from a bad facelift.

During a press conference on Thursday, Raskin called Trump a ‘barbarian’ and said: ‘Something is deeply wrong at the White House.’

He called on ‘whoever is in control over there’ to ‘pull back from this terrible situation.’

See (“Two dozen Democrats get behind bill to lay foundation for removing Trump for being mentally ‘incapacitated’ (but they’d need Mike Pence to agree)“) (emphasis added); see also (“LEFTIST HATRED PRODUCES MURDER“)

As indicated at the link cited immediately above:

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. . . .

Can we expect that the Democrats (e.g., Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings, Al Sharpton, Kamala Harris, Rachel Maddow) will be targeted as well?

At the very least, it would not be surprising if Jamie Raskin, Sheila Jackson Lee and others were targeted.

See, e.g., (“Threats against lawmakers already higher than all of 2016“)

While the black racist Barack Obama’s presidency was opposed, no attempts were made by his opponents to assassinate him or destroy his presidency.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)


3 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Press Will Lose To Donald Trump

President Trump

Piers Morgan has written in the UK’s Daily Mail:

‘Good publicity is preferable to bad,’ said Donald Trump in his best-selling book Art of the Deal, ‘but from a bottom-line perspective, bad publicity is sometimes better than no publicity at all. Controversy, in short, sells.’

Never has this mantra seemed more appropriate than today.

Trump’s savagely personal assault on the US mainstream media – aka the MSM – in the past week has ignited a firestorm of controversy and bad publicity.

It began when he tweeted that MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ host Mika Brzezinski was ‘low IQ crazy Mika’ and claimed she had been ‘bleeding badly from a face-lift’ during a New Year’s Eve visit to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort.

This was obviously a grotesquely offensive thing for the President of the United States to publicly state about anyone.

To say it about a woman, any woman, also smacks of crass misogyny.

But before we martyr poor Ms Brzezinksi too fervently, it is worth pointing out that she herself is no innocent little lamb in the personal abuse stakes.

The reason for Trump’s tirade was that she spent the previous day’s ‘Morning Joe’ repeatedly mocking him for his ‘teensy hands’.

In fact, she devotes a lot of her time to ridiculing Trump for the way he looks and behaves.

And let’s not be naïve here, she does it knowing full well that Trump will eventually retaliate, and when he does, she and her show will dominate the news for a few days and get a substantial ratings boost.

Those increased ratings lead to increased profits.

Controversy, in short, sells.

Trump responded to the inevitable furore with another stinging tweet about Brzezinksi and her co-host and fiance, branding them ‘Crazy Joe Scarborough and dumb as a rock Mika’.

Now, I happen to think Scarborough and Brzezinksi are two very smart and able broadcasters. But since their old friend Trump won the White House they’ve gone rogue on him. Why? Partly because I believe they genuinely have issues with the way he has started his presidency. But also, I suspect, because MSNBC is making a fortune from whacking the president.

Indeed, at the weekend Joe Scarborough was able to boast on Twitter about record ratings for their show.

Trump then turned his Twitter turret sights onto his favored enemy: my old employers, CNN.

They gifted him a massive PR goal last week by firing three top journalists for an entirely false story linking a Trump associate to Russian financial skullduggery.

And, as I predicted, the president has embarked on immediate ball-spiking frenzy.

‘I am extremely pleased to see that @CNN has finally been exposed as #FakeNews and garbage journalism,’ Trump tweeted. ‘It’s about time!’

Doubling down, he re-tweeted a mashed-up viral video of an old clip of him at a World Wrestling Entertainment event in which he appears to be pummeling an opponent, who now has the CNN logo on his head.

Trump leaves his battered opponent lying on the ground and walks off triumphant.

‘#FakeNewsCNN,’ was his simple, scathing caption.

This sparked outrage, not least from CNN [that] said in a statement: ‘It is a sad day when the president of the United States encourages violence against reporters. We will keep doing our jobs, he should keep doing his.’

But Trump, who recently had to endure CNN star Kathy Griffin posing for a photo with his mocked-up severed head, would argue that challenging the hyper-aggressive, and in his case, endlessly mocking media IS part of his job.

At a rally in Washington on Saturday night, he made his position crystal clear. ‘The fake media is trying to silence us. But we will not let them because the people know the truth. The fake media tried to stop us from going to the White House. But I’m president and they’re not!’

The partisan crowd leaped to their feet and cheered.

I don’t agree that networks like CNN or NBC, or papers like the New York Times are ‘fake news’.

But they are all driven by a very liberal view of life.

And what the MSM forgets, or chooses to ignore, is that there are vast swathes of the country that don’t share those liberal views.

These are the swathes that voted for Trump and all the polls suggest they would do so again tomorrow.

The more the MSM self-indulgently clears their news schedules to pompously fume and rage about Trump’s attacks on them, the more people outside the liberal elite media bubble just shake their heads in amusement or dismay at what they see as rank hypocrisy.

The American public have good memories.

They know what happened in the election campaign when the MSM competed to give Trump as much friendly airtime as they possibly could.

Back then, the MSM loved candidate Trump’s incendiary tweets because that gave them another ratings-surging bone for their pundits to gnaw on all day long.

They lapped it up when Trump branded his opponents ‘Little Marco’, ‘Lying Ted’ or ‘Low Energy Jeb’ – more outrageous headlines, more outrageous ratings, more outrageous profits.

Controversy, in short, sells.

Then Trump won the GOP nomination and everything changed.

The MSM, having joyously played along with the Trump Train for months, suddenly realised to their horror he might actually win the presidency. Even worse, THEY might get the blame!

So they abruptly turned on him and tried to kill the monster they had themselves created.

To their delight, they found that Trump-bashing was even more popular than Trump-slathering.

Negative headlines came thick and fast, and ratings soared ever higher, as did profits.

Controversy, in short, sells.

Trump, as his is way, fought fire with fire.

The harder the MSM punched him, the harder he punched back.

And to HIS delight, he found that HIS popularity rocketed too. So much so that he ended up beating Hillary Clinton, the ‘most qualified candidate in presidential history’.

Controversy, in short, sells.

After Trump won the White House, I hoped there might be some kind of truce called between these warring parties.

Fat chance.

The battle has grown ever more ferocious, the rhetoric ever more vulgar.

On both sides, it’s ugly, puerile, self-obsessed and frankly, pathetic.

Yet they continue doing it because they’re all winning.

The MSM’s relentless Trump-bashing is driving record newspaper subscription numbers, and cable news and late night show ratings.

But Trump’s winning too, because his base likes nothing more than their guy standing up to the big, bad media beast and going at them toe-to-toe, slug-for-slug.

Controversy, in short, sells.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world looks on in bemused horror and wonders what the hell is happening to America?

As someone who worked with and likes Donald Trump, and who worked for and likes CNN, I don’t have a sensible answer to that question.

But I do know this: Trump is deliberately sucking his media foes into a spiders-web from which they will not be able to easily escape.

He’s got the MSM all mindlessly hooked on his drug of choice: Twitter.

Trump knows ego-fuelled journalists can’t resist his abusive and personal tweets about them, and so long as they obsess about those then they are not doing their real job, which is to examine the issues most important to the American people like healthcare, jobs or immigration.

It’s a rough, tough, occasionally very nasty strategy that provokes perpetual outrage in the hysterical liberal community still reeling from the fact he ever won the presidency in the first place.

But it’s also crudely very effective.

I was down in Florida recently and they love Trump more than ever.

They especially love him beating up on the MSM.

As one of the very few people to repeatedly predict Donald Trump had a good chance of becoming President of the United States, let me now make another prediction: if the MSM in America continues to make the biggest story in town their own mutually abusive battle with Trump, it will help not hinder him and he will be re-elected in 2020.

Controversy, in short, sells.

See (“Winning all round: The dirtier the fight gets between Trump and the media the more they BOTH seem to gain but it’s his game, his rules and in the long-run the press will lose, writes PIERS MORGAN“) (emphasis added)


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 official Washington “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.


15 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Each And Every Democrat Must Be Targeted For Removal Next Year [UPDATED]

Black Racist Maxine Waters

Fred Lucas of the Daily Signal has reported:

It’s a movement that began before President Donald Trump was sworn into office and the drive for impeachment has gone through many iterations.

The earliest rationale was the Constitution’s “emoluments clause,” which came amid loose talk of the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia and emerged as the dominant theme. In lieu of a smoking gun in the Russian matter, the prevailing justification became that Trump tried to obstruct an FBI probe of his former national security adviser.

More recently, the emoluments issue re-emerged when Democratic lawmakers filed lawsuits., Democracy for America, and other progressive or “resistance” groups have been advocating for it. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., appears to have gotten the most airtime of anyone in Congress talking about impeaching the president on talk shows and public events.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, delivered the first House floor speech calling for impeaching Trump. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., called impeachment “really the only way we can go.”

But only Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., actually has introduced articles of impeachment. Green’s speech and Sherman’s measure focused on allegations of obstruction of justice.

The House’s Democratic leadership hasn’t taken up the call, in part because such actions are unlikely, based on known facts, to go anywhere in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Before getting elected to anything, Boyd Roberts, a California congressional candidate, filed documents with the Federal Election Commission to start a political action committee called Impeach Trump Leadership PAC, as The Hill reported.

The shifting rationales demonstrate a weak argument, said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative government watchdog group.

“If they had a good case based on real information, I think they would mention it by now and put their cards on the table,” Boehm, a former Pennsylvania state prosecutor and former counsel for the board of directors at the Legal Services Corporation, told The Daily Signal. “They don’t have high crimes and misdemeanors. They don’t have low crimes and misdemeanors.”

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution includes “high crimes and misdemeanors” as grounds for impeachment, along with treason and bribery.

But impeachment is ultimately a political question and Republicans control the House of Representatives. Even if Democrats managed to flip the House and Senate in the 2018 election, it would require a majority vote in the House to impeach a president and two-thirds of the Senate to remove a president from office.

Boehm said overheated impeachment talk now will delay justice if the president is involved in a legitimate, verifiable scandal.

“Democrats should save the heavy artillery for substance,” Boehm said. “They run the risk of being the boy who cried wolf if they say ‘impeach’ about everything.”

The early framework was set in December 2016, six weeks before Inauguration Day, when five Senate Democrats—Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Chris Coons of Delaware, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon—sponsored a bill that would require the president, vice president, and their family members to divest from anything that could create a conflict of interest.

The Democrats’ bill also states:

Adopting a sense of the Congress that the president’s violation of financial conflicts of interest laws or the ethics requirements that apply to executive branch employees constitute a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution . . .

Before he took office, Trump put his liquid properties such as hotels and golf courses into a trust and resigned from official positions with his businesses, turning the Trump Organization over to his adult sons.

In January, a liberal watchdog group, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, began raising questions about Trump’s businesses and the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which states that:

. . . no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Essentially, the clause prohibits personally profiting from public office. Trump’s children run his businesses now, but there is not a blind trust.

In February, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., filed a “resolution of inquiry” into Trump’s investments that a Huffington Post column framed as the “first legislative step toward impeachment.”

Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, or CREW, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on Jan. 22, two days after Trump took office.

“We did not want to get to this point. It was our hope that President Trump would take the necessary steps to avoid violating the Constitution before he took office,” CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. “He did not. His constitutional violations are immediate and serious, so we were forced to take legal action.”

A spokeswoman for the organization told The Daily Signal she would try to set up an interview with board Chairman Norman Eisen. However, Eisen didn’t respond as of publication deadline.

However, emoluments faded as grounds for impeachment as some juicy stories about Trump and Russia emerged. After a report in The Washington Post accused Trump of talking about classified information with two Russian officials in the Oval Office, Waters said it rose to the level of impeachment.

In May, Waters referred to that alleged sharing of secrets during the Oval Office discussion at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. The California congresswoman said:

We don’t have to be afraid to use the word impeachment. We don’t have to think that impeachment is out of our reach. All we have to do is make sure that we are talking to the American public, that we are keeping them involved, that we are resisting every day, and we are challenging every day.

Yet another major story occurred after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey while the bureau’s Russia investigation was going on. Some politicians and commentators compared to President Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre,” the multiple firings related to the investigation of the Watergate scandal.

Through a leak Comey admitted to planting, Americans learned of his accusation that the president asked him to “let go” of the FBI’s investigation of his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, for misrepresenting his pre-inaugural conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Comey said Trump told him, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Democrats were quick to suggest this amounted to obstruction of justice.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told CNN that Trump’s request to Comey “may well produce another United States vs. Nixon on a subpoena that went to the United States Supreme Court. It may well produce impeachment proceedings, although we’re very far from that possibility.”

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, was asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “If these allegations, Senator, are true, are we getting closer and closer to the possibility of yet another impeachment process?”

King replied: “Reluctantly, Wolf, I have to say yes, simply because obstruction of justice is such a serious offense.”

Obstruction of justice has a significant place in impeachment history. President Bill Clinton was impeached on this charge in the House in 1998, and it was the basis of one article of impeachment passed by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 before Nixon resigned.

Obstruction of justice also is the basis for Sherman’s impeachment draft.

After Comey’s June 8 testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee provided few revelations, and the obstruction case became more difficult to make, the focus shifted back to the emoluments clause. Democratic state attorneys general sued for information on Trump’s business ties—including his elusive income tax returns.

Comey told the panel the president didn’t order him to drop the case and, when questioned, said he knew of no prosecution based on someone’s “hope.”

Numerous legal scholars said they didn’t believe there was a viable obstruction charge based on the Feb. 14 Oval Office conversation between Trump and Comey.

With an impeachment case based on Russia and obstruction of justice not as strong, emoluments made a comeback in June.

“The I-word is not something you should throw around that much, and the Democrats are playing fast and loose with the emoluments lawsuits, where the merits are weak and the standing claims are laughable,” John-Michael Seibler, a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation who has written about Democrats’ various suits, told The Daily Signal.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, both Democrats, sued over the emoluments clause, accusing the president of violating the Constitution regarding foreign governments doing business with the Trump International Hotel in Washington.

Following that, 198 congressional Democrats filed a lawsuit making essentially the same claim.

“The lawsuits would define emoluments so broadly [that the provision] would be used against anyone,” Seibler said. “It’s basically an op-ed before the court.”

“You look at the bill Sen. Warren sponsored,” he added. “The lawsuits ask for declaratory judgment to fill in very wide gaps and reasoning.”

See (“Democrats Hatch Plans A, B, and C to Impeach Trump“) (emphasis added)

This is war!

The removal of each and every Democrat must begin with the despicable black racist Maxine Waters, who is worse than Barack Obama.

See also (“Why Do So Many Americans Hate This Woman?“) and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)


20 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Ugly And Twisted Face Of A Vile Disgusting Black Racist [UPDATED]

Black Racist Maxine Waters

Kyle Olson has written in the American Mirror:

Is 78-year-old “Auntie” Maxine Waters seriously going to make a run for the White House in 2020?

Speculation is increasing as it’s revealed the California congresswoman and darling of Trump haters nationwide will be making an appearance in the early presidential primary state of New Hampshire on Sunday.

“According to an invitation, obtained by WMUR from Democratic sources, Waters will be in the state on July 23 for the picnic to be held at the Miller Farm in New Durham,” WMUR reports, where she will hobnob with the Strafford County Democratic Committee.

President Trump has been a favorite punching bag for Waters, who seems to spin a new conspiracy theory about his administration and aides every few days.

Waters has been intentionally antagonistic towards the president’s supporters, as well.

During a screed on the House floor in March, Waters played the race card and the patriotism card against supporters of the president.

“Mr. Speaker, my position against this president and his administration is clear. I oppose this president. I do not honor this president. I do not respect this president,” Waters said during a nearly 9-minute speech.

“African-Americans have struggled and fought historically, many African-Americans have paid a huge price fighting for justice and equality in this country, have died for it. I don’t have to call the names of Martin Luther King and all the others. We have paid a price, we have fought.

“But guess what? Despite the fact that America has not always been there for us, we’ve always been there for America. We have fought in America’s wars. We have suffered discrimination, we have suffered isolation and undermining. But we stand up for America, oftentimes when others who think they are more patriotic, who say they are more patriotic, do not,” Waters said.

“When we fight against this president, and we point out how dangerous he is for this society and for this country, we’re fighting for the democracy. We’re fighting for America. We’re saying to those who say they’re patriotic but they’ve turned a blind eye to the destruction that he’s about to cause this country, ‘You’re not nearly as patriotic as we are.’”

Waters made it clear her mission is not to represent her constituents, but destroy Trump.

The president “is not good for America,” she said.

“African-Americans know this. The Black Caucus understands this. And for those members of the Black Caucus representing our leadership, who went to meet with him, they have laid out to him all of this, what our care and concerns are all about. But in the final analysis, we really don’t expect anything from him.

“And my mission and my goal is to make sure that he does not remain president of the United States of America,” Water said.

Waters already has the backing of key far-left thought leaders.

In April, Salon Editor-at-Large d. Watkins published a video on Twitter in which he provided 5 reasons “why Maxine Waters should be our next president.”

“Maxine understands the people,” Watkins said as his #5 reason.

“Number 4, Maxine Waters has an amazing reputation of being a fearless, outspoken advocate for women, the poor, children, people of color — pretty much everybody that was left out of the Trump campaign,” he said.

Watkins said #3 is because of her opposition to the war in Iraq.

“That’s something that (Hillary) Clinton, (George W.) Bush, (Donald) Trump, (John) McCain, all of those people couldn’t really figure out,” he said.

Watkins said Waters “loves the Millennials and we love her back,” he said.

His justification was that Waters’ is “learning our language and using the internet.”

Watkins’ number one reason?

“She’s not afraid to attack the right,” he said.

“These are tough times and in tough times we need a tough leader,” Watkins said. “That’s why I nominate Maxine Waters to be our next president.”

See (“MAXINE 2020? Waters appearance in NH on Sunday“); see also (“This Is The Twisted Face Of Pure Evil“) and (“Each And Every Democrat Must Be Targeted For Removal Next Year“) and (“Why Do So Many Americans Hate This Woman?“) and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)


21 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Shut Down The Mueller Witch Hunt, And Drain The Swamp! [UPDATED]

President Trump

Justin Sink and Steven T. Dennis have written for Bloomberg Politics:

President Donald Trump’s interview with the New York Times on Wednesday has stirred speculation he may consider firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller for investigating Trump’s business dealings as part of the Russia probe.

But Trump can’t fire Mueller directly, according to the law that authorizes Mueller’s probe. If he tried, he could set off a chain-reaction that would throw the Justice Department into upheaval.

Only the person acting as attorney general, currently Rod Rosenstein on matters related to the probe, can fire Mueller, and he’s said he won’t do it without “good cause.” So Trump would first have to purge the upper ranks of the Justice Department until he finds someone willing to follow his orders and dismiss the special counsel.

He’d almost certainly begin by dismissing Rosenstein, whose political loyalties Trump questioned in the Times interview on Wednesday in which he also warned Mueller against broadening his investigation. Such a scenario would parallel President Richard Nixon’s 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre,” when Nixon forced out the top two officials in the Justice Department in order to oust the Watergate special counsel.

“I don’t think that’s politically survivable, and it’s not clear how much collateral damage he has to do to in order to put himself into a position to have somebody fire Mueller,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island.

Expanding Investigation

Mueller’s investigation has expanded to examine a broad range of transactions involving the president’s businesses, including dealings by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a person familiar with the probe told Bloomberg News. Trump told the Times that if Mueller examined his family’s finances beyond any relationship with Russia he’d consider it “a violation.”

“There is no possible way anybody at the White House could be seriously thinking about firing Mueller,” said Senate Bob Corker of Tennessee, a Republican. “I don’t even want to comment on that because that’s so far out of bounds it couldn’t possibly be a serious discussion.”

Undercutting Mueller

Trump has indicated he would try to undercut Mueller’s credibility. In the New York Times interview, Trump said Mueller has “many other conflicts that I haven’t said, but I will at some point.”

Separately, the Washington Post reported Thursday night that Trump’s legal team is exploring ways to question Mueller by building a case that he has conflicts of interest in overseeing the investigation. The Post also cited one unidentified person familiar with the effort as saying that Trump has asked his advisers about his authority to grant pardons to aides, family members or even himself.

A conflict of interest is one of the grounds that an attorney general can cite to remove a special counsel under Justice Department regulations, according to the Post.

A Congressional Research Service report lays out how a special prosecutor can be removed.

“To comply with the regulations, the Attorney General himself must remove the special counsel, not the President or a surrogate (unless, as noted previously in this report, the Attorney General has recused himself in the matter under investigation),” the agency concluded from its legal research.

Trump’s spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, when asked on Thursday if Trump would try to remove Mueller, said that “the president has no intention to do so at this time.”

Brand, Boente

But Trump does possess authority to fire Rosenstein for any reason, including refusal to remove Mueller from the post. If Trump did so, the decision would then fall to Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, the third-ranking official in the Justice Department.

That’s what happened in 1973, when then-Solicitor General Robert Bork became the acting attorney general and fired the special counsel after the department’s top two officials quit rather than carry out Nixon’s order.

Brand is a conservative who served in the department under President George W. Bush and doesn’t have a background in criminal prosecutions. If Trump fired Rosenstein, Brand might resign because she and Rosenstein were nominated together, have a close working relationship and went through their confirmation hearings as a team.

Dana Boente, the acting assistant attorney general for national security, would be next in line if Trump also removed Brand. Boente has carried out controversial Trump orders before; in January, when Acting Attorney General Sally Yates refused to defend the president’s travel ban against predominantly Muslim nations, Trump replaced her with Boente, who defended the ban.

‘No Intention’

To be sure, there’s plenty of reason to believe Trump will not actually carry out his implicit threat against Mueller. For one, there is not yet indication that the special counsel is probing Trump Organization businesses outside of its connections to Russia or Russian citizens.

And while Trump allies have floated the idea of firing Mueller before, Sanders said he wasn’t planning to do so.

Still, Trump’s other precedent-shattering decisions have underscored that he doesn’t feel bound by Washington’s traditions, or a fear of the political ramifications.

He defended his dismissal of former FBI Director James Comey in his interview Tuesday with the Times, saying that while he agreed it had caused him a political headache, it was “a great thing for the American people.”

The president’s attack on his own attorney general in the same interview also reinforced notions that he is agitated by the Russia investigation.

Trump said Sessions’ decision to recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation after failing to disclose contacts with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. during his confirmation hearing was “very unfair to the president.” And he indicated that had he known Sessions would give up control of the Russia probe, he never would have appointed him to the job.

“Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else,” Trump said.

‘Constitutional Crisis’

Across town, the Trump interview and the larger controversy over the Russia investigation was palpable in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing during which the panel unanimously advanced Comey’s replacement, Christopher Wray.

“Now what happens next?” said Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. “Will the president move again to try and dismiss Mr. Mueller, the special counsel? Will he do his best to try and end the investigation of the FBI? Will Attorney General Sessions be complicit if he moves in that direction?

“We don’t know the answers to those questions but I would tell you that we’re on the footsteps, doorstep I should say, of a constitutional crisis in this country.”

See (“Here’s the Chain Reaction Trump Could Set Off by Trying to Fire Mueller“) (emphasis added); see also (“Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions“)

Clearly, both Presidents Clinton and Obama used their constitutional pardon powers broadly (e.g., the pardoning of Marc Rich, in the case of Clinton).

See, e.g., (Marc Rich: “U.S. indictment and pardon”) and

Politics is a rough-and-tumble business, which is especially true in our nation’s capital these days—where the Democrats, their far-Left “Mainstream Media” (MSN) cohorts, and Neanderthals in the GOP are bent on destroying the Trump presidency and reversing last year’s presidential election results.

This has been “war” since the Left realized that our President might actually be elected. It must be fought as a war, with no niceties involved. Those of us who lived through Watergate understand the stakes, and know who our domestic enemies are—which are just as “lethal” to this great nation’s future as North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and our other enemies globally.

President Trump’s supporters elected him to “drain the Swamp” in Washington, D.C., which is putrid to say the least, and has been for decades. Most Americans realize this; and there will be a “constitutional crisis” if it is not drained as the president promised.

No guts, no glory. President Trump did not get his party’s nomination and become our president by being a timid soul. We elected him to be bold and to defy Washington’s decadent, “do nothing”-positive traditions.

For openers, he should pardon those close to him who are or may become targets of the despicable Mueller’s witch hunt, and shut it down completely.

Nothing less will suffice.

See also (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It“) and (“The United States Department of Injustice“)

Lastly, Christopher Wray is not a Trump loyalist, and his nomination for FBI Director should be pulled by the Trump White House.


28 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Needs A Leader At Justice [UPDATED]

President Trump

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

Given the bravery he showed in stepping out front as the first senator to endorse Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions deserves better from his boss than the Twitter-trashing he has lately received.

The attorney general has not only been loyal to Trump and his agenda, he has the respect and affection of ex-colleagues in Congress and, more broadly, of populists and conservatives nationally.

Trump’s tweets about Sessions are only demoralizing his base.

Yet the president is not wrong to be exasperated and enraged.

A yearlong FBI investigation into Russian hacking has failed to produce a single indictment. Yet the president watches impotently as a special counsel pulls together a lethal force, inside his own administration, whose undeclared ambition is to bring him down.

Trump’s behavior suggests that he sees the Mueller threat as potentially mortal.

How did we get to this peril point when there is no evidence that Trump or any senior aide colluded in the hacking? As for the June 2016 meeting with the Russians, called by Donald Trump Jr. when told by a friend that Moscow had dirt on Hillary Clinton, even that was no crime.

Foolish, yes; criminal, no. So, again, how did we get to where talk of impeachment and presidential pardons fills the air?

First, Attorney General Sessions, as a campaign adviser and surrogate for Trump who had met with the Russian ambassador, had to recuse himself from the investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein then assumed oversight authority.

Trump then fired FBI Director James Comey and boasted to Russia’s foreign minister about having gotten the “crazy nut job” off his case. His Oval Office comments leaked. Comey then leaked notes of his meeting with Trump. Rosenstein then washed his hands of the mess by naming a special counsel.

And he chose a bulldog, ex-FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Hence, where are we? Despite zero evidence of Trump or his aides colluding in the hacking, a counterintelligence investigation is evolving into a criminal investigation. Mueller is now hiring veteran investigators and prosecutors specializing in white-collar crime.

This is not a witch hunt. It is an Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn, where the most colorful eggs are likely to be the tax returns and the financial records of Trump, who built a real estate empire in a town where winners brag about how they gutted the losers.

Every enemy of Trump is going to be dropping the dime on him to Mueller. Moreover, there is no history of special counsels being appointed and applauded by the press, who went home without taking scalps.

Trump understands this. Reports of his frustration and rage suggest that he knows he has been maneuvered, partly by his own mistakes, into a kill box from which there may be no bloodless exit.

What Trump needs is a leader at Justice who will confine the Mueller investigation to the Russian hacking, and keep Mueller’s men from roaming until they hit prosecutorial pay dirt.

Consider now Trump’s narrowing options.

He can fire Jeff Sessions. But that will enrage Trump’s base to whom the senator is a loyal soldier. And anyone Trump nominates as AG would not be confirmed unless he or she pledged not to interfere with Mueller.

He could direct Rosenstein to fire Mueller. But Rosenstein would assume the Elliot Richardson role in the Saturday Night Massacre, when that AG refused to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, resigned, and was canonized as a martyr by the Never-Nixon media.

Even if Trump finds a Justice Department loyalist to play the role of Solicitor General Robert Bork, who carried out Nixon’s orders and fired Cox, this would only mean Mueller’s departure. Mueller’s staff of prosecutors and investigators would still be there, beavering away.

When Archibald Cox was fired, Nixon ordered his entire office shut down. Yet, within days of the firestorm, it was up and running again with a new special prosecutor. And impeachment resolutions were blossoming in the House.

Another Trump option would be to leave Mueller alone and hope for a benign outcome. But from reports of his rage at the recusal of Sessions and unwillingness of Rosenstein to restrict Mueller to the Russian hacking scandal, Trump seems to sense that an unrestricted investigation represents a mortal threat to his presidency.

And all the talk of impeachment and pardons suggests that this city can also see what lies over the next hill. After all, we have been here before.

From his history, Mueller is not a man to be intimidated by charges of bias. These will only steel his resolve to pursue with his subpoena power every document he wants, including tax returns, until he has satisfied himself.

The president is unlikely to view this process with indulgence, and patience does not appear to rank high among his virtues.

We are headed for a collision between President Trump and Director Mueller.

See (“Is Trump Entering a Kill Box?“) (emphasis added)

One option would be to fire Sessions and the despicable Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who launched the Mueller “witch hunt”—and withdraw the nomination of the disloyal Christopher Wray to be FBI Director—and name new recess appointments, which would not require immediate Senate confirmation.

See, e.g., (“Recess appointment”—”[A] recess appointment must be approved by roughly the end of the next calendar year”)

Coupled with the President’s exercise of his pardon powers to “exonerate” and protect those closest to him, this would allow the new Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General to effectively shut down the Mueller witch hunt, and for the new FBI Director to launch investigations into the criminal actions of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others of their ilk. But such decisive actions would reverberate around the world, like former President Richard Nixon’s actions did.

Obviously the overarching concern is America’s survival in this very dangerous world; and this may break in the President’s favor, with hitherto unknown dimensions.

See, e.g., (“North Korea EMP Threat Advancing Faster Than Expected“)


30 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Defund The Left’s PBS And NPR

Daniel Holloway of Variety has reported:

PBS chief Paula Kerger is sounding an alarm over the undecided future of federal funding for public broadcasting.

“This is a dynamic situation and the outcome is uncertain,” Kerger said Sunday at the Television Critics Association press tour. Kerger’s bi-annual exchange with reporters was dominated by the looming threat of defunding — which Kerger said would have a catastrophic effect.

“For stations in rural parts of the country, it is a significantly greater part of their budget,” Kerger said of Corporation for Public Broadcasting money. “If that funding goes away, it represents an existential crisis.”

In May, President Donald Trump proposed a federal budget that would eliminate most funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The CPB received an advanced appropriation of $445 million for 2020 — funding for public broadcasting is set two years in advance — with Trump proposing to eliminate nearly all of that. The bulk of CPB money is distributed through grants to PBS and NPR member stations, who use it primarily to cover operational costs.

In rural areas where broadband access is limited and local public television stations are among the only programming options, CPB funding can account for more than 50 percent of a station’s budget.

“PBS itself will not go away, but a number of our stations will,” Kerger said, talking about the possible outcome should CPB be defunded. “There isn’t a plan B for that. For all of us in public media, we have linked arms to make an effective case because we know what’s at risk if that funding disappears.”

Kerger singled out Alaska as one state where public broadcasting would be especially hard hit.

Two weeks ago, the House appropriations committee passed a bill that approved full funding for public broadcasting. But the House budget committee has voted against continuing federal funding. Budget legislation still must wind its way through the Senate and a possible full House vote.

The loss of funding for local stations would have a trickle-up effect for PBS. “If our resources are diminished, we’ll have to make some very tough decisions in terms of what we can afford to do,” Kerger said.

The PBS chief also spoke about the death last year of “PBS NewsHour” co-host Gwen Ifill. Kerger said that a permanent replacement for Ifill to join host Judy Woodruff should be announced “sometime in the next few months.”

Kerger also stated that PBS will continue to explore original American drama series production following the cancellation in March of “Mercy Street,” the public broadcaster’s first original American drama in more than a decade. “We’re not withdrawing from that arena,” Kerger said. “We’re really very interested in scripted American drama and American stories.”

See (“PBS Chief Paula Kerger: ‘Outcome Is Uncertain’ for Federal Public-Television Funding“) (emphasis added)

Aside from being blatant shills for America’s despicable Left, PBS, NPR, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and their related entities have paid advertising just like CNN, MSNBC and other FAKE NEWS organs.

They should not receive one penny of governmental funding of any kind, not just federal funding. They are propaganda arms of the Left, and they must be treated as such.

Nothing less will suffice.


31 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Democrats And Republicans Are Brain Dead

President Trump

Donald Trump is America’s first Independent president. According to Gallup polling, approximately 42 percent of Americans, on average, identify as political Independents.

Lots of us were Democrats once, or Republicans, and we left both parties and will not go back. We elected President Trump and will reelect him in 2020.

Some of us worked on Capitol Hill, or elsewhere in official Washington, and we know how deep and putrid the “Swamp” is, and it must be drained.

There is enormous collective wisdom on the part of the American people, and they know intuitively that it will not be drained overnight.

At a time when both Democrats and some in the GOP are trying to destroy the Trump presidency, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has ambitious plans for us, which will end all of our dreams.

Today, a nation-ending EMP Attack can be launched from North Korea, or from a sub or barge located in the Atlantic or Pacific, or in the Gulf of Mexico or the Sea of Cortez. Our military is partially hardened, but the civilian sector is not.

Only 30 million Americans would survive, which is scary to say the least. This should be the number one issue in Washington and throughout our great nation, instead of the nonstop efforts to cripple or destroy the Trump presidency.

See (“North Korea EMP Threat Advancing Faster Than Expected“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article itself)


2 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Robert Mueller’s Partisan Witch Hunt Must Be Shut Down, And Its Staff Fired [UPDATED]

Reuters has reported:

A former U.S. Justice Department official has become the latest lawyer to join special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, a spokesman for the team confirmed.

Greg Andres started on Tuesday, becoming the 16th lawyer on the team, said Josh Stueve, a spokesman for the special counsel.

Most recently a white-collar criminal defense lawyer with New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, Andres, 50, served at the Justice Department from 2010 to 2012. He was deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, where he oversaw the fraud unit and managed the program that targeted illegal foreign bribery.

Mueller, who was appointed special counsel in May, is looking into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election, among other matters. Congressional committees are also investigating the matter.

That Mueller continues to expand his team means the probe is not going to end anytime soon, said Robert Ray, who succeeded Kenneth Starr as independent counsel for the Whitewater investigation during the Clinton administration.

“It’s an indication that the investigation is going to extend well into 2018,” said Ray. “Whether it extends beyond 2018 is an open question.”

The special counsel last month asked the White House to preserve all of its communications about a June 2016 meeting that included the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.

Russian officials have denied meddling in the U.S. election, and Trump denies any collusion by his campaign.

Among the cases Andres oversaw at the Justice Department was the prosecution of Texas financier Robert Allen Stanford, who was convicted in 2012 for operating an $8 billion Ponzi scheme.

Before that, Andres was a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn for over a decade, eventually serving as chief of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney’s office there. He prosecuted several members of the Bonanno organized crime family, one of whom was accused of plotting to have Andres killed.

A graduate of Notre Dame and University of Chicago Law School, Andres was a Peace Corps volunteer in Benin from 1989 to 1992.

He is married to Ronnie Abrams, a U.S. district judge in Manhattan nominated to the bench in 2011 by Democratic President Barack Obama.

Others on the special counsel team include Andrew Weissmann, chief of the Justice Department’s fraud section; Andrew Goldstein, former head of the public corruption unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan; and James Quarles, who was an assistant special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation that helped bring down President Richard Nixon.

See (“Former Justice Department official joins Mueller team“) (emphasis added); see also (“Special Counsel Robert Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe“)

Like the despicable new FBI Director, Christopher Wray, Andres is an alumnus of the corrupt “Department of Injustice,” and neither of them should have been allowed to serve in our government again, in any capacity. The same thing is true of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

See, e.g., (“The United States Department of Injustice“) and (“President Donald Trump’s pick to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation said Wednesday that nobody has asked him to take a loyalty pledge. ‘I sure as heck didn’t offer one,’ said Trump FBI nominee Christopher Wray during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. He added that he would not make such a pledge if asked” . . . Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and any possible collusion between Trump’s electoral campaign and the Russian government“) and (“Another Despicable At The Department Of Injustice“) and (“Shut Down The Mueller Witch Hunt, And Drain The Swamp!“) and (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix“)

As I have stated previously, investigations must be launched into the criminal actions of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Huma Abedin, James Comey and others in the Obama administration; and they must be indicted, convicted and sent to prison, where true justice will be meted out by their fellow inmates.


3 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Sad: Nancy Pelosi Holds Aide’s Hand While Navigating Sidewalk [UPDATED]

The American Mirror has reported:

Nancy Pelosi appears to be growing feeble of mind, but now of body, too?

The 77-year-old, three-decade member of Congress was recently approached by a citizen with an ominous message: “Prison time is coming soon. Be ready.”

After leaning in to hear the man’s statement, Pelosi didn’t react and instead, turned and walked away.

An aide approached Pelosi and grabbed her hand as she navigated the sidewalk.

The American Mirror has been documented Pelosi’s bizarre behavior regularly.

In mid-July, the House Minority Leader had a bizarre reaction as a reporter was asking her about North Korean aggression: She giggled.

Pelosi was fielding questions from reporters during her weekly press conference, and as she finished an answer about arts funding, one said, “Speaking of the arts,” as Pelosi giggled.

“Kim Jung In,” he continued, “has been celebrating their ICBM launch with some cultural” events, the reporter said as Pelosi laughed strangely.

Pelosi regained her composure as the reporter went on, before she sighed loudly into the microphone.

As the reporter finished asking his question about whether Pelosi thinks the administration will be able to protect the West Coast from an attack, she justified her bonafides by saying she’s “one of the few members of Congress to have visited Pyongyang.”

During a late June event at the 92nd Street Y in New York City, Pelosi would awkwardly stop mid-sentence repeatedly, stare at the audience, and then continue speaking.

Speaking about her father, Pelosi said, “He was part of a group called the Berkson Group and they did rallies and pageants and parades and um, and when he stood up on the floor of Congress, ‘I stand here as a representative of the—” she said before halting and staring at the audience.

Then she resumed, “members of the Jewish army.”

Moments later, while she was talking about a planning an agenda after losing four special elections, she said, “For us, we have to make sure that our members—-participate in that.”

While urging liberals to tell their Obamacare story, Pelosi said, “At least go to Facebook, Twitter, whatever— Instagram— any platform that you want.”

A short time later, she froze as she was talking about the Republican healthcare overhaul bill.

“Home care— some, you know, people are at home but they still get care from, uh— from Medicaid,” she said, after momentarily staring at the audience and seemingly groping for words.

She added, “It will have a tremendous impact on what families can do for their children—” she said, continuing to motion with her hands with no words being said, before finally saying, “with relationship to what they need to do.”

Pelosi’s continued strange behavior will likely do little to alleviate the concerns many Democrats are now voicing about their leader.

And now she has to have her [hand] held as she navigating a sidewalk?

See (emphasis added; videos omitted)

The Democrats’ long knives are out for Pelosi already.

As Harry Truman remarked, if one wants a friend in official Washington, buy a dog.

See also (“LONG KNIVES OUT FOR DEMENTED NANCY PELOSI“) and (“Democrats begin to see Pelosi as a 2018 problem“) and (“WHAT’S WRONG WITH NANCY? Orders LGBT group to clap for Obama, laments ‘bulleting’ of youth“) and (“Pelosi struggles to form sentences during TV interview, calls Robert Mueller ‘mother’”)


3 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Mueller The Face Of Evil [UPDATED]

See (“Robert Mueller’s Partisan Witch Hunt Must Be Shut Down, And Its Staff Fired”—”[I]nvestigations must be launched into the criminal actions of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Huma Abedin, James Comey and others in the Obama administration; and they must be indicted, convicted and sent to prison, where true justice will be meted out by their fellow inmates”) and (“Shut Down The Mueller Witch Hunt, And Drain The Swamp!”—”[President Trump] should pardon those close to him who are or may become targets of the despicable Mueller’s witch hunt, and shut it down completely. Nothing less will suffice”) and (“At a time when both Democrats and some in the GOP are trying to destroy the Trump presidency, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has ambitious plans for us, which will end all of our dreams. Today, a nation-ending EMP Attack can be launched from North Korea, or from a sub or barge located in the Atlantic or Pacific, or in the Gulf of Mexico or the Sea of Cortez. Our military is partially hardened, but the civilian sector is not. Only 30 million Americans would survive, which is scary to say the least. This should be the number one issue in Washington and throughout our great nation, instead of the nonstop efforts to cripple or destroy the Trump presidency”) and (“During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus. John Merryman, a state legislator from Maryland, was arrested for attempting to hinder Union troops from moving from Baltimore to Washington, and he was held at Fort McHenry by Union military officials: ‘Federal judge Roger Taney, the chief justice of the Supreme Court . . . issued a ruling that President Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln didn’t respond, appeal, or order the release of Merryman. But during a July 4 speech, Lincoln was defiant, insisting that he needed to suspend the rules in order to put down the rebellion in the South.’ We may be approaching a series of crises in which President Donald Trump will have to act boldly and defiantly, and adopt harsh measures similar to those of Lincoln”); see also (“Congress sank to a 10% approval rating in a new Quinnipiac University poll released on Thursday, with roughly five in six Americans saying they disapprove of the country’s legislative body“) and (“Another Despicable At The Department Of Injustice“)


5 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Trump faithful

Radio Host Michael Savage’s views are discussed at INFOWars:

Americans could even “resort to mob violence” because they’ll have nothing to lose once they “are finally aware of the fact that they’ve been tricked by their society, and that no matter how hard they work as middle-class people” they have nothing to gain, the Savage Nation host said Friday.

“That is what’s going to happen in this country,” he pointed out. “You have not yet seen mob violence in this country. You’ve seen some mob violence instigated by George Soros’ mobs.”

“But you haven’t seen the thing I’m telling you is coming in this country. You haven’t seen the ‘Day of the Locust’ yet.”

Savage was referring to the 1939 novel The Day of the Locust, which analyzes the violent rage of Americans who slaved away their entire lives only to realize that the American dream was impossible for them to achieve.

“When Eddie finally gets up and says that’s the end of the road, and Eddie’s eyes turn red, and blood is in his eyes, Eddie will turn this society upside down,” the Savage Nation host said. “And if [the left] take(s) Trump down, through Mueller or through any other source and deny Eddie his vote, there will be a civil war in this country.”

“I’m warning you. All of you leftists who think you’re going to steal our vote, you’re wrong.”

“. . . But if you do the next step and steal our president, I warn you. You’ve seen nothing yet,” he added. “You will see the ‘Day of the Locust’ in this country.”

That said, the battle lines for a civil war were drawn even before Trump entered politics.

“Not since the run-up to the Civil War has the nation been more divided,” Savage wrote in his 2014 book Stop the Coming Civil War. “The battle lines have been drawn: The haves against the have-nots.”

However, the globalists may want a civil war: it’ll give them the chance to “transform” America into an EU-style technocratic tyranny which they control.

“Unfortunately for individual people living in this new system, it will also require authoritarian and centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave,” wrote Patrick Wood in his book Technocracy Rising.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Mueller The Face Of Evil“)

Of course Savage is correct: Americans – not Russians – elected Donald Trump.

As I have written:

[If Trump was taken down,] targets should be put on the backs of every Democrat, Liberal, far-Leftist, and GOP Neanderthal who made it happen; and there should be “open season” with respect to each of them.

This is not the Watergate era when the “Silent Majority” went silently. The “Flyover States” will be enraged, and their anger will know no bounds.

See; see also (“Each And Every Democrat Must Be Targeted For Removal Next Year“)

Lots of us would take to the streets, and make the racist “Black Lives Matter” movement seem like child’s play.

I was at Berkeley during the “Free Speech Movement” and the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, which in retrospect will seem like “amateur night” too.

. . .

If anyone thinks that Mike Pence is the GOP’s “savior,” they are delusional. Many of us never heard of him until Donald Trump picked him; and he and the other Republicans do not have our support, any more than the evil Democrats have.

We rejected both parties, and will never look back. As former Democrats and Republicans, our goal is to destroy both corrupt political parties that do not serve the American people.

See also (“Republican Shadow Campaign for 2020 Takes Shape as Trump Doubts Grow“) and (“Democrats fear Russia probe blowback“)


9 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Armageddon: America’s New Civil War Continues Unabated [UPDATED]

EMP Attack on USA

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

The battle lines have been so sharply drawn, in what is now a bloodless civil war for direction of U.S. public policy, that the two sides cannot really communicate with each other. There is a commendable candor in Kellyanne Conway’s statement: “They hate us and we hate them.”

I don’t hate the Never Trumpers. I know many of their principal and most articulate spokesmen who have defected from the conservative Republican ranks, and in many cases I have known them for a great many years. I could never entertain allowing a matter of political differences to interfere in a valued friendship. And while I am hopeful that Donald Trump (also a friend) will be a successful president, and am glad that he has the opportunity to govern, I am not so impassioned on the subject that it blinds me to the virtues of some of his detractors or to the president’s shortcomings.

It is, though, impossible to receive a serious hearing from a Never Trumper for a pro-Trump argument, and the pro-Trumpers are generally convinced of the discreditable motives of the Never Trumpers. There is now unfolding what must be the last civilized debate about the trajectory of events in Washington before the civil war moves from the heavy and frequent skirmishing that has intensified since the election to the fight to the death that seems inevitably to impend.

The president said in a powerful address to a very enthusiastic audience in West Virginia last week, where he received the grace of conversion to the Republican party of the formerly Democratic governor, Jim Justice, that the entire special-counsel investigation into relations between the Russian government and the Trump campaign is “a total fabrication” and “an attempt to [reverse] one of the greatest political defeats in American history.” So it is.

The deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, said on television over the weekend that Special Counsel Robert Mueller could not go beyond the parameters of his specific assignment — Trump campaign — Russia relations and “relevant matters” — without Mr. Rosenstein’s approval. When it was pointed out by Chris Wallace on Fox News that the special-prosecutor investigation of President Clinton had started with financial activities in the Whitewater affair in Arkansas before Mr. Clinton became president and ended with the blue dress and Monica Lewinsky, Mr. Rosenstein made the point that in that case, the special prosecutor, Judge Starr, had to ask the authority of the then-attorney general, Janet Reno, to follow this trail and that any attempt to replicate the pattern by Mr. Mueller would require Mr. Rosenstein’s approval. He stated squarely that he would not approve “a fishing expedition.”

It is also reported by his own counsel that the president has communicated in the appropriate manner, through his counsel, with Mr. Mueller, and that this channel has been entirely constructive. It is possible to believe that Mueller is a man of integrity who will confine himself to his brief and not be transmogrified by his position into an assassin leaking a dumpster-load of tendentious allegations and innuendos to the press every day, in the time-honored manner of U.S. special prosecutors where the president is in the frame.

There is yet to emerge any serious evidence that anyone committed a crime in this area. The entire confection of Russian collusion arose immediately after the election, despite the fact that Democratic officials such as John Podesta had a great deal more to do with the Russians than the Republicans did, and that by historic criteria, there was no justification for a special counsel to be named at all. Some laws had been broken in the Watergate and Iran-Contra and Whitewater matters, apparently by people in or close to the administrations, and although all three investigations were undistinguishedly conducted and led to more injustice than justice, there was at least a reason for them.

In this case, James Comey was fired for cause. He then produced a (vigorously contested) self-addressed memo summarizing a conversation with the president, and leaked it to the New York Times, possibly illegally, for what he volunteered to be the motive of causing the appointment of a special prosecutor to rummage through the administration of the man who fired him. The attorney general, Jeff Sessions, had mistakenly told his confirmation hearing he had not met with Russians when he had, and left himself no choice but to recuse.

Mr. Comey’s sour grapes back-stab on the president may have left the just-confirmed deputy attorney general, Mr. Rosenstein, little choice, but he might have found someone other than the close friend and career benefactor of the man who had just, with questionable ethics and legality, generated the apparent need for a special counsel. Some of the president’s public reflections on the subject have muddied the waters, but his chagrin is understandable.

This is the same Comey who whitewashed Hillary Clinton by usurping the role of deciding whether she should be prosecuted in the e-mail controversy. This is not the role of a police chief, but he made a clear case for indictment and then announced that he had decided not to prosecute. Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, had disqualified herself by improperly meeting with President Clinton, but Mr. Comey should have reported to the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, and left the decision to his superiors in the Justice Department.

After the storm he caused by making this decision — ultra vires to him, but popular in the administration — he tried to square things with a brief reopening of the investigation, before slamming it shut again a few days before the election. Comey tried to be the queen-maker, then the nonpartisan investigator and judge, then the returning queen-maker, and then the coup leader against the new king.

This is not the role of the FBI director, and it is irritating to see hostile references to J. Edgar Hoover as the original over-mighty FBI director. Hoover had his faults, but in 47 years in fundamentally the same position as Mr. Comey, he never attempted to influence presidential elections or incite a presidential impeachment, and never presumed to speak for the attorney general.

Whether Mr. Mueller conducts himself professionally or not, there is no excuse for a special counsel to have been appointed, and the president was (as he need not have mentioned publicly) badly let down by Mr. Sessions. The scramble of nominal Republicans such as Lindsey Graham, and drooling partisan Democrats such as Chris Coons, to pass redundant, grandstanding legislation to protect Messrs. Sessions and Mueller is nauseating.

Mr. Trump ran against and defeated both parties, the Clintons, the Bushes, and Obama, and most of their close collaborators in the Congress. The war continues and until the president has enough economic progress, or enough time without gaffes that the hostile press can amplify into a wall of noise, or a sudden foreign-policy success such as with North Korea or even Venezuela, if he wants to start moving the needle of the polls upwards, he will face the problem of cowardice and lethargy in his own party.

Senator McConnell’s statement in Kentucky this week that Mr. Trump was responsible for the almost total failure of the Republican Congress to achieve anything in the past six months was just more self-serving claptrap from a familiar and tiresome source. A lengthy pastiche of picayune snobberies in the New Yorker this week, from discredited journeymen such as Eliot Cohen, typifies the vacuity of most of the Trump-hate.

The attacks are on Trump’s admittedly grating (but steadily less frequent) flippancies and inattention to precise detail, but comparisons with Warren Harding in the New Yorker piece prove merely that, as in the 2016 Clinton campaign, there is no opposition argument except defamation and the pomposities of aspiring salonniers.

The president’s course is clear: Speak and tweet more carefully, as he is generally doing; show more focus; shut down the nonsense and indiscretions in the White House; prepare an unstoppable tax bill; take a strong line in North Korea (after three successive administrations have failed and dropped this horrible mess into his lap); denounce the Mueller investigation for the outrage that it is; do the necessary to set another special counsel on the backs of the Clintons, Lynch, Comey, Wasserman Schultz, and the unmaskers and leakers (the Democrats deserve the heat more than Trump does and this one-way shooting gallery must end); and, if Mr. Rosenstein allows Mr. Mueller to go fishing, challenge it in the courts.

This is a civil war and the apostate conservatives should realize that, if Mr. Trump loses, they don’t get a new Reaganism in the Republican party and renewed importance and self-importance for themselves; they get the semi-permanent return of those responsible for the decline of America, the sleazy transformation of America into an ineffectual force in the world and into an inert, economically stagnant welfare state. The choice, for sane conservatives, is Mr. Trump or national disaster, and it’s time for my learned friends on the highbrow right to come back to (the troubled American part of) this planet — though I see no sign of its happening.

See (“A Bloodless Civil War Is Coming Into Focus With Attacks on Trump“) (emphasis added)

The “fight to the death” that Conrad Black describes is on, already.

All of the forces that were arrayed against Donald Trump as he sought the presidency are focused now on destroying him. They must be vanquished like never before in America’s history.

See (“CIVIL WAR IF TRUMP TAKEN DOWN”—”[If Trump was taken down,] targets should be put on the backs of every Democrat, Liberal, far-Leftist, and GOP Neanderthal who made it happen; and there should be ‘open season’ with respect to each of them. This is not the Watergate era when the ‘Silent Majority’ went silently. The ‘Flyover States’ will be enraged, and their anger will know no bounds”)

There was no need for the appointment of a special counsel, and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein should be fired, summarily. Mr. Black’s assertion that the counsel’s authority might be challenged in the courts is, of course, pathetic and laughable. The judiciary is the very worst of the legal profession, and cannot be trusted.

As discussed in my article above, like Abraham Lincoln, Donald Trump must ignore it and continue to go about this great nation’s business. Our enemies around the world (e.g., China, Russia, North Korea, terrorists) are salivating over our plight.

Indeed, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is steps away from launching a nation-ending EMP Attack, which might kill all except 30 million Americans. The rest would be highly vulnerable to secondary attacks by conventional forces or biological weapons.

This should be the number one issue in Washington and throughout America, instead of the nonstop efforts to cripple or destroy the Trump presidency—which are seditious and treasonous, and constitute madness.

See, e.g., (“North Korea EMP Threat Advancing Faster Than Expected“)


11 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Democrats Are Thoroughly Evil

Democrats are evil

Mark Lilla has written in The Wall Street Journal:

Donald Trump’s surprise victory in last year’s presidential election has finally energized my fellow liberals, who are networking, marching and showing up at town-hall meetings across the country. There is excited talk about winning back the White House in 2020 and maybe even the House of Representatives in the interim.

But we are way ahead of ourselves—dangerously so. For a start, the presidency just isn’t what it used to be, certainly not for Democrats. In the last generation, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama won the office with comfortable margins, but they were repeatedly stymied by assertive Republicans in Congress, a right-leaning Supreme Court and—what should be the most worrisome development for Democrats—a steadily growing majority of state governments in Republican hands.

What’s more, nothing those presidents did while in office did much to reverse the rightward drift of American public opinion. Even when they vote for Democrats or support some of their policies, most Americans—including young people, women and minorities—reject the term “liberal.” And it isn’t hard to see why. They see us as aloof, elitist, out of touch.

It is time to admit that American liberalism is in deep crisis: a crisis of imagination and ambition on our side, a crisis of attachment and trust on the side of the wider public. The question is, why? Why would those who claim to speak for and defend the great American demos be so indifferent to stirring its feelings and gaining its trust? Why, in the contest for the American imagination, have liberals simply abdicated?

Ronald Reagan almost single-handedly destroyed the New Deal vision of America that used to guide us. Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise to build a strong nation and protect each other. The watchwords of that effort were solidarity, opportunity and public duty. Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government.

To meet the Reagan challenge, we liberals needed to develop an ambitious new vision of America and its future that would again inspire people of every walk of life and in every region of the country to come together as citizens. Instead we got tangled up in the divisive, zero-sum world of identity politics, losing a sense of what binds us together as a nation. What went missing in the Reagan years was the great liberal-democratic We. Little wonder that so few now wish to join us.

There is a mystery at the core of every suicide, and the story of how a once-successful liberal politics of solidarity became a failed liberal politics of “difference” is not a simple one. Perhaps the best place to begin it is with a slogan: The personal is the political.

This phrase was coined by feminists in the 1960s and captured perfectly the mind-set of the New Left at the time. Originally, it was interpreted to mean that everything that seems strictly private—sexuality, the family, the workplace—is in fact political and that there are no spheres of life exempt from the struggle for power. That is what made it so radical, electrifying sympathizers and disturbing everyone else.

But the phrase could also be taken in a more romantic sense: that what we think of as political action is in fact nothing but personal activity, an expression of me and how I define myself. As we would put it today, my political life is a reflection of my identity.

Over time, the romantic view won out over the radical one, and the idea got rooted on the left that, to reverse the formula, the political is the personal. Liberals and progressives continued to fight for social justice out in the world. But now they also wanted there to be no space between what they felt inside and what they did in that world. They wanted their political engagements to mirror how they understood and defined themselves as individuals. And they wanted their self-definition to be recognized.

This was an innovation on the left. Socialism had no time for individual recognition. Rushing toward the revolution, it divided the world into exploiting capitalists and exploited workers of every background. New Deal liberals were just as indifferent to individual identity; they thought and spoke in terms of equal rights and equal social protections for all. Even the early movements of the 1950s and ’60s to secure the rights of African-Americans, women and gays appealed to our shared humanity and citizenship, not our differences. They drew people together rather than setting them against each other.

All that began to change when the New Left shattered in the 1970s, in no small part due to identity issues. Blacks complained that white movement leaders were racist, feminists complained that they were sexist, and lesbians complained that straight feminists were homophobic. The main enemies were no longer capitalism and the military-industrial complex; they were fellow movement members who were not, as we would say today, sufficiently “woke.”

It was then that less radical liberal and progressive activists also began redirecting their energies away from party politics and toward a wide range of single-issue social movements. The forces at work in healthy party politics are centripetal; they encourage factions and interests to come together to work out common goals and strategies. They oblige everyone to think, or at least to speak, about the common good.

In movement politics, the forces are all centrifugal, encouraging splits into smaller and smaller factions obsessed with single issues and practicing rituals of ideological one-upmanship. Symbols take on outsize significance, especially in identity-based movements.

The results of this shift are now plain to see. The classic Democratic goal of bringing people from different backgrounds together for a single common project has given way to a pseudo-politics of self-regard and increasingly narrow and exclusionary self-definition. And what keeps this approach to politics alive is that it is cultivated in the colleges and universities where liberal elites are formed. Here again, we must look to the history of the New Left to understand how this happened.

After Reagan’s election in 1980, conservative activists hit the road to spread the new individualist gospel of small government and free markets and poured their energies into winning out-of-the-way county, state and congressional elections. Also on the road, though taking a different exit on the interstate, were former New Left activists heading for college towns all over America.

Conservatives concentrated on attracting working people once attached to the Democratic Party—a populist, bottom-up strategy. The left concentrated on transforming the outlook of professional and party elites—a top-down strategy. Both groups were successful, and both left their mark on the country.

Up until the 1960s, those active in the Democratic Party were largely drawn from the working class or farm communities and were formed in local political clubs or on union-dominated shop floors. That world is gone. Today they are formed primarily in our colleges and universities, as are members of the overwhelmingly liberal-dominated professions of law, journalism and education.

Liberal political education, such as it is, now takes place on campuses that are far removed, socially and geographically, from the rest of the country—and particularly from the sorts of people who once were the foundation of the Democratic Party. And the political catechism that is taught is a historical artifact, reflecting more the idiosyncratic experience of the ’60s generation than the realities of power politics today.

The experience of that era taught the New Left two lessons. The first was that movement politics was the only mode of engagement that actually changes things; the second was that political activity must have some authentic meaning for the self, making compromise seem like a self-betrayal.

These lessons, though, have little bearing on liberalism’s present crisis, which is that of being defeated time and again by a well-organized Republican Party that keeps tightening its grip on our institutions. Where those lessons do resonate is with young people in our highly individualistic bourgeois society—a society that keeps them focused on themselves and teaches them that personal choice, individual rights and self-definition are all that is sacred.

It is little wonder that students of the Facebook age are drawn to courses focused on their identities and movements related to them. Nor is it surprising that many join campus groups that engage in identity movement work. But the costs need to be tallied.

For those students who will soon become liberal and progressive elites, the line between self-discovery and political action has become blurred. Their political commitments are genuine but are circumscribed by the confines of their self-definitions. Issues that penetrate those confines take on looming importance, and since politics for them is personal, their positions tend to be absolutist and nonnegotiable. Those issues that don’t touch on their identities or affect people like themselves are hardly perceived. And classic liberal ideas like citizenship, solidarity and the common good have little meaning for them.

As a teacher, I am increasingly struck by a difference between my conservative and progressive students. Contrary to the stereotype, the conservatives are far more likely to connect their engagements to a set of political ideas and principles. Young people on the left are much more inclined to say that they are engaged in politics as an X, concerned about other Xs and those issues touching on X-ness. And they are less and less comfortable with debate.

Over the past decade a new, and very revealing, locution has drifted from our universities into the media mainstream: Speaking as an X . . . This is not an anodyne phrase. It sets up a wall against any questions that come from a non-X perspective. Classroom conversations that once might have begun, I think A, and here is my argument, now take the form, Speaking as an X, I am offended that you claim B. What replaces argument, then, are taboos against unfamiliar ideas and contrary opinions.

Conservatives complain loudest about today’s campus follies, but it is really liberals who should be angry. The big story is not that leftist professors successfully turn millions of young people into dangerous political radicals every year. It is that they have gotten students so obsessed with their personal identities that, by the time they graduate, they have much less interest in, and even less engagement with, the wider political world outside their heads.

There is a great irony in this. The supposedly bland, conventional universities of the 1950s and early ’60s incubated the most radical generation of American citizens perhaps since our founding. Young people were incensed by the denial of voting rights out there, the Vietnam War out there, nuclear proliferation out there, capitalism out there, colonialism out there. Yet once that generation took power in the universities, it proceeded to depoliticize the liberal elite, rendering its members unprepared to think about the common good and what must be done practically to secure it—especially the hard and unglamorous task of persuading people very different from themselves to join a common effort.

Every advance of liberal identity consciousness has marked a retreat of liberal political consciousness. There can be no liberal politics without a sense of We—of what we are as citizens and what we owe each other. If liberals hope ever to recapture America’s imagination and become a dominant force across the country, it will not be enough to beat the Republicans at flattering the vanity of the mythical Joe Sixpack. They must offer a vision of our common destiny based on one thing that all Americans, of every background, share.

And that is citizenship. We must relearn how to speak to citizens as citizens and to frame our appeals for solidarity—including ones to benefit particular groups—in terms of principles that everyone can affirm.

Black Lives Matter is a textbook example of how not to build solidarity. By publicizing and protesting police mistreatment of African-Americans, the movement delivered a wake-up call to every American with a conscience. But its decision to use this mistreatment to build a general indictment of American society and demand a confession of white sins and public penitence only played into the hands of the Republican right.

I am not a black male motorist and will never know what it is like to be one. If I am going to be affected by his experience, I need some way to identify with him, and citizenship is the only thing I know that we share. The more the differences between us are emphasized, the less likely I will be to feel outrage at his mistreatment.

The politics of identity has done nothing but strengthen the grip of the American right on our institutions. It is the gift that keeps on taking. Now is the time for liberals to do an immediate about-face and return to articulating their core principles of solidarity and equal protection for all. Never has the country needed it more.

See (“The Liberal Crackup“) (emphasis added)

There is no hope for the evil Democrats—or “progressives,” as they prefer to style themselves, in a vain attempt to mask the truth about them.

The face of the party consists of the demented Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, the despicable black racists Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings and Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and others of their ilk.

They are the reasons why lots of us left the party years ago, and will never come back.

We are outraged at their attacks on our president. Needless to say, our enemies around the world are salivating.

North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is steps away from launching a nation-ending EMP Attack, which might kill all except 30 million Americans. The rest would be highly vulnerable to secondary attacks by conventional forces or biological weapons.

As I have written above, this should be the number one issue in Washington and throughout America, instead of the nonstop efforts to cripple or destroy the Trump presidency—which are seditious and treasonous, and constitute madness.

See also (“The Ugly Face Of A Vile Disgusting Black Racist“) and (“Sad: Nancy Pelosi Holds Aide’s Hand While Navigating Sidewalk“)

Black Racist Maxine Waters


14 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

End The Left’s Crusade Against America [UPDATED]

An editorial in the New York Sun states:

The issue in Virginia is, in our view, the statue of Robert E. Lee. Why is it there at Charlottesville? For what does it stand? Was the city right to decide to take it down? What about all the other places that have monuments to the general? We read that there are more than a thousand. There is also Arlington House-the Robert E. Lee Memorial, amid America’s national cemetery (once the Lee estate). Congress, by a unanimous vote in 1925, made it a memorial to the confederate commander. Currently being refurbished, it is due to reopen next month.

It is important for all Americans to take a stand against the violence that erupted at Charlottesville. The Sun is in the camp that reckons President Trump made a mistake, since corrected, in failing at first to focus his condemnation of the violence on that was perpetrated by the white supremacists and anti-Semites. It’s not that Mr. Trump’s reference to violence on “many sides” was wrong in the abstract. But there will be time for the rest of it. Mr. Trump failed to hit mark that had presented itself at Charlottesville.

Instead, the president gave us a dodge of the kind we hear so often from the left — like the New York Times reacting to Palestinian Arab attacks on Israelis by denouncing the cycle of violence. It’s off. It makes readers imagine the Times doesn’t take seriously violence against Jews. In reference to Virginia, it appeared, if briefly, that Mr. Trump dasn’t irk the ilk of David Duke, whose presence at Charlottesville was one of the signals of the overt racism and anti-Semitism that riddled the event.

Yet Mr. Trump is not the cause of this crisis. The fact is that people were in a fury over Lee before the violence erupted at Charlottesville and before Mr. Trump was elected. We can see why (and not just because the greatest editor to have flown the flag of the Sun, Charles Dana, rode against Lee with U.S. Grant and helped make Grant president of the Republic Lee betrayed). The central act of Lee’s life — levying war against the United States — was the constitutional definition of treason. He was lucky to escape the gallows.

It is said that in Lee’s post-war years, the ex-general stood for reconciliation. It’s hard , though, to say that reconciliation was advanced by the movement to erect so many monuments to him. It was pursued by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The Charlottesville monument was one of theirs. They were animated by the Lost Cause movement. Their work was launched decades after the war, and over the years has, in our opinion, wreaked incalculable damage on our Republic.

The cause of the Union itself would have been better pursued by a proper lustration. And we suppose a form of that is what is underway in all the protests against the Lee monuments. It’s a dangerous moment, though, for the process of lustration can ignite its own kind of illiberalism. Which is why national leadership is at a premium. The National Park Service’s Web site says that it plans to reopen Arlington House-the Robert E. Lee Memorial, in September. Maybe President Trump will seize the occasion to speak about the meaning of a Lee memorial in the capital even as Charlottesville dismantles its own.

See (“The Robert E. Lee Lustration”) (emphasis added)

Unlike the totally-despicable black racists on the Left—such as Barack Obama and his wife Moochie, Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings and Al Sharpton—Robert E. Lee was an American patriot, albeit he fought on the losing side of our first Civil War.

Today, many Americans (including yours truly) have ancestors who served on both sides of that tragic and brutal war. We salute Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, in particular, for holding our Union together against all odds.

See (“Ulysses S. Grant: An American Hero“)

If Lee deserved the gallows for treason as the Sun‘s editorial suggests, then surely those on America’s Left today who are trying to destroy the Trump presidency deserve it too.

They want to erase our history and destroy the past; and institute revisionist history, and regimented thinking and speech control aka “political correctness.”

Whether their focus is on statues or so-called man-made “global warming” or thousands of other issues, large and small, their efforts are the fulfillment of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, where all of the animals were equal until the Pigs reigned supreme.

See (“Animal Farm”); see also (“The Thought Police Are At It Again“)

It is important for all Americans to take a stand against the violence that the thoroughly-evil “Black Lives Matter” and similar Leftist groups have incited across the country, with surely more to come.

It is important for all Americans to take a stand against the witch hunt that is being perpetrated by Robert Mueller and his treasonous urchins, and shut them down completely.

Our great nation’s future is at stake; and our enemies around the world are salivating. North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is steps away from launching a nation-ending EMP Attack, which might kill all except 30 million Americans. The rest would be highly vulnerable to secondary attacks by conventional forces or biological weapons.

This should be the number one issue in Washington and throughout America, instead of the nonstop efforts to cripple or destroy the Trump presidency—which are seditious and treasonous, and constitute madness.

See (“Armageddon: America’s New Civil War Continues Unabated“)


15 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Charlottesville Was A Disgrace, George Orwell Was Right [UPDATED]

Animal Farm in America

In George Orwell’s timeless and prescient Animal Farm, all animals were equal until the Pigs reigned supreme and subjugated the other animals. The “Pigs” today in America are its far-Left, Democrats and so-called “progressives.”

See (“Animal Farm“); see also (“The Obama-Merkel Vision Of A New World Order Is A Utopian Fantasy And Orwellian“)

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

When the Dodge Charger of 20-year-old Nazi sympathizer James Alex Fields Jr., plunged into that crowd of protesters Saturday, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer, Fields put Charlottesville on the map of modernity alongside Ferguson.

Before Fields ran down the protesters, and then backed up, running down more, what was happening seemed but a bloody brawl between extremists on both sides of the issue of whether Robert E. Lee’s statue should be removed from Emancipation Park, formerly Lee Park.

With Heyer’s death, the brawl was elevated to a moral issue. And President Donald Trump’s initial failure to denounce the neo-Nazi and Klan presence was declared a moral failure.

How did we get here, and where are we going?

In June of 2015, 21-year-old Dylann Roof gunned down nine Christians at an evening Bible study in Charleston’s Emanuel AME Church. A review of Roof’s selfies and website showed him posing with the Confederate battle flag.

Gov. Nikki Haley, five years in office, instantly pivoted and called for removal of the battle flag from the Confederate war memorial on the State House grounds, as a “deeply offensive symbol of a brutally offensive past.”

This ignited a national clamor to purge all statues that lionize Confederate soldiers and statesmen.

In Maryland, demands have come for removing statues and busts of Chief Justice Roger Taney, the author of the Dred Scott decision. Statues of Gen. “Stonewall” Jackson, President Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee have been pulled down in New Orleans.

After Charlottesville, pressure is building for removal of the statues of Lee, Jackson, Davis and Gen. “Jeb” Stuart from historic Monument Avenue in Richmond, capital of the Confederacy.

Many Southern towns, including Alexandria, Virginia, have statues of Confederate soldiers looking to the South. Shall we pull them all down? And once all the Southern Civil War monuments are gone, should we go after the statues of the slave owners whom we Americans have heroized?

Gen. George Washington and his subordinate, “Light Horse Harry” Lee, father of Robert E. Lee, were slave owners, as was Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson. Five of our first seven presidents owned slaves, as did James K. Polk, who invaded and annexed the northern half of Mexico, including California.

Jefferson, with his exploitation of Sally Hemings and neglect of their children, presents a particular problem. While he wrote in the Declaration of Independence of his belief that “all men are created equal,” his life and his depiction of Indians in that document belie this.

And Jefferson is both on the face of Mount Rushmore and has a memorial in the U.S. capital.

Another term applied to the “Unite the Right” gathering in Charlottesville is that they are “white supremacists,” a mortal sin to modernity. But here we encounter an even greater problem.

Looking back over the history of a Western Civilization, which we call great, were not the explorers who came out of Spain, Portugal, France, Holland and England all white supremacists?

They conquered in the name of the mother countries all the lands they discovered, imposed their rule upon the indigenous peoples, and vanquished and eradicated the native-born who stood in their way.

Who, during the centuries-long discovery and conquest of the New World, really believed that the lives of the indigenous peoples were of equal worth with those of the colonizers?

They believed European Man had the right to rule the world.

Beginning in the 16th century, Western imperialists ruled much of what was called the civilized world. Was not the British Empire, one of the great civilizing forces in human history, a manifestation of British racial superiority?

And if being a segregationist disqualifies one from being venerated in our brave new world, what do we do with Woodrow Wilson, who thought “Birth of a Nation” a splendid film and who re-segregated the U.S. government?

In 1955, Prime Minister Churchill, imperialist to the core, urged his Cabinet to consider the slogan, “Keep England White.”

Nor is a belief in the superiority of one’s race, religion, tribe and culture unique to the West. What is unique, what is an experiment without precedent, is what we are about today.

We have condemned and renounced the scarlet sins of the men who made America and embraced diversity, inclusivity and equality.

Our new America is to be a land where all races, tribes, creeds and cultures congregate, all are treated equally, and all move ever closer to an equality of results through the regular redistribution of opportunity, wealth and power.

We are going to become “the first universal nation.”

“All men are created equal” is an ideological statement. Where is the scientific or historic proof for it? Are we building our utopia on a sandpile of ideology and hope?

Nevertheless, on to Richmond!

See (“If We Erase Our History, Who Are We?“) (emphasis added); see also (“Pressure builds in US to remove Confederate monuments“) and (“Abrams calls for removal of Confederate faces off Stone Mountain“) and (“Divisions escalate between red states and blue cities“) and (“Hypocrisy at Charlottesville”—”We do not have to agree with what the Nazis and white nationalists stand for to defend their constitutional right to assemble and speak. The courts have long ruled that even hate speech is protected speech. Had there been no counter demonstration and media spotlight, a few hundred racists would have gathered in Charlottesville and had no impact on the national conversation. Instead, they were met by the ongoing violence of the Antifa and the hate group Black Lives Matter and a police force that stood down, just as the campus police did when the Antifa attacked people at the University of California, Berkeley”—”It did not take long for President Trump to be blamed for the violence in Charlottesville. Yet, President Trump did not invite white nationalists to the White House and give them legitimacy as President Obama did with Black Lives Matter”)

It has been reported that the Jewish “White Supremacist Leader” in Charlottesville, Jason Kessler, had been a supporter of Barack Obama.

See (“White Supremacist Leader in Charlottesville Jason Kessler Was Obama Supporter – Occupy Protester“)

Freedom of speech is protected in the United States, for radical skinheads (or neo-Nazis) and the followers of “Black Lives Matter” alike. However, when they cross the line and engage in violence, they must be condemned in the strongest of terms, arrested and prosecuted, which has not happened with the BLM groups and it should.

The idea of removing statues and “revisionist history” is repugnant to lots of Americans (including yours truly) who had ancestors that served on both sides of our tragic and brutal Civil War, which was a mass exercise in carnage.

We salute Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, in particular, for holding our Union together against all odds.

See (“Ulysses S. Grant: An American Hero“)

. . .

Clearly, Barack Obama is a black racist. If one has any doubts, please read his book, “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there, in his own words.

And he despised the British Empire, and removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

If the Left wants to “correct” history, what about two of its fallen heroes, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. All references to both of them must be removed.

See, e.g., (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“) (see also the comments beneath the article) and (“The Truth About Martin Luther King, Jr. Emerges . . . Finally“); see also (“CIVIL WAR IF TRUMP TAKEN DOWN”)


17 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Moronic Political Correctness In Montana [UPDATED]

Confederate Fountain at Hill Park in Helena

Angela Brandt has written in Helena, Montana’s Independent Record:

Though no official vote was taken, the Helena City Commission has directed the city manager to remove a Confederate memorial from a city park.

Native American lawmakers in Montana called on the city to remove the granite fountain from Hill Park in downtown Helena Tuesday, following a weekend of violence, including a death, at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. During an administrative meeting that included nearly two hours of public comment Wednesday, commissioners said the removal should be completed as quickly as possible, citing public safety concerns.

Helena City Manager Ron Alles said he will meet with his staff to figure out the best process of removal. The timing will be part of the discussion.

“Now, it’s up to me,” Alles said after the meeting. “I need to digest it as well.”

“I need to get the logistics and specs,” he added.

Helena Mayor Jim Smith said city officials have not yet decided what will happen to the monument after it is removed.

Smith has previously said he opposed removing or altering the fountain, which was commissioned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and dedicated in 1916, but he has changed his mind in light of recent events.

“I believe the time has come for the removal of the fountain,” Smith said.

Commissioners Dan Ellison, Robert Farris-Olsen and Ed Noonan agreed that the fountain should be removed. They did not waver after listening to statements from 40 people, whose comments ranged from pleas to keep to monument honoring fallen soldiers to queries about the possibility of rededicating the fountain.

Ellison spoke to the urgency of the matter. In the past, he has expressed concern with quick action without much community involvement. He said he will “accept any reproaches that result from my doing the same today.”

“I believe that if the fountain remains in the park there will likely be a confrontation where high emotions coupled with strong beliefs spill over into violence,” Ellison said.

“Rather than the commission’s usual approach of starting with a discussion, gathering input, resolution of intention, public hearings and proceeding deliberately to a consensus decision, taking action today seems to be the best option before us,” he added.

Commissioner Andres Haladay, who in 2015 proposed that the commission give the fountain a new name, said Wednesday he was conflicted about whether it should be removed altogether.

“I’m still equivocal on it,” he said.

In their letter to the city commission, members of the American Indian Caucus in the Montana Legislature said such monuments have stood for segregation, secession and slavery.

The monument first gained significant public attention two years ago, after a man who had been photographed with the Confederate flag shot and killed nine people at a South Carolina church. At the time, Smith cautioned against “obliterating history.” Commissioners instead decided to install a plaque to explain the origin of the fountain and the group that dedicated it. The plaque has not yet been installed.

Smith said the monument would be removed even if the signage were in place today. Officials said they have been working to perfect and condense the wording for the sign, which has contributed to the delay.

The plaque was to have acknowledged that the United Daughters of the Confederacy openly supported the Ku Klux Klan and its mission of white supremacy.

Alles said the first draft of the wording was so long, a billboard would have been needed to fit it all. Requirements of the Americans with Disability Act also contributed to the delay, he said.

Noonan said he wasn’t on the commission when the decision to install sign was made, but he is in support of the signage. He said that because that didn’t happen, the monument needs to be removed.

“Underneath it all is a history of racism,” he said, adding his concern that the fountain could be used as an excuse for violent acts. “At the history of this moment, that’s what these monuments have become.”

“I see the seriousness of it,” Noonan added.

Farris-Olsen also voiced safety concerns but said the racism issue is a much larger one.

“I think we have an obligation to take it down,” he said. “I wish we would have two years ago.”


Public comments

Of all the citizens who voiced their views at Wednesday’s meeting, a slight majority supported the removal of the fountain. One speaker called the fountain a “blight on the City of Helena.” Another referred to the monument as a stain on the city.

A group of Helena-area legislators, some of whom spoke at the meeting, released a statement earlier in the day encouraging the council to remove the fountain. The letter was signed by Sens. Mary Caferro and Jill Cohenour, as well as Reps. Kim Abbott, Mary Ann Dunwell, Jenny Eck, Janet Ellis and Moffie Funk.

“White Supremacy, Neo-Nazism, and White Nationalism should not be accepted or supported in any way here in Helena. Our city embraces diversity and pluralism,” they wrote.

“This fountain stands as a symbol of racism and slavery. It simply has no place in our city. Elected officials in cities and states in the east and southeast are removing similar statues and symbols and Helena should join them.”

A few asked if the monument could be rededicated or repurposed in some fashion.

“By removing the fountain, we’re erasing history,” said Paul Pacini, who serves on the Helena Citizens’ Council. Pacini said the monument could serve as a catalyst for further conversations for which residents could learn and grow. “We need to make a change,” he said.

Wilmot Collins, who is running against Smith for mayor, said he wanted to support a plaque but now believes removal is the right decision. He said it’s not about erasing the past but more a safety concern.

“This is about it’s time to move on,” he said.

The ACLU of Montana and the Montana Racial Equity Project also supported the removal in a joint statement released Wednesday.

“This monument romanticizes one of the most dehumanizing, violent, and destructive periods in our history. It honors those who fought with the Confederacy to preserve slavery and willfully disregards the horrific legacies of the Confederacy, including lynchings, segregation, and the systemic oppression of Black Americans, Native Americans, and immigrants that continues to this day,” the statement reads. “We must ensure that each person who walks the streets and parks of our town feels welcome. We, as Helenans and Montanans, cannot expect to communicate such equality when a symbol of racism, inequality, and oppression stands prominently in Hill Park.”

Some asked for the fountain to be relocated and preserved, saying it belongs in a museum with extensive background information.

Barbara Kirkland said the fountain is a testament to grieving women and should remain in place.

“They were not making a political statement. And it’s not a political statement,” she told the commission.

“It isn’t that important. It’s a fountain,” Kirkland said.

“Why don’t we just get on with living?”

See (“City of Helena to remove Confederate fountain“) (emphasis added); see also (“Charlottesville Was A Disgrace, George Orwell Was Right“)

The City Commission should be removed.

Our family’s first ancestors in America were a husband and wife from Rottweil, Germany (near Stuttgart), who arrived on a sailing ship in New York City in 1849, long before Ellis Island became an immigrant inspection station in 1892. They had 16 kids, and settled in New Ulm, Minnesota, near Minneapolis.

When the Civil War began, the husband served with the Union Army, having become assimilated that quickly. In the late 1800s, cousins settled in Helena and have been there ever since.

On my mother’s side were Brits, Scots and Irish, the first of whom came to the Charlottesville area of Virginia in 1760. He was a successful merchant and befriended Thomas Jefferson, who lived not far away at Monticello.

The idea of removing statues and “revisionist history” is repugnant to lots of Americans who had ancestors that served on both sides of our tragic and brutal Civil War as mine did, which was a mass exercise in carnage.

We salute Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, in particular, for holding our Union together against all odds, which was a monumental task.

See (“Ulysses S. Grant: An American Hero“)

If the Left wants to “correct” history, what about two of its fallen heroes, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., who had “feet of clay.” Perhaps all references to them should be removed as well. And what about the black racist, Barack Obama? If one has any doubts about his racist beliefs, please read his book, “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there in his own words.

See (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“) and (“The Truth About Martin Luther King, Jr. Emerges . . . Finally“) and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

As a footnote, I was counsel to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, where I staffed former Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black American senator since Reconstruction after the Civil War—with Barack Obama being the third. Later, I was Brooke’s chief of staff.

See (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead“)

Lastly, what about shutting down all of the casinos of so-called “Native Americans,” and eliminating their “indian reservations” completely. Surely, they committed violence and engaged in atrocities, which should be remedied. If we are going to revisit history, let’s do that too.


19 08 2017
Juan vega

Tim great to join you in the trenches to do battle against the enemies of those that hate this great nation. Last October I wrote an essay predicting a Hillary Rodham Clinton loss because that’s what Obama wanted so he could lead the shadow government. I was amazed that I was so right and ashamed to see so called American patriots from the GOP being accomplices to national suicide.

Liked by 1 person

19 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Juan, for your kind words and prescient thinking.

I remember some of your wonderful and important comments at the Wall Street Journal:

(1) “[C]riminality in the Democratic Party is a badge of honor.”

(2) “[T]he growth of those that you and I must fight want a politically correct world to dominate in a world devoid of feelings. To them the STATE is the new god. To those of us that live with faith as a guideline[,] life is much easier even in the face of pain and insults because or our innate optimism in the human race.

“Notice how moral relativism in [the] left works with a couple of examples.

“Public service ads for animal shelters plead for funds to save animals in shelters is played with music that can make you tear up. Where are the ads for saving the unborn. Is the life of a puppy or a kitten worth more than a child in the womb?

“The fight for gay marriage is not about the need to allow two human beings to live in peace and to be entitled to spousal benefits. The agenda is to destroy a key foundation of Christian faith for a man and woman to be joined in marriage. Gay unions need not be called marriage but a contract.

“These two issues alone attack faith in many levels.”

Here is my latest: (“Charlottesville Is Biggest Fake News Of Summer, And The War Against White America”)

Keep up the good work! 🙂


18 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

America’s Second Civil War: We Are Not The Same Country [UPDATED]

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

“They had found a leader, Robert E. Lee – and what a leader! . . . No military leader since Napoleon has aroused such enthusiastic devotion among troops as did Lee when he reviewed them on his horse Traveller.”

So wrote Samuel Eliot Morison in his magisterial “The Oxford History of the American People” in 1965.

First in his class at West Point, hero of the Mexican War, Lee was the man to whom President Lincoln turned to lead his army. But when Virginia seceded, Lee would not lift up his sword against his own people and chose to defend his home state rather than wage war upon her.

This veneration of Lee, wrote Richard Weaver, “appears in the saying attributed to a Confederate soldier, ‘The rest of us may have . . . descended from monkeys, but it took a God to make Marse Robert.’”

Growing up after World War II, this was accepted history.

Yet, on the militant left today, the name Lee evokes raw hatred and howls of “racist and traitor.” A clamor has arisen to have all statues of him and all Confederate soldiers and statesmen pulled down from their pedestals and put in museums or tossed onto trash piles.

What has changed since 1965?

It is not history. There have been no great new discoveries about Lee.

What has changed is America herself. She is not the same country. We have passed through a great social, cultural and moral revolution that has left us irretrievably divided on separate shores.

And the politicians are in panic.

Two years ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe called the giant statues of Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson on Richmond’s Monument Avenue “parts of our heritage.” After Charlottesville, New York-born-and-bred McAuliffe, entertaining higher ambitions, went full scalawag, demanding the statues be pulled down as “flashpoints for hatred, division and violence.”

Who hates the statues, Terry? Who’s going to cause the violence? Answer: The Democratic left whom Terry must now appease.

McAuliffe is echoed by Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, the Democratic candidate in November to succeed McAuliffe. GOP nominee Ed Gillespie wants Monument Avenue left alone.

The election is the place to decide this, but the left will not wait.

In Durham, North Carolina, our Taliban smashed the statue of a Confederate soldier. Near the entrance of Duke University Chapel, a statue of Lee has been defaced, the nose broken off.

Wednesday at dawn, Baltimore carried out a cultural cleansing by taking down statues of Lee and Maryland Chief Justice Roger Taney who wrote the Dred Scott decision and opposed Lincoln’s suspension of the right of habeas corpus.

Like ISIS, which smashed the storied ruins of Palmyra, and the al-Qaida rebels who ravaged the fabled Saharan city of Timbuktu, the new barbarism has come to America. This is going to become a blazing issue, not only between but within the parties.

For there are 10 Confederates in Statuary Hall in the Capitol, among them Lee, Georgia’s Alexander Stephens, vice president to Jefferson Davis, and Davis himself. The Black Caucus wants them gone.

Mount Rushmore-sized carvings of Lee, Jackson and Davis are on Stone Mountain, Georgia. Are they to be blasted off?

There are countless universities, colleges and high schools like Washington & Lee named for Confederate statesmen and soldiers. Across the Potomac from D.C. are Jefferson Davis Highway and Leesburg Pike to Leesburg itself, 25 miles north. Are all highways, streets, towns and counties named for Confederates to be renamed? What about Fort Bragg?

On every Civil War battlefield, there are monuments to the Southern fallen. Gettysburg has hundreds of memorials, statues and markers. But if, as the left insists we accept, the Confederates were traitors trying to tear America apart to preserve an evil system, upon what ground do Democrats stand to resist the radical left’s demands?

What do we do with those battlefields where Confederates were victorious: Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville?

“Where does this all end?” President Trump asked.

It doesn’t. Not until America’s histories and biographies are burned and new texts written to Nazify Lee, Jackson, Davis and all the rest, will a newly indoctrinated generation of Americans accede to this demand to tear down and destroy what their fathers cherished.

And once all the Confederates are gone, one must begin with the explorers, and then the slave owners like Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison, who seceded from slave-free Britain. White supremacists all.

Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay of Kentucky and John Calhoun must swiftly follow.

Then there are all those segregationists. From 1865 to 1965, virtually all of the great Southern senators were white supremacists.

In the first half of the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson and FDR carried all 11 states of a rigidly segregationist South all six times they ran, and FDR rewarded Dixie by putting a Klansman on the Supreme Court.

While easy for Republicans to wash their hands of such odious elements as Nazis in Charlottesville, will they take up the defense of the monuments and statues that have defined our history, or capitulate to the icon-smashers?

In this Second American Civil War, whose side are you on?

See (“AMERICA’S 2ND CIVIL WAR“) (emphasis added)

The Black Caucus should be banned from Congress. Followers of the violent “Black Lives Matter” group should be arrested and imprisoned. Barack Obama should be tried for treason, having sown racial divisions in our great country starting with the racist beliefs that he expressed in his book, Dreams from My Father.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

If Lee deserved the gallows for treason, then surely those on America’s Left today who are trying to destroy the Trump presidency deserve it too. They want to erase our history and destroy the past; and institute revisionist history, and regimented thinking and speech aka “political correctness.”

Are the graves of Confederates to be dug up next, or otherwise desecrated? Will the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials in our nation’s capital be torn down? After all, Lincoln’s original solution for slavery was to ship them back to Africa and create a state for them there.

Should Washington, D.C. be renamed? As I have written:

If the Left wants to “correct” history, what about two of its fallen heroes, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., who had “feet of clay.”

. . .

[W]hat about shutting down all of the casinos of so-called “Native Americans,” and eliminating their “indian reservations” completely. Surely, they committed violence and engaged in atrocities, which should be remedied. If we are going to revisit history, let’s do that too.

See (“Moronic Political Correctness In Montana“); see also (“Christopher Columbus monument in Baltimore smashed to combat ‘white supremacy’”)

And what about the Left’s father, hero and “saint,” Franklin D. Roosevelt? After all, he refused to allow the MS St. Louis to dock here, and sent the Jews aboard back to Europe to meet their fates. And what about FDR and others in his administration who knew about the Nazi death camps, but did nothing about them?

Where does it stop? Or does it, short of our second Civil War? Are we in the midst of it now?

It is important for all Americans to take a stand against the witch hunt that is being perpetrated by Robert Mueller and his treasonous urchins, and shut down their investigation of President Trump completely.

Our great nation’s future is at stake; and our enemies around the world are salivating. North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is steps away from launching a nation-ending EMP Attack, which might kill all except 30 million Americans. The rest would be highly vulnerable to secondary attacks by conventional forces or biological weapons.

See (“North Korea EMP Threat Advancing Faster Than Expected“)

This should be the number one issue in Washington and throughout America, instead of the nonstop efforts to cripple or destroy the Trump presidency and eradicate our great nation’s history—which are seditious and treasonous acts, and constitute sheer madness.

As George Orwell wrote in his classic, Animal Farm, when the “Pigs” take over and subjugate the other animals, all hope is lost. This is what the evil Left is seeking to accomplish now, and despicable members of the Republican party are joining with them.

May God save the United States of America, the country that so many of us cherish!

See also (“Charlottesville Was A Disgrace, George Orwell Was Right“)


19 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Charlottesville Is Biggest Fake News Of Summer, And The War Against White America [UPDATED]

David Horowitz—a leading conservative thinker, and the author of the runaway New York Times bestseller “Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America,” whose book predicted the anti-Trump left would use race to divide America and undermine the Trump presidency—has written:

The tragedy in Charlottesville could have been an occasion to stop and consider how the tolerance for politically correct violence and politically correct hatred is leading the nation towards civil war.

Instead the media and the political left have turned this incident into the biggest fake news story of the summer, transforming its real lessons into a morality play that justifies war against the political right, and against white people generally.

The organizers of the “Unite the Right” demonstration in Charlottesville were repellent racists.

But they came to defend a historic monument honoring a complex man and cause, and not to attack it or presumably anyone else.

They applied for a permit and were denied. They re-applied successfully in a petition supported by the local ACLU.

If they had come to precipitate violence, why would they have gone to the tedious trouble of applying for a permit?

Who knows what — if anything — would have happened if that had been the end of the story and no one had showed up to oppose them.

What Unite the Right actually demonstrated was that the assortment of neo-Nazis, pro-Confederates and assorted yahoos gathered under the banner of the “Alt-Right” is actually a negligible group.

This supposed national show of strength actually attracted all of 500 people.

Compare that to the tens of the thousands who can readily be marshaled by two violent groups of the left — Black Lives Matter and Antifa — and you get an idea of how marginal “white supremacists” are to America’s political and cultural life.

Yet “white supremacy” and its evils became the centerpiece of all the fake news reporting on the event, including all the ludicrous attacks on the president for not condemning enough a bogeyman the whole nation condemns, and that no one but a risible fringe supports.

Talk about virtue signaling!

Omitted from the media coverage were the other forces at work in precipitating the battle of Emancipation Park, specifically Black Lives Matter and Antifa, two violent leftwing groups with racial agendas who came to squelch the demonstration in defense of the monument.

Unlike the Unite the Right demonstrators, the leftist groups did not apply for permits, which would have been denied since there was another demonstration scheduled for that park on that day.

But why should they have applied for a permit, since the mayhem they had previously caused in Ferguson, Berkeley, Sacramento, Portland and other cities, was accomplished without permits, while their criminality was presented by the media as “protests,” and their rioting went completely unpunished.

In other words, there were two demonstrations in Charlottesville — a legal protest by Unite the Right and an illegal protest by the vigilantes of Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

Who started the fight is really immaterial. Both sides were prepared for violence because these conflicts are already a pattern of our deteriorating civic life.

Once the two sides had gathered in the same place, the violence was totally predictable.

Two parties, two culpabilities; but except for the initial statement of President Trump, condemning both sides, only one party has been held accountable, and that happens to be the one that was in the park legally.

What is taking place in the media accounts and political commentaries on this event is an effort by the left to turn the mayhem in Charlottesville into a template for their war against a mythical enemy — “white supremacy” — which is really a war on white people generally.

The ideology that drives the left and divides our country is “identity politics” — the idea that the world consists of two groups — “people of color” who are guiltless and oppressed, and white people who are guilty and oppressors.

This is the real race war.

Its noxious themes inform the mindless, hysterical hatred of President Trump, and the equally mindless support of racist mobs like Black Lives Matter and Antifa.

It is a war from which no good can come. But it won’t be stopped unless enough people have the courage to stand up and name it for what it is.

Emphasis added; see also (“Rise of antifa after violence in Charlottesville alarms free-speech advocates”—”[David] Horowitz warned people to beware [of] the antifa movement. ‘They are the fascists. What other group in America is running around trying to shut down people from speaking by violent methods and defaming them at the same time?’ he asked. ‘That’s what fascism is'”) and (“America’s Second Civil War: We Are Not The Same Country“) and (“Democrat Alan Dershowitz: Weaponized Russia Probe Endangers Democracy“) and (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life“)

The demonic Left in the United States must be struck down in the harshest of ways—crushed like cockroaches, or put down like rabid animals.

And yes, lots of us were Democrats once—like Ronald Reagan—but we left that party and will never go back!


20 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Democrat Alan Dershowitz: Weaponized Russia Probe Endangers Democracy [UPDATED]

Newsmax has reported:

The Russian investigation and the appointment of FBI special counsel Robert Mueller has become a political weapon of the left, one that “really endangers democracy,” self-proclaimed “liberal,” author, and law professor Alan Dershowitz said.

“The idea of trying to create crimes just because we disagree with [Trump] politically, and target him, really endangers democracy,” Dershowitz told “The Cats Roundtable” on 970 AM-N.Y. “[It] reminds me of what Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the KGB, said to Stalin: ‘Show me the man, and I will find you the crime.’

“We shouldn’t be targeting people. We shouldn’t be looking for crimes they’ve committed. We should only [be] using the criminal justice system against obvious crimes. Crimes that are not not stretched and manufactured to fit a particular person.”

Dershowitz’s position is discussed in his new book “Trumped Up: How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy,” available on Amazon.

“It’s about how you can disagree with President Trump – you can agree with him – that’s every American’s right,” Dershowitz said.

Dershowitz, who said he will be criticized from all sides – “right, left, and center” – told host John Catsimatidis [that] the U.S. has long been a centrist country and the burgeoning extremes on both left and right are doing it damage. The U.S. needs to move back to the middle, where it belongs, he said.

Also, back to the Russia investigation into meddling in the U.S. election, this is not a left or right issue, it is an American issue that has been going on a long time, Dershowitz said. Having it be settled by Mueller’s special counsel keeps the discussion from where it should be: in the public view.

“[This is] where things happen in darkness and secrecy,” Dershowitz told Catsimatidis. “The American public doesn’t learn about it.

“This [is] exactly the wrong way to approach the problem of Russia’s attempt to influence [the] American election. We do not know what is going on. We get leaks, but the leaks are selective leaks.”

See (emphasis added); see also
<a href="<a (Alan Dershowitz: “‘Violent’ Antifa movement is ‘trying to tear down America’”—”Dershowitz said the movement sweeping the country to take down Confederate-era statues that some find offensive is setting a dangerous precedent.
‘Do not glorify the violent people who are now tearing down the statues,’ he said. ‘Many of these people, not all of them, many of these people are trying to tear down America. Antifa is a radical anti-American, anti-free market, communist, socialist, hard, hard left censorial organization that tries to stop speakers on campuses from speaking,’ Mr. Dershowitz said. ‘They use violence. And just because they’re opposed to fascism and to some of these monuments shouldn’t make them heroes of the liberals'”
) and href=”″ target=”_blank”> (“Charlottesville Is Biggest Fake News Of Summer, And The War Against White America“)


Tragically, as I have written above, America’s second Civil War has begun already, brought to our great nation by the same forces who brought us the last Civil War; namely, the evil Democrats who promoted and perpetuated slavery and racism—and their far-Left sword carriers.

This time, they are being aided and abetted by some in the GOP, who are too stupid to understand what is happening, much less the consequences of their un-American actions!


22 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Things Are Getting Odd All Over The World

Helter Skelter

Wesley Pruden, editor in chief emeritus of The Washington Times, has written:

We owe Chicken Little an apology. Maybe the sky really is falling. Evidence is everywhere. Cries and whimpers suddenly grow deafening as the landscape is dusted with snowflakes, who imagine they’re unique and have in common with other snowflakes only an extremely low melting point.

Mr. Little seems to have many relatives, most of them Americans. Millions of them went gaga Monday over the eclipse of the sun, a wondrous sight to behold, a reminder once more of God’s dazzling handiwork. But when the eclipse was done many felt greatly let down.

“You mean that’s all there is?” asked one stalled motorist in a traffic jam on U.S. Highway 26 outside Madras, Oregon, where the path of the eclipse first touched the United States. “I thought it would be better than this.”

This recalls the man in landlocked Missouri who took his aged mother, approaching 100, to see the Pacific Ocean before she died. She took a long, solemn look, and said, “I thought it would be bigger than this.”

Some of the animals, sometimes smarter than either man or his mate, were more impressed by the sun retreating to a place behind the moon. Birds hushed their singing in Pennsylvania. Contented cows lay down in the potato fields in Idaho. Giraffes and rhinos ran about crazily in a zoo in Tennessee.

But in all fairness to the hard to impress (including the giraffes and rhinos), we’ve all had an exhausting fortnight in America. Pulling down monuments, plastering marble men who had been American heroes only yesterday with paint and contempt, is exhausting work. In Baltimore, vandals got to a statue of Christopher Columbus and tried to punish it, too. Chris was not a Confederate general, so far as any historian knows, but you wouldn’t expect a faithful soldier of the righteous mob to know that. Besides, who knows? If he had come along a little later he would probably have rooted for the Rebs.

Whether anti-Confederate fever or just the dog days of August, things are getting odd all over the world. A judge in India granted a woman a divorce because her husband, who spends freely on tobacco and a mobile phone, declined to build an outhouse and she had to answer nature’s urgent call right out in the open. “In villages women have to wait until sunset to answer nature’s call,” the judge, a man, said. “This is not only physical cruelty, but also outraging the modesty of a woman.”

In Germany, a minister in the government’s finance department who is regarded as a likely successor to Angela Merkel, had a fit when he couldn’t get an English-speaking waiter to answer his summons to table, and proposed a crackdown on anyone speaking English in such places. “Coexistence can only work in Germany if we all speak German,” said Jen Spahn, who like every good German deplores the racism of Donald Trump and the grim bigotry of the millions of American deplorables. “We can and should expect [speaking German] from every immigrant.”

Being holier than thou (and almost everyone else) is hard work, too. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, the heartthrob of the politically correct everywhere, was so put off months ago by President Trump’s Twitter disdain for illegal immigration that he invited everyone everywhere to come on in. “To those fleeing persecution, terror and war,” he tweeted, “Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength.”

But that was then. He didn’t imagine that any of the tired, the poor and the huddled masses in the Middle East could understand English. So he had to warn them this week that asylum seekers shouldn’t imagine they could just rush in to Canada as if they were huddled Mexicans rushing illegally into Texas and Arizona. “If I could directly speak to people speaking asylum,” he told a press conference this week in Montreal, “I’d like to remind them there’s no advantage. Our rules, our principles and our laws apply to everyone.” Imagine that.

With the sky falling across the world, Donald Trump is blamed now even for famine in Africa and the indifference of many people who should be viewing with alarm. “News stories about the famine remain few and far between,” complains Jackson Diehl, deputy editor of the editorial page of The Washington Post. “The reason is fairly obvious. The continuing Trump circus sucks up so much media attention that issues that otherwise would be urgent, such as millions of people starving, are asphyxiated.”

Mr. Diehl is sorry about the indifference of his own newspaper and his well-meaning colleagues, and all that, but the devil makes them do bad things no matter how hard they try. It’s one of the greater ironies of our time.

See (“Madness! Even the giraffes have gone crazy“) (emphasis added)

As I have written:

The demonic Left in the United States must be struck down in the harshest of ways—crushed like cockroaches, or put down like rabid animals.

And yes, lots of us were Democrats once—like Ronald Reagan—but we left that party and will never go back!

See (“Charlottesville Is Biggest Fake News Of Summer, And The War Against White America“)


24 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Democrat Axelrod: Talk Of Removing Trump Is A Very Dangerous Road [UPDATED]

Dead Jackals

Mallory Shelbourne has written for TheHill:

Former Obama advisor David Axelrod on Wednesday cautioned against talk that President Trump is unfit for office, saying it opens the door to a potentially “dangerous road.”

“The inference was that somehow there should be some effort to remove him, or at least that’s how some people would have heard it,” Axelrod told CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

“And I think we have to be very, very careful when we have these discussions because we have a system, a Constitutional system.”

Axelrod specifically referenced comments made by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who said he questions Trump’s fitness for the presidency following his remarks at a Tuesday night rally in Phoenix, Ariz.

“I really question … his fitness to be in this office,” Clapper said late Tuesday.

“I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it, maybe he is looking for a way out.”

Axelrod said while he took Clapper’s remarks seriously, they made him “nervous.”

“And if people get a sense that there’s some extraordinary measure that’s going to be taken to effect what they would view as a bloodless coup,” Axelrod explained.

“Remember a third of the country supports this president, that’s a very dangerous road to go down. And if you ever did go down that road, you’re open a Pandora’s box that will never end.”

See (emphasis added)

Finally, a voice of reason from within the far-Left’s pack of dead or semi-dead rabid jackals. Democrat Alan Dershowitz has been a similar positive voice.

See, e.g., (“Democrat Alan Dershowitz: Weaponized Russia Probe Endangers Democracy“)

As I have written:

America’s second Civil War has begun already, brought to our great nation by the same forces who brought us the last Civil War; namely, the evil Democrats who promoted and perpetuated slavery and racism—and their far-Left sword carriers.

This time, they are being aided and abetted by some in the GOP, who are too stupid to understand what is happening, much less the consequences of their un-American actions!

See id.

And I added:

The demonic Left in the United States must be struck down in the harshest of ways—crushed like cockroaches, or put down like rabid animals.

And yes, lots of us were Democrats once—like Ronald Reagan—but we left that party and will never go back!

See (“Charlottesville Is Biggest Fake News Of Summer, And The War Against White America“)


29 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Black Racist Maxine Waters

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

Wednesday morning, Nov. 9, 2016, Republicans awoke to learn they had won the lottery. Donald Trump had won the presidency by carrying Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. All three states had gone Democratic in the last six presidential elections.

The GOP had won both houses of Congress. Party control of governorships and state legislatures rivaled the halcyon years of the 1920s.

But not everyone was jubilant. Neocons and Never-Trumpers were appalled, and as morose as they had been since the primaries produced a populist slaughter of what GOP elites had boasted was the finest class of presidential candidates in memory.

And there was this sobering fact: Hillary Clinton had won the popular vote. Her margin would rise to near three million, making this the sixth in seven presidential elections that the GOP lost the popular vote. Trump had cracked the Democrats’ “blue wall,” but a shift of 70,000 votes would have meant a third straight GOP defeat.

Seven months into the Trump presidency, the promise of a new Republican era has receded. It is not because Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have proven to be such formidable adversaries, but because the GOP coalition has gone to battle stations — against itself.

Trump has taken to disparaging Senate Leader Mitch McConnell for failing to pass health care reform, though the decisive vote to kill the bill came from John McCain, who, for his own motives and to media cheers, torpedoed McConnell’s effort and humiliated his party.

And as Allan Ryskind writes in The Washington Times, McConnell is responsible for Neil Gorsuch being on the Supreme Court. Had Mitch not kept his troops in line to block a Senate vote on President Obama’s election-year nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, there would have been no vacancy for Trump to fill with Gorsuch.

McConnell is also indispensable to the Trump-GOP effort to repopulate federal appellate courts with disciples of Antonin Scalia.

What purpose is served by the coach trashing his quarterback — in midseason?

Undeniably, Congress, which the voters empowered to repeal Obamacare, reduce tax rates and rebuild America’s infrastructure, has thus far failed. And if Congress fails to produce on tax reform, the GOP will have some serious explaining to do in 2018.

As for Trump, while public approval of his performance is at record lows for a president in his first year, he has fulfilled some major commitments and has had some major achievements.

He put Gorsuch on the court. He pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Accord. He persuaded NATO allies to put up more for defense. He approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.

Border security is markedly better. The economic news has been excellent: Record run-ups in the stock market, near full employment, growth approaching the 3 percent he promised. The coal industry has been liberated, and the Trump folks are renegotiating NAFTA.

Yet the divisions over policy and the persona of the president are widening. Trump is disliked and disrespected by many in his own party on Capitol Hill, and much of the Republican media proudly despise him.

And that form of bribery so familiar to D.C. — trashing one’s president at the coaxing of the press, in return for plaudits to one’s “courage” and “independence” — is openly practiced.

More critically, there are disputes over policy that again seem irreconcilable.

Free-trade Republicans remain irredeemably hostile to economic nationalism, though countries like China continue to eat our lunch. In July, the U.S. trade deficit in goods was $65 billion, an annual rate of more than $780 billion.

Interventionists continue to push for confrontation with Russia in the Baltic States and Ukraine, for more U.S. troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, for scrapping the nuclear deal with Iran.

On social issues, the GOP seems split, with many willing to soft-peddle opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion and wait on a Supreme Court that ignited the culture wars to reverse course with new Trump appointees.

Even Cabinet members and Trump aides have let the media know they sharply dissent from Trump’s stand in the Charlottesville brawl. And the coming clash over statues of Confederate soldiers and statesmen is likely to split Northern and Southern Republicans.

The white working class that provided Trump’s his margins in the Middle West wonders why affirmative action, reverse discrimination at their expense, has not been abolished.

As for Speaker Paul Ryan and others committed to entitlement reform — paring back Social Security and Medicare benefits, while raising the contributions of the well-to-do to ensure the long-term solvency of the programs — they have not been heard from lately.

What seems apparent is that the historic opportunity the party had in January, to forge a coalition of conservatives and populists who might find common ground on immigration, trade, border security, spending, culture and foreign policy, is slipping away.

And the battle for the soul and future of the GOP, thought to have been suspended until 2020, is on once again.

See (“Can the GOP’s Shotgun Marriage Be Saved?“) (emphasis added)

The Democrats are anti-white, far-Left racists, who—their leaders neglect to mention—gave us slavery and fought to preserve it. They are pure evil; and their violent Antifa and “Black Lives Matter” groups are far far worse.

The face of the party today consists of the demented Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, the despicable black racists Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings and Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and others of their ilk.

They are the reasons why lots of us left the party years ago, and will never go back.

They must be crushed. Nothing less will suffice.


8 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Janet Napolitano

Teresa Watanabe has written for the Los Angeles Times:

The University of California sued the Trump administration Friday for rescinding protections for immigrant students without legal status, saying it unconstitutionally violates their rights on “nothing more than unreasoned executive whim.”

The lawsuit filed in the northern district of California is the first legal effort by a university to block the Trump administration’s decision to end protection from deportation of nearly 800,000 young immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally before age 16, completed high school-level education and stayed out of trouble.

UC President Janet Napolitano, who was an architect of the program in 2012 as U.S. Homeland Security secretary, said the decision to sue the federal government was not taken lightly. The 10-campus system educates about 4,000 students — with teachers, researchers and healthcare providers — who are in the country illegally.

“It is imperative, however, that we stand up for these vital members of the UC community,” Napolitano said in statement. “They represent the best of who we are — hard working, resilient and motivated high achievers. To arbitrarily and capriciously end the DACA program, which benefits our country as a whole, is not only unlawful, it is contrary to our national values and bad policy.

“As a result of the defendants’ actions, the Dreamers face expulsion from the only country that they call home, based on nothing more than unreasoned executive whim,” the complaint reads.

“The University faces the loss of vital members of its community, students and employees. It is hard to imagine a decision less reasoned, more damaging, or undertaken with less care. … Defendants’ capricious rescission of the DACA program violates both the procedural and substantive requirements of the APA (Administrative Procedure Act), as well as the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

The lawsuit was filed with the pro bono support of the law firm Covington & Burling LLP.

Napolitano has said UC campuses will continue to provide services for its immigrant students without legal status, also known as “Dreamers.” Those efforts include:

• Providing in-state tuition

• Maintaining the DREAM loan program for financial aid

• Free legal services

• Campus-based student-service centers

• Directions given to campus police not to contact, detain, question or arrest individuals based on their documentation status, or to enter agreements to undertake joint efforts to make arrests for federal immigration law violations.

See (“UC sues the Trump administration for rescinding DACA protections for immigrant students“)

First, the UC system of which many of us are graduates should not be educating anyone who is in our great nation illegally, much less 4,000 of them.

Second, as Barack Obama admitted, what he did was illegal. Yet, the disgraceful Obama-shill Napolitano has double-downed on his illegality, and is seeking to perpetuate it.

See, e.g., (“The Immigration Fiat: Another Reason To Remove Obama From The Presidency”—”In his article entitled, ‘Obama’s amnesty-by-fiat: Naked lawlessness,’ [the Washington Post‘s Charles] Krauthammer writes: ‘With a single Homeland Security Department memo, the immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 people. By what justification? Prosecutorial discretion, says Janet Napolitano”—”[B]y Obama’s own admission, it is naked lawlessness”—”What has been done by Obama could be done by a Republican administration; for example, in shutting down all abortion programs, practices and facilities, and arresting those involved—again, by presidential fiat”)

Third, there are reasons to believe that Napolitano is a bull dyke, who certainly should be fired summarily from the UC system for her lawlessness.

See, e.g., (“Geraldo Rivera Addresses Lesbian Rumors About Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary“) and (“Janet Napolitano-Run Homeland Security Routinely Humiliated Male Staffers, Federal Discrimination Lawsuit Alleges“) and (“Big Sis Janet Napolitano ‘promoted [a] woman with whom she had a long relationship’ while her female staff tormented male colleagues with ‘sexually charged games'”)

Fourth, unlike Ronald Reagan who put down violence in the UC system when he was California’s governor, Napolitano did nothing when despicable lawless and racist “Black Lives Matter” and Antifa thugs rioted on the Berkeley campus, and prevented the exercise of free speech by conservatives.

For this alone, Napolitano should have been fired. However, her latest actions with respect to illegal aliens are equally repugnant.

See, e.g., (“Cut Off All Federal Funding To Berkeley And Fire The U.C. President!“)


11 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Robert Mueller

Dan Boylan and Guy Taylor have reported in The Washington Times:

Special counsel Robert Mueller is obsessed with President Trump’s network of business interests for suspected money laundering as a critical focus of his investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election last year, according to sources from the intelligence community close to the former FBI director.

One of the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the special counsel, who this year hired a staff of 16 lawyers with significant experience prosecuting such financial crimes, is focused on unraveling the Trump family’s tangled financial and real estate empire in a bid to find any connections to “dark money” investments from Russian oligarchs and organized crime figures.

Another source, close to the White House legal defense team, told The Times that subpoenas issued by Mr. Mueller’s office during recent weeks have been focused on financial records of key Trump associates. The subpoenas have come since the special prosecutor began using a District of Columbia grand jury this summer, according to the source, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The special counsel’s office overseeing Mr. Mueller’s probe declined to comment on the specific money laundering claim but suggested in an email to The Times that its probe could extend in a range of directions and may not be limited to the months leading up to the presidential election.

Peter Carr, the top spokesman for the office, pointed specifically to comments that James B. Comey made to Congress as the probe gained momentum last spring. At the time, the former FBI director said the inquiry could involve “investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.”

With the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., talking with congressional investigators late last week behind closed doors for more than five hours over his contacts with Russian government and private figures during the campaign, the agenda of the more buttoned-up Mueller probe has become a popular Beltway guessing game.

On Friday, news broke that Mr. Mueller’s team had approached the White House to interview four top advisers and two recently departed officials regarding what was thought to be a misleading statement crafted to divert attention from a meeting Mr. Trump Jr. held with a Russian lawyer last year.

White House communications director Hope Hicks, former press secretary Sean Spicer, former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, White House counsel Don McGahn, senior associate counsel James Burnham, and Josh Raffel, a White House spokesman who works with the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner — were among those Mr. Mueller’s team seeks to interview.

The roster of legal talent Mr. Mueller is assembling, legal analysts say, is a clear tell of his investigative priorities in a probe that has infuriated the president and distracted the White House from the day Mr. Trump took office.

In late July, when reports first emerged that investigators were scrutinizing a broad range of transactions involving the business dealings of Mr. Trump, his family and associates, the president said Mr. Mueller would be crossing a red line.

Legal analysts told The Times that Mr. Mueller appears to have barreled over that line. Late last month, his team began working with the IRS’s criminal investigations unit, which specializes in uncovering financial crimes such as tax evasion and money laundering. Martin Sheil, a former criminal investigations agent, told The Daily Beast online news site that the unit’s investigators are the “very best in the business of conducting financial investigations.”

“They will quickly tell you that it took an accountant to nab Al Capone, and it’s true,” Mr. Sheil said.

The focus on financial wrongdoing and money laundering may reflect a desire by Mr. Mueller, a former FBI director, to bring his special counsel probe to the fore with bona fide criminal charges, not political findings, legal analysts argue.

A June assessment by The Heritage Foundation pointed out the hurdles to bringing charges on more politically driven accusations such as that of collusion or obstruction of justice.

In May, Richard Dearlove, former director of Britain’s MI6 intelligence service, told London’s Prospect magazine that past financial dealings have the best chance to haunt Mr. Trump, who has long refused to release his tax returns.

“What lingers for Trump may be what deals — on what terms — he did after the financial crisis of 2008 to borrow Russian money when others in the West apparently would not lend to him,” Mr. Dearlove said.

Ethical issues

Legal analysts told The Times that Mr. Trump’s refusal to make a clean break from his past business and divest his extensive private holdings complicate the probe but also give Mr. Mueller’s investigators a broader field to explore.

“We have seen generations of presidents go out of their way to show the American people they could not be bought,” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington spokesman Jordan Libowitz said, noting that Republican presidents after the Watergate scandal led the charge for stronger protections and disclosure on financial conflict of interest issues.

The election last year presented a unique set of challenges in that regard from both of the major presidential candidates.

In addition to Mr. Trump’s labyrinthine business empire, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton faced questions stemming from the Clinton Foundation, run by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. The couple were repeatedly accused of using Mrs. Clinton’s position as secretary of state to help fill the nonprofit’s coffers.

Mr. Trump said the ties were so corrupt that the Clinton Foundation should be “shut down immediately.”

“In 2016, we saw the influence of money in politics to an extent that people hadn’t ever seen before — with dark money hiding in places people could not follow,” Mr. Libowitz said. “We are in a time of severe influence of money in politics.”

Three major lawsuits against Mr. Trump argue that he has violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause because of his continued ownership of businesses that receive payments from foreign governments.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is involved in one lawsuit suit. The attorneys general of the District of Columbia and Maryland filed another, claiming their jurisdictions have been harmed. In the third lawsuit, almost 200 congressional Democrats said Mr. Trump needs the consent of Congress before accepting foreign payments to any of his businesses.

The Justice Department, on behalf of Mr. Trump, has attempted to block the case from the Washington-based watchdog. The Southern District of New York court is scheduled to hear next month whether the case should continue.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington declined to comment on whether Mr. Mueller was investigating money laundering, but the spokesman said the watchdog was closely watching all developments.

“The issues around payments, particularly around foreign payments, are incredibly serious issues,” Mr. Libowitz said. “So we would not be surprised if that shows up.”

Focus on Manafort

While the Mueller financial probe reaches as far back as a decade before Mr. Trump’s election, one clear focus is on individuals who became involved — if only briefly — with his presidential campaign.

This summer, federal agents raided the house of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a longtime Washington lobbyist. Reports in June and July said Mr. Mueller’s staff, in addition to the House and Senate panels also probing the Russia election issue, had begun working with the Treasury Department’s financial crimes enforcement network, which tracks illicit money flow, to investigate Mr. Manafort’s business dealings.

According to financial records filed last year in Cyprus, Mr. Manafort’s bank accounts showed he was $17 million in debt to pro-Russia interests before he joined the Trump campaign in March 2016. Before his involvement with Mr. Trump, Mr. Manafort worked in Ukraine and invested with a Russian oligarch.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. are also reportedly investigating Manafort real estate transactions for any fraud and money laundering. Investigators are also combing over details from a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan where Donald Trump Jr., senior White House adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Mr. Manafort met with a group of Russians with ties to Russia’s intelligence service and clients accused of money laundering who offered information on Mr. Trump’s election opponent, Mrs. Clinton.

Far-reaching empire

Mr. Trump’s family business, operating as the Trump Organization, is involved in more than 500 subsidiaries and entities. Just over half bear the Trump name, and another 54 include his initials, according to his 92-page Federal Election Commission financial disclosure forms released in 2015.

Trump Organization investments include developing hotels, resorts, residential towers and golf courses in various countries, as well as property management, investing, brokerage and sales and marketing. There is also several hundred thousand square feet of prime Manhattan real estate.

Reuters this year conducted a lengthy investigation of Trump Organization-related public documents, interviews and corporate records that explored the extent of international investment exposure. The analysis found that at least 63 individuals with Russian passports or addresses had bought at least $98.4 million worth of property in seven Trump-branded luxury towers in southern Florida.

Although the Reuters review unearthed no suggestion of wrongdoing by Mr. Trump or his real estate organization, the analysis did find the buyers included several politically connected investors, such as a former Moscow construction firm executive who builds military and intelligence facilities and a St. Petersburg investment bank founder.

At the time, the Trump Organization’s chief legal officer, Alan Garten, dismissed the story. “I can say definitively that this is an overblown story that is media-created,” Mr. Garten told Reuters.

In July, Bloomberg reported that in addition to investigators scrutinizing Russian purchases of apartments in Trump company buildings, they were also examining the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, Trump New York real estate deals with Russians and the 2008 sale of a Trump property to a Russian oligarch.

When asked to elaborate, a high-ranking Justice Department official referenced the shroud of secrecy Mr. Mueller has effectively employed to keep Washington guessing his next move.

“Only a very narrow group of people actually know what’s going on,” the source told The Times.

See (“Mueller’s probe focusing on potential money laundering ties to Russian oligarchs“) (emphasis added)

Like so many who have risen up in the lawless confines of the FBI and “Justice” Department, Robert Mueller is an odious creature who is in search of a crime, and determined to destroy the Trump presidency that is changing the face of Washington, D.C.

See, e.g., (“Bound to No Party, Trump Upends 150 Years of Two-Party Rule“); see also (“Democrat Alan Dershowitz: Weaponized Russia Probe Endangers Democracy“) and (“Mueller The Face Of Evil“) and (“Shut Down The Mueller Witch Hunt, And Drain The Swamp!“) and (“Another Despicable At The Department Of Injustice“) and (“Special Prosecutor For Trump/Russia Investigation Is A Disaster“) and (“The United States Department of Injustice“)

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics In Washington, or “CREW,” is a totally-Leftist group that has no credibility at all.

Where do these witch hunts stop? Or do they, short of our second Civil War? Are we in the midst of it now?

As I have stated previously:

It is important for all Americans to take a stand against the witch hunt that is being perpetrated by Robert Mueller and his treasonous urchins, and shut down their investigation of President Trump completely.

Our great nation’s future is at stake; and our enemies around the world are salivating. North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is steps away from launching a nation-ending EMP Attack, which might kill all except 30 million Americans. The rest would be highly vulnerable to secondary attacks by conventional forces or biological weapons.

See (“America’s Second Civil War: We Are Not The Same Country“); see also (“North Korea EMP Threat Advancing Faster Than Expected“)

Lastly, investigations must begin—and indictments, convictions and imprisonment must follow—with respect to a broad range of crimes committed by Hillary and Bill Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Huma Abedin and others.

Nothing less will suffice.

See, e.g., (“Judge orders Clinton lawyers to face bar investigation in Maryland“) and (“Clinton Fatigue”)


13 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Teflon Don

Edward-Isaac Dovere has written in Politico:

Democrats tried attacking Donald Trump as unfit for the presidency. They’ve made the case that he’s ineffective, pointing to his failure to sign a single major piece of legislation into law after eight months in the job. They’ve argued that Trump is using the presidency to enrich himself and that his campaign was in cahoots with Russia.

None of it is working.

Data from a range of focus groups and internal polls in swing states paint a difficult picture for the Democratic Party heading into the 2018 midterms and 2020 presidential election. It suggests that Democrats are naive if they believe Trump’s historically low approval numbers mean a landslide is coming. The party is defending 10 Senate seats in states that Trump won and needs to flip 24 House seats to take control of that chamber.

The research, conducted by private firms and for Democratic campaign arms, is rarely made public but was described to POLITICO in interviews with a dozen top operatives who’ve been analyzing the results coming in.

“If that’s the attitude that’s driving the Democratic Party, we’re going to drive right into the ocean,” said Anson Kaye, a strategist at media firm GMMB who worked on the Obama and Clinton campaigns and is in conversations with potential clients for next year.

Worse news, they worry: Many of the ideas party leaders have latched onto in an attempt to appeal to their lost voters — free college tuition, raising the minimum wage to $15, even Medicare for all — test poorly among voters outside the base. The people in these polls and focus groups tend to see those proposals as empty promises, at best.

Pollsters are shocked by how many voters describe themselves as “exhausted” by the constant chaos surrounding Trump, and they find that there’s strong support for a Congress that provides a check on him rather than voting for his agenda most of the time. But he is still viewed as an outsider shaking up the system, which people in the various surveys say they like, and which Democrats don’t stack up well against.

“People do think he’s bringing about change, so it’s hard to say he hasn’t kept his promises,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.

In focus groups, most participants say they’re still impressed with Trump’s business background and tend to give him credit for the improving economy. The window is closing, but they’re still inclined to give him a chance to succeed.

More than that, no single Democratic attack on the president is sticking — not on his temperament, his lack of accomplishments or the deals he’s touted that have turned out to be less than advertised, like the president’s claim that he would keep Carrier from shutting down its Indianapolis plant and moving production to Mexico.

Voters are also generally unimpressed by claims that Trump exaggerates or lies, and they don’t see the ongoing Russia investigation adding up to much.

“There are a number of things that are raising questions in voters’ minds against him,” said Matt Canter, who’s been conducting focus groups for Global Strategy Group in swing states. “They’re all raising questions, but we still have to weave it into one succinct narrative about his presidency.”

Stop, Democratic operatives urge voters, assuming that what they think is morally right is the best politics. A case in point is Trump’s response to the violence in Charlottesville. The president’s equivocation on neo-Nazis was not as much of a political problem as his opponents want to believe, Democratic operatives say, and shifting the debate to whether or not to remove Confederate monuments largely worked for him.

“He is the president. The assessment that voters will make is, is he a good one or not? While Democrats like me have come to conclusions on that question, most of the voters who will decide future elections have not,” Canter said.

Many of the proposals Democrats are pushing fall flat in focus groups and polling.

The call for free college tuition fosters both resentment at ivory tower elitism and regret from people who have degrees but are now buried under debt. Many voters see “free” as a lie — either they’ll end up paying for tuition some other way, or worse, they’ll be paying the tuition of someone else who’ll be getting a degree for free.

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Gerstein Bocian Agne Strategies conducted online polling of 1,000 Democrats and 1,000 swing voters across 52 swing districts for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Their advice to candidates afterward: Drop the talk of free college. Instead, the firms urged Democrats to emphasize making college more affordable and reducing debt, as well as job skills training, according to an internal DCCC memo.

“When Democrats go and talk to working-class voters, we think talking to them about how we can help their children go to college, they have a better life, is great,” said Ali Lapp, executive director of House Majority PAC, which supports Democratic House candidates. “They are not interested. . . . It’s a problem when you have a growing bloc in the electorate think that college is not good, and they actually disdain folks that go to college.”

Medicare-for-all tests better, but it, too, generates suspicion. The challenge is that most voters in focus groups believe it’s a pipe dream — they ask who will pay for it and suspect it will lead to a government takeover of health care — and therefore wonder whether the politicians talking to them about it are being less than forthright, too. Sen. Bernie Sanders is scheduled to release a single-payer bill on Wednesday, with Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Tammy Baldwin among those joining him.

Health care is one bright spot for Democrats. Obamacare is less unpopular than it used to be, and voters generally want the law to be repaired. Data also show that voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on the issue: Voters rated Trump and Democrats about equally on health care at the start of his term, but Democrats now have a large double-digit lead, according to DCCC polling.

But attacking Republicans on the issue is tricky. The specifics of GOP alternatives are unpopular, but most voters don’t realize Republicans had a plan, so it’s hard to persuade them to care about the details of something that never came to be.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 is as unpopular as it was when the Obama White House tried to make it Democrats’ rallying cry in the 2014 midterms. Participants in battleground-state focus groups said they see that rate as relatively high and the issue in general as being mostly about redistributing money to the poor.

The DCCC memo urges candidates instead to talk about a “living wage,” or to rail against outsourcing jobs.

“What you’re seeing is this thing that Democrats cannot seem to figure out — this notion that somehow if we just put the words together correctly that’ll be the winning message and we’ll win,” Kaye said. “That is the opposite of how the electorate is behaving.”

On immigration and trade, voters remain largely aligned with Trump. Data show that voters believe that the economy is moving in the right direction and resent Democrats attacking its progress.

Late last month, Democratic pollster Peter Hart ran a 12-person focus group in Pittsburgh that shocked him for how quickly and decisively it turned against the president. But he came away wary of Democrats who take that as evidence that attacking Trump will win them elections — even as DCCC and other polling shows voters are turned off by members of Congress who vote with the president 90 percent of the time or more.

“People would like more of a sense of reassurance … than we’ve had so far,” Hart said. “For the Democrats, part of that is recognizing that it’s not that there’s an overwhelming agenda item on the part of the American public — it’s not the economy or health care or some single issue — but it is the sense that somehow things are very out of sorts, and it touches so many different issues.”

That’s the main difference between 2018 and 2006, when Democrats’ strategy primarily consisted of running against an unpopular president, George W. Bush, and an unpopular war.

“It may have worked then,” said former Rep. Steve Israel, the DCCC chair in the 2012 and 2014 cycles and the leader of messaging for House Democrats last year. “I’m not sure it’s going to work now, because the middle class is clamoring for help. Just saying we’re not Trump isn’t going to help.”

More and more, Democratic operatives are gravitating toward pushing for an argument that Trump is just out to make his rich friends richer, at the expense of everyone else. They believe they could include all sorts of attacks on his decisions under that umbrella, from stripping regulations on credit cards to trying to end Obamacare to pushing for corporate tax breaks.

DCCC polling showed that on the question of who “fights for people like me,” Trump and Democrats were split at 50 percent each in February but that Democrats are now ahead by 17 points.

“Everything is a trade-off,” said Guy Cecil, reflecting polling done by his Priorities USA super PAC. Republicans “want to give tax cuts to the rich, and they want to screw the rest of us. This is a quintessential question of whose side are you on.”

Bill Burton, a former Obama aide now at SKDKnickerbocker, said he’s worried Democrats are still not making a convincing argument on economic issues.

But he sees some cause for optimism.

“The question has to be what counts as working — the guy’s approval ratings are in the mid-30s,” Burton said of Trump. “So the other way of looking at this is, everything is working.”

See (“Teflon Don confounds Democrats“) (emphasis added)

As I have written previously:

The Democrats are anti-white, far-Left racists, who—their leaders neglect to mention—gave us slavery and fought to preserve it. They are pure evil; and their violent Antifa and “Black Lives Matter” groups are far far worse.

The face of the party today consists of the demented Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, the despicable black racists Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings and Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and others of their ilk.

They are the reasons why lots of us left the party years ago, and will never go back.

See (“THE GOP SUCKS, BUT . . .“)

BUT . . .


Ban Robert Mueller


20 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

What Did Barack Obama Know, And When Did He Know It?

James Freeman has written for the Wall Street Journal:

This week CNN is reporting more details on the Obama Administration’s 2016 surveillance of people connected to the presidential campaign of the party out of power. It seems that once President Obama’s appointee to run the FBI, James Comey, had secured authorization for wiretapping, the bureau continued its surveillance into 2017. CNN reports:

US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe.

The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.

Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.

This means the wiretapping was authorized more than ten months ago and perhaps more than a year ago. It was presumably a tough decision for a judge to issue a secret warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, enabling the administration to spy on someone connected with the presidential campaign of its political adversaries.

One would presumably only approve such an order if the request presented by the executive branch was highly compelling and likely to produce evidence that the subject of the wiretap was in fact working with Russia to disrupt U.S. elections. Roughly a year later, as the public still waits for such evidence, this column wonders how this judge is feeling now, especially now that CNN has reported that at least two of its three sources believe the resulting evidence is inconclusive.

One would also presume—or at least hope—that seeking to wiretap associates of the leader of the political opposition is not an everyday occurrence in any administration. At the very least, it seems highly unlikely that such a decision would be made by a mid-level official. CNN notes, “Such warrants require the approval of top Justice Department and FBI officials, and the FBI must provide the court with information showing suspicion that the subject of the warrant may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.”

It seems reasonable for the public to know exactly which officials made this decision and who else they consulted or informed of their surveillance plans. Was the President briefed on the details of this investigation?

And as for the information showing suspicion, where did the FBI come up with that? A September 7 column from the Journal’s Kim Strassel raises disturbing questions, based on recent events and a Washington Post story from last winter. Ms. Strassel writes:

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a sharp and notable turn on Tuesday, as news broke that it had subpoenaed the FBI and the Justice Department for information relating to the infamous Trump “dossier.” That dossier, whose allegations appear to have been fabricated, was commissioned by the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and then developed by a former British spook named Christopher Steele. ..

The Washington Post in February reported that Mr. Steele “was familiar” to the FBI, since he’d worked for the bureau before. The newspaper said Mr. Steele had reached out to a “friend” at the FBI about his Trump work as far back as July 2016. The Post even reported that Mr. Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.”

Oddly, even though CNN is the source of this week’s news, the media outlet seems less interested in President Obama’s knowledge of the surveillance activities that occurred on his watch and against his political adversaries than in how President Trump has described them. CNN’s scoop doesn’t even mention Mr. Obama except in the context of Mr. Trump’s accusations of wiretapping against the former president that appeared on Twitter in March. CNN has followed up with another story saying that Mr. Trump’s accusations have still not been proven.

That’s true, although Mr. Trump’s argument may be getting stronger. And whatever Donald Trump’s tweets say, Americans deserve to know how our government came to spy on people associated with the presidential campaign of the party out of power.

See (“Did Obama Know about Comey’s Surveillance?“) (emphasis added)

There is no question that the Obama-Comey-Mueller relationship is an unholy alliance whose goal has been to take down the Trump presidency and reverse last November’s election results.

It is time for history to focus on this threesome, and their “fellow travelers”—Loretta Lynch, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Susan Rice, Huma Abedin and others—and investigate, indict, convict and imprison each of them . . . where true justice can be meted out by their fellow prisoners.

Nothing less will suffice.


20 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Jeff Sessions Must Resign As Attorney General Of The United States

Jeff Sessions

Gregg Jarrett, a Fox News legal analyst and former defense attorney, has written:

Jeff Sessions should never have accepted the position of Attorney General of the United States. His leadership has proven unproductive and ineffectual.

There are two reasons for this.

First, he deceived President Trump by concealing his intent to recuse himself from the federal investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Hours after he was sworn in, Sessions began setting his recusal in motion by meeting with Department of Justice officials to discuss stepping aside from the probe. Failing to disclose such a material matter to the president was an egregious betrayal.

Trump was reportedly disgusted and angry with Sessions when he learned of the recusal – rightly so. “If he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me prior to taking office, and I would have picked someone else,” said Trump at a news conference. The president was entitled to know the truth, but Sessions actively hid it from him. Sessions’ deception deprived him of Trump’s confidence and trust which are essential to the job of Attorney General. This ethical impropriety renders him unfit to serve.

Second, Sessions appears either incapable or incompetent. He has resisted producing the documents relevant to the anti-Trump dossier which were subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee. He has failed to appoint a special counsel to reopen the case against Hillary Clinton for likely violations of the Espionage Act in the use of her email server, obstruction of justice for destroying 33,000 emails under congressional subpoena, and potential self-dealing for profit through her foundation. The evidence is compelling.

Moreover, Sessions has taken no action to investigate the unmasking of Trump aides during intelligence surveillance by the Obama Administration. Evidence continues to mount that the incoming president was spied upon for political reasons. Transition officials were unmasked, perhaps illegally. And in one case, the unmasking was leaked to the media which is a crime. Yet Sessions is twiddling his thumbs.

And why hasn’t Sessions investigated the possible criminal conduct of James Comey? The fired FBI Director appears to have falsely testified before Congress, stolen government documents, and leaked them to the media.

Jeff Sessions may have been a fine Senator, but he has proven to be a feckless Attorney General. He should resign. But before he does, he can attempt to rectify the wreckage he has wrought by initiating several necessary criminal investigations and/or appointing a special counsel to do so.

James Comey

Comey was asked, under oath, by the House Judiciary Committee if he decided not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton before or after he interviewed her. He testified, “After.”

Yet, a document uncovered by the Senate Judiciary Committee belies his testimony. A full two months before the FBI ever interviewed Clinton and her top aides, Comey drafted a statement exonerating Clinton. Absent some extraordinary explanation, it appears that Comey’s investigation of Clinton was nothing more than a charade and that he may have lied under oath. If it can be proven, it would constitute the crime of perjury under 18 USC 1621 or a false statement under 18 USC 1001.

This document establishes persuasive evidence that Comey predetermined that Clinton would not be charged. What prosecutor writes a statement absolving a suspect before the evidence is fully gathered, especially from the principal witnesses? No prosecutor I know of. Unless, of course, the fix was in. Unless someone instructed him to protect Clinton or he decided to do it all on his own with a presidential election hanging in the balance.

Either way, it might well constitute obstruction of justice. It is a felony to interfere with a criminal investigation. It is also illegal to use your public office for a political purpose, if that is what Comey was doing.

But Comey’s misconduct and potential illegality don’t stop there. As FBI Director, he converted government documents to his own personal use and leaked at least one of them to the media. As FBI Director, he crafted seven presidential memorandums which are government property, took them into his personal possession when he was fired, and then conveyed one or more of them to a friend for the sole purpose of leaking them to the media. Under 18 USC 641, this could be a crime.

Under no circumstances were these memos “personal,” as Comey claims. They were authored during the course and scope of his employment, composed on a government computer, shared with government employees, and pertained directly to meetings with the president that were central to his job as FBI Director.

Under the Federal Records Act, they are government records. This is indisputable, regardless of what Comey and his lawyers allege. They know this because Comey signed an “Unauthorized Disclosure Agreement” promising that, under penalty of legal action, he would not disseminate workplace documents. If the facts are as stated, he should be prosecuted under the Privacy Act.

Finally, four of the seven memos were “classified,” according to the FBI. If Comey conveyed any of them to an outside source, this would constitute an Unauthorized Removal of Classified Documents (18 USC 1924) or a violation of the Espionage Act (18 USC 798) under which Clinton should have been charged when Comey was FBI Director. The irony is lost on no one. Yet, Sessions appears to have taken no action.

Before he resigns, Sessions must open a full investigation and convene a grand jury to determine whether criminal charges should be brought against Comey. In the alternative, he can appoint a second special counsel to investigate the case. The current special counsel, Robert Mueller, is a long-time friend, ally and mentor to Comey. Mueller is not likely to include Comey in his current investigation, even though he has authority to do so under the directive he received.

Hillary Clinton

The case against Clinton is, by now, self-evident. She stored 110 emails containing classified information on her home computer server, an unsecured and unauthorized place. It is a crime to mishandle classified information under the Espionage Act.

Yet Comey misinterpreted the criminal statute by claiming Clinton did not “intend to violate the law.” This is not the legal standard, as any knowledgeable lawyer will tell you. The standard is whether she committed intentional acts, such as intentionally setting up her personal server and knowingly using it for her work documents, including classified materials. Clinton clearly intended to do these things.

Regardless, the law under 18 USC 793 requires only “grossly negligent” behavior. Here, Comey insisted Clinton was “extremely careless.” However, the two terms are synonymous under the law. Indeed, there is a frequently used jury instruction which explains that gross negligence is extremely careless behavior. So, in essence, Comey was admitting Clinton violated the law, although he twisted the statute to conclude otherwise.

There is strong evidence that Clinton obstructed justice. All of her emails were under a congressional subpoena. She was required to preserve and produce every single one of them. She did not. Instead, she deleted roughly 33,000 emails in defiance of the subpoena and cleansed her server of any incriminating evidence. Destruction of evidence under a lawful subpoena constitutes obstruction. Under the law, it is no excuse to claim that some of the emails were personal in nature.

Growing evidence suggests that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to donors and foreign governments in exchange for financial contributions to her foundation and cash to her husband. If proven, it would support various crimes of corruption.

It has been reported that Clinton helped UBS avoid the IRS. Thereafter, Bill Clinton got paid $1.5 million and the Clinton Foundation received a ten-fold increase in donations by the bank. It has also been reported that Clinton’s state department approved billions of dollars in arms sales to several nations whose governments gave money to the Foundation.

And then, there is the infamous Uranium One deal. After the State Department under Clinton signed off on the U.S. sale of one-fifth of our nation’s uranium production capacity to the Russians, millions of dollars from Russian sources connected to the Kremlin began to flow to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. Coincidence? Or criminal “pay-to-play?”

In his confirmation hearing, Sessions promised to recuse himself from any matter involving Hillary Clinton. Therefore, before he resigns, Sessions must appoint a special counsel to reopen the Clinton investigation and decide anew whether criminal charges are merited.

Susan Rice

In March, the former National Security Adviser to President Obama insisted she “knew nothing” about Trump transition officials swept up in surveillance at the end of the Obama administration. Her statement was not true, and not the first time Rice conjured a false narrative. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, she admitted she knew of the incidental collection and, further, she is the one who requested that names be unmasked.

If Rice or UN Ambassador Samantha Power or any other person requested the unmasking of names for a reason other than national security, it is a crime. And so too is the leaking of those names to the media which clearly occurred. Under the Hatch Act, it is against the law for a public official to use his or her office for a political purpose.

Congress is vigorously investigating Rice and others. Yet Sessions seems detached and unconcerned. As the nation’s top lawyer, he is duty-bound to pursue such a substantial breach of intelligence operations.

Before he resigns, Sessions should launch a criminal investigation into the unmasking of names or appoint a special prosecutor to do the same.

Jeff Sessions either wittingly or unwittingly bungled his confirmation hearing, which led to the recusal that is said to have angered Trump and alienated the AG from the president. Regardless, Sessions’ performance as Attorney General ever since has been notable only for a series of failures to act when action is demanded.

The moment the President of the United States no longer has confidence in his Attorney General, it is time for him to submit his letter of resignation. But first, Sessions can restore integrity to the Department of Justice and salvage his own tattered reputation by taking aggressive action against Comey, Clinton and Rice.

Then he should quietly bow out.

See (“Sessions should resign, but not before taking action against Clinton, Comey and Rice“) (emphasis added); see also (“What Did Barack Obama Know, And When Did He Know It?“)


1 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Political correctness

Jonathan Petre and Chris Hastings have written in the UK’s Daily Mail:

Schools across the [UK] have stopped using the terms BC and AD in religious education lessons for fear of offending non-Christians.

The traditional terms BC, Before Christ, and AD, Anno Domini, are being ditched for BCE – Before Common Era, and CE – Common Era.

The new terms still denote the periods before and after the birth of Christ.

Local authority committees drawing up religious education syllabuses say the old terms may upset minorities or non-believers. But critics blasted the move as a ‘capitulation to political correctness’.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said the rulings by the religious education committees were a ‘great shame’.

Muslim and Jewish leaders were also mystified, saying they were not offended by the familiar terms.

Local authority committees – known as Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education (SACREs) – from Brighton and Essex are among a growing number urging heads to ditch BC and AD.

The syllabus for schools in East Sussex, for example, reads: ‘BCE and CE are now used in order to show sensitivity to those who are not Christians.’

Lord Carey said: ‘I have never met a Muslim or Jewish leader who is offended by the Gregorian calendar’ while leading Imam Ibrahim Mogra said: ‘I don’t believe it causes Muslims offence.’ A spokesman for the Board of Deputies of British Jews said: ‘I don’t think anyone would mind if in mainstream schools they use BC and AD.’

Chris McGovern, the chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said: removing BC and AD ‘is a capitulation to political correctness’.

National Association of Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education chair Paul Smalley said: ‘Individual SACREs and schools can make a judgment over which form of dating is appropriate.’



Mastermind inquisitor John Humphrys has revealed he was ‘angry with himself’ for using the ‘ridiculous’ PC term BCE – meaning Before Common Era – instead of the traditional BC in a recent edition of the quiz.

The slip happened as he asked about an event in ‘the 6th Century BCE’. A rueful Humphrys told The Mail on Sunday: ‘I did use that ridiculous expression and I am angry with myself because I can’t stand BCE and all that sort of stuff.

‘It was a last-minute question or something which I hadn’t had time to check over. So I just read what was in front of me. And then you think, “My God, did I really read that?” ’

In 2011, The Mail on Sunday revealed that the BBC’s religion and ethics website suggested using CE and BCE instead of BC and AD so as not to ‘offend or alienate non-Christians’. Humphrys, 74, said last night: ‘I hope you do not hear myself saying BCE again or anything like it again.

‘Everyone knows where we are when we say BC and AD and that is how I want to keep it.’

See (“Now schools are ditching AD and BC in RE lessons to avoid offending non-Christians… but critics blast the ‘capitulation to political correctness'”) (emphasis added)

Clearly, the inmates are taking over the “asylum.”

Like the hoax of man-made “global warming,” and deviant sexual behavior, and the destruction of statues, and violence in the United States by “Black Lives Matter” and Antifa groups, will this madness ever stop?

Again, George Orwell was prescient in his acclaimed Animal Farm, where all of the animals were equal until the Pigs reigned supreme and subjugated the other animals.

The despicable Left embodies and personifies the Pigs today.

See (“Animal Farm”)


15 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Cantorize Flake, And Teach Him A Lesson He Will Never Forget [UPDATED]

Good Bye Eric Cantor!

Sheryl Gay Stolberg has written in the New York Times:

Before Bob Corker, there was Jeff Flake.

Mr. Flake, the even-tempered Republican senator from Arizona, has for months offered stinging critiques of President Trump’s character, demeanor and truthfulness — the same message forcefully echoed a week ago by Mr. Corker, a Republican colleague from Tennessee, who warned that Mr. Trump’s reckless behavior could lead to “World War III.”

But there is one crucial difference between the two: Mr. Flake, unlike Mr. Corker, is running for re-election. And now he finds himself in grave political peril.

Mr. Flake is perhaps the most endangered Senate Republican, with an approval rating in one recent poll of just 18 percent among Arizonans. Mr. Trump has savaged Mr. Flake as “toxic” and a “flake,” and has encouraged a primary challenge against him that has left the senator squeezed not only from the left but also the right.

His fate is an object lesson for other Republicans who might consider voicing dire thoughts about the president’s fitness: Cross Mr. Trump, and your political career could well be over.

Mr. Flake, a Mormon known more for his decency than his independent streak, said he had no regrets.

In an interview here, he ticked off some of his earliest criticisms of the president — from the days when Mr. Trump peddled the false theory that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, to the time Mr. Trump referred to Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” to his call for a complete ban on travel to the United States by Muslims — before looking up and stopping himself.

“In which of those instances,” the senator asked, “should I not have spoken out? At what point should you not stand up and say, ‘This is not right; this is not conservative; this is not where Republicans ought to be?’”

Mr. Flake said he had known from the start that taking on Mr. Trump might do him political harm. Even before he declared the president’s brand of populism a corruption of conservative values, he anticipated a tough primary challenge, given his policy differences with Mr. Trump on issues like immigration, trade and Cuba.

“The truth is, if my only goal were to be elected, re-elected to mark time in the Senate, there are much easier paths,” he said.

Mr. Flake is not the Senate’s only vulnerable Republican; Senator Dean Heller of Nevada is also facing a tough re-election race. And Republicans will now have to field a candidate to succeed Mr. Corker, who announced late last month that he was not running next year.

Last weekend, Mr. Corker said his concerns about Mr. Trump were shared by nearly every Senate Republican, even if few have spoken out. Mr. Flake, by contrast, has put pen to paper with his criticism; his new book, “Conscience of a Conservative,” published in August, is a blistering indictment of the Republican Party and of a president who, despite record-low overall approval ratings, has retained the support of about 80 percent of his party.

Mr. Flake’s main primary challenger at the moment, Kelli Ward, made clear in an interview that she intended to paint Mr. Flake as “an obstructionist to the America First agenda that Donald Trump touted on the campaign trail, and that the American people want to see enacted.”

Ms. Ward, an osteopathic physician and a former state senator who ran unsuccessfully against Arizona’s other senator, John McCain, in 2016, was busy preparing last week for her campaign kickoff. It is scheduled for Tuesday night with the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham as the featured guest.

Andy Surabian, senior adviser to the Great America Alliance, a Trump-aligned group whose political action committee has been supportive of Ms. Ward, said Mr. Flake’s troubles were “entirely self-inflicted.”

“If Flake wants to know why he’s vulnerable, all he needs to do is look in the mirror,” said Mr. Surabian, who had a stint in the White House as deputy to Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist. He added: “No one told him to go out and be the face of the anti-Trump resistance in the Republican Party. No one told him to go out and write a book that was basically an anti-Trump screed. The reason the race is in play is because of Jeff Flake’s actions.”

Mr. Flake said he felt compelled to write the book because Republicans had lost their way with the rise of Mr. Trump. His assessment of the president is biting.

“We pretended the emperor wasn’t naked,” Mr. Flake wrote. “Even worse: We checked our critical faculties at the door and pretended that the emperor was making sense.”

While Mr. Corker had likened the White House to an “adult day care center” and said Mr. Trump was treating his office like a reality show, Mr. Flake said in the interview that he might not have used those words. But he clearly agrees with his Tennessee colleague.

“A conservative is conservative in demeanor and comportment — not just policy,” he said. “And the way you conduct foreign policy as a conservative is that you are steady and measured and predictable. And that’s not what we have now.”

Such comments have not gone over well at home, said Mayor Jim Lane of Scottsdale. The mayor, who calls himself a conservative Republican, said he was not currently backing Mr. Flake, whom he views as exacerbating divisions within the party and undermining the president’s agenda.

“It’s difficult, particularly when there’s a lot of people who feel very, very strongly about the president’s agenda and party’s agenda,” Mr. Lane said, adding, “Any time we sense that is not a priority, for any of our delegation, that becomes a bit of a problem.”

Mr. Flake favors immigration and free trade — stances that put him at philosophical odds not only with the president, but also with many Arizonans. In 2013, he was part of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” group of senators who put forth an immigration overhaul that would have offered immigrants in the country illegally a path to citizenship. It passed the Senate with 68 votes but died in the House. He also worked closely with Mr. Obama to open relations with Cuba.

Ms. Ward, his Republican challenger, is aligned more closely with Mr. Trump, though her critics in the party have portrayed her as a fringe candidate, and Mr. Trump, while praising her on Twitter, has not given her an explicit endorsement. Mr. Bannon, who has declared “war” on establishment Republicans, is said to be hunting for stronger candidates than Ms. Ward to take on Mr. Flake.

Among them are Robert Graham, a former chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, and Jay Heiler, a wealthy businessman. Both said in interviews that they were contemplating jumping into the race, and expected to make decisions by the end of the month. When Mr. Trump went to Arizona in August for a rally, he met privately with Mr. Graham and the Arizona state treasurer, Jeff DeWit, to urge them to consider running, Mr. Graham said.

“This is more about protecting the seat for Republicans,” Mr. Graham said, adding, “Candidly, I think we need a viable candidate.”

If Mr. Flake survives his primary — a big if, many Republicans here say — he will have to worry about his left flank: Representative Kyrsten Sinema, a centrist Democrat with a powerful biography, recently announced that she would seek Mr. Flake’s seat.

Rodd McLeod, a Democratic strategist here, said Ms. Sinema’s entry into the race would make it more difficult for Mr. Flake — who has a firmly conservative voting record, though his mild temperament can make him seem more moderate — to appeal to swing voters.

“You’ve got a situation now where the swing constituency, independent women, are looking at this guy and saying, ‘He’s real right wing,’ and then you’ve got the right-wing voters saying he hasn’t been respectful enough to Trump,” Mr. McLeod said. “And the liberal base is fired up, and they can turn out in big numbers.”

Indeed, each Friday at noon in the sweltering Arizona heat, a group calling itself “Stand for Sane Government” pickets Mr. Flake’s office here.

Among the regulars is William Riley, a family practice doctor who complains that despite Mr. Flake’s criticisms of Mr. Trump, he almost always votes with the president. (An analysis by FiveThirtyEight, the political blog, found that Mr. Flake had voted with Mr. Trump 91.5 percent of the time.)

“He wrote a book about the conscience of a libertarian, yet he’s voted along the lines of the things he has criticized,” Dr. Riley said. “So my only conclusion is he doesn’t have a conscience.”

Mr. Flake, 54, is a scion of a pioneer Mormon family and a product of the American West; he grew up on a ranch in the tiny Northern Arizona town of Snowflake, which is named in part named for his ancestors. Family legend has it that Brigham Young, the early Mormon leader, sent Mr. Flake’s great-grandfather from Utah to settle in Arizona.

The Flakes are a political family — the senator’s father was once mayor of Snowflake — and Mr. Flake ran a libertarian think tank, the Goldwater Institute, named for the deeply conservative Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, before being elected to the House in 2000.

In his early years in Congress, he developed a reputation as a budget hawk who challenged party leaders to get rid of so-called earmarks, in which federal money is steered to lawmakers’ pet projects. But in the Senate, which he joined in 2013, Mr. Flake has not carved out much of a reputation, other than for being a nice guy.

“He’s going to have to define who he is, what his record is and what he’s accomplished,” said David Winston, a Republican strategist in Washington. “This is really going to be a vote about him and his incumbency.”

As to who he is, Mr. Flake puts it this way: “I’m a conservative in, I think, the traditional sense of the word: a Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan conservative that believes in limited government, economic freedom, free trade, pro-immigration. That’s the kind of conservative I am, and that’s my record.”

But is that the kind of conservative who is welcome in the Republican Party in the Trump era? Mr. Flake smiled wanly.

“That,” the senator said, “is the question.”

See (“Jeff Flake’s Lesson for Republicans: Cross Trump at Your Own Risk“) (emphasis added)

For those who have forgotten about “Eric Ivan Cantor”—which is certainly understandable—he was House Majority Leader and before that House Minority Whip, and ostensibly a Republican congressman from Virginia.

In June 2014, in his bid for re-election, Cantor lost the Republican primary to an economics professor; he resigned as House Majority Leader; and he announced his resignation from Congress.

Nobody has missed him since.

See, e.g., (“Eric Cantor“)

As if there were not enough reasons to “Cantorize” Flake already, he has plagiarized the title of Barry Goldwater’s book, Conscience of a Conservative.

See, e.g., (“Barry Goldwater“)

Going, going, gone. Good riddance!

See (“Arizona GOP Sen. Flake to Retire, Had Tangled With Trump“)


19 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

An Empty Barrel

Barack Obama and Frederica Wilson

See (“What to know about Frederica Wilson, Florida Democrat who criticized Trump“); see also (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

White House Chief of Staff, General John F. Kelly, put it best:

See also (“John F. Kelly“)


27 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

A Truly Uncivil War In This Country

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

“More is now required of us than to put down our thoughts in writing,” declaimed Jeff Flake in his oration against President Trump, just before he announced he will be quitting the Senate.

Though he had lifted the title of his August anti-Trump polemic, “Conscience of a Conservative,” from Barry Goldwater, Jeff Flake is no Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater took on the GOP establishment in the primaries, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, defiantly declared, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” and then went down to defeat battling to the end after the assassination of JFK made LBJ invincible.

The real “Mr. Conservative” was a true profile in courage.

Flake, with only 18 percent approval in Arizona, decided to pack it in rather than get waxed in his own primary. With Falstaff, Flake appears to believe that “discretion is the better part of valor.”

Sen. Bob Corker is another summertime soldier calling on colleagues to stand and fight Trump while he retires to Tennessee.

It’s no wonder the establishment is viewed with such derision.

Flake calls Trump “dangerous to our democracy.” But the real threat Trump represents is to the GOP establishment’s control of the party’s agenda and the party’s destiny.

U.S. politics have indeed been coarsened, with Trump playing a lead role. Yet, beneath the savagery of the uncivil war in the party lies more than personal insults and personality clashes.

This is a struggle about policy, about the future. And Trump is president because he read the party and the country right, while the Bush-McCain Republican establishment had lost touch with both.

How could the Beltway GOP not see that its defining policies — open borders, amnesty, free trade globalism, compulsive military intervention in foreign lands for ideological ends — were alienating its coalition?

What had a quarter century of Bushite free trade produced?

About $12 trillion in trade deficits, $4 trillion with China alone, a loss of 55,000 plants and 6 million manufacturing jobs.

We imported goods “Made in China,” while exporting our future.

U.S. elites made China great again, to where Beijing is now challenging our strategic position and presence in Asia.

Could Republicans not see the factories shutting down, or not understand why workers’ wages had failed to rise for decades?

What did the democracy crusades “to end tyranny in our world” accomplish?

Thousands of U.S. dead, tens of thousands of wounded, trillions of dollars sunk, and a Mideast awash in blood from Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, with millions uprooted and homeless. Yet, still, the GOP establishment has not repudiated the mindset that produced this.

With the Cold War over for a quarter of a century, what is the case now for America, $20 trillion in debt, going abroad in search of monsters to destroy?

Consider. Bush-Obama “open borders” brought in tens of millions of Third World peoples, legally and illegally, to rising resistance from Americans forced to bear the economic and social costs.

What was the GOP establishment’s reply to the opposition to amnesty for illegals and calls for a moratorium on legal immigration, to assimilate the tens of millions already here?

To call them nativists and parade their moral superiority.

Flake and Corker are being beatified by the Beltway elites, and George W. Bush and John McCain celebrated for their denunciations of Trumpism.

Yet no two people are more responsible for the blunders of the post-Cold War era than McCain and Bush.

About which of half a dozen wars were they right?

Yesterday’s New York Times recognized Trump’s triumph:

“Despite the fervor of President Trump’s Republican opponents, the president’s brand of hard-edged nationalism — with its gut-level cultural appeals and hard lines on trade and immigration — is taking root within his adopted party.”

Moreover, a new question arises:

Can the GOP establishment believe that if Trump falls, or they bring him down, they will inherit the estate and be welcomed home like the Prodigal Son? Do they believe their old agenda of open borders, amnesty, free trade globalism and democracy-crusading can become America’s agenda again?

Trumpism is not a detour, after which we can all get back on the interstate to the New World Order.

For though unpleasant, it is not unfair to say that if there was one desire common to Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump voters, it was be rid of the regime resting on top of all of us.

Should Trump fall, and a restored establishment attempt to reimpose the old policies, there will be a truly uncivil war in this country.

After the Trumpian revolt, there is no going back. As that most American of writers, Thomas Wolfe, put it, “You can’t go home again.”

Traditionalists have been told that for years. Now it’s the turn of the GOP establishment to learn the truth as well.

Goldwater lost badly, but the establishment that abandoned him never had its patrimony restored. It was the leaders they abhorred, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, to whom the future belonged.

See (“It’s Trump’s Party Now“) (emphasis added); see also (“Cantorize Flake, And Teach Him A Lesson He Will Never Forget“)


29 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


George Washington

With so much “anti-history” or revisionist history being spewed by America’s insidious and demented Left—and yes, I began as a Democrat, but will never go back—many Americans have described our founder George Washington as a “real hero,” which is an understatement.

I do not believe the United States would exist today as it does without him.

I have been to Mount Vernon many times; and my wife and I sailed there one day from the Washington Sailing Marina in Alexandria (just below Reagan Airport), in a small boat without an engine. The winds died on our way back, and I thought we’d be stuck in the Potomac River for days. 🙂

Mount Vernon is a relatively simple, yet elegant house, which sits on a hill above the river. As we know, there are so many monuments to him in this great country; and my guess is that he would be embarrassed.

He loved our country; that much is certain. He could have lived a life of privilege, and not done what he did.

But I believe he would be proud of the country and its multi-faceted and multi-colored Americans, for what we have accomplished and the path that we are on.

. . .

After I had written the comments above, the following story appeared.

See (“George Washington’s Church Says Plaque Honoring First President Must Come Down”—”Leaders at the church that George Washington attended decided that a plaque honoring the first president of the United States must be removed. Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia will take down a memorial marking the pew where Washington sat with his family, saying it is not acceptable to all worshipers. ‘The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome,’ leaders said, a reference to the fact that Washington was a slaveholder”—”A memorial to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee will also come down“)

This is outrageous.

ALL actions honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. must be undone. He was as bad as Harvey Weinstein.

See (“The Truth About Martin Luther King, Jr. Emerges . . . Finally“) and (“HOLLYWOOD HAS BEEN SICK FOR DECADES“); see also (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“) (see also the extensive comments beneath this article) and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) (see also the extensive comments beneath this article) and (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin”—”Those Americans involved in this [treasonous] pay-to-play ‘Uranium One’ scandal of epic proportions . . . include Barack Obama, the Clintons, former Attorney General Eric Holder, Robert Mueller, James Comey and Rod Rosenstein of the FBI and the Department of ‘Injustice’”)


4 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Sour Grapes’ Bushes Attack Trump, And Yearn For The Past And Their Dynasty [UPDATED]


Peter Baker has written in the New York Times:

President Trump is not a favorite in the extended Bush household. Former President George Bush considers him a “blowhard,” only interested in feeding his own ego. Former President George W. Bush, his son, thinks Mr. Trump fans public anger and came to office without any understanding of the job.

And both worry that Mr. Trump has blown up a Republican Party that they spent two lifetimes building, a party that was once committed to removing boundaries to trade and immigration, promoting democracy and civil society and asserting a robust American leadership role in the world, according to an author who has interviewed them.

A new book on the two Bushes who served in the White House provides a glance at their apprehension over Mr. Trump’s rise to power and what it means for the country. The first book ever written with their cooperation about their relationship, it also opens a window into the only father-and-son tandem to hold the presidency since John Adams and John Quincy Adams.

In “The Last Republicans,” Mark K. Updegrove chronicles an era that feels almost dated in today’s reality-show politics, when the Republican establishment controlled the party and Washington, and when a single family could occupy the presidency and vice presidency for a combined 20 years.

Neither of the two Republican former presidents voted for Mr. Trump — the father voted for Hillary Clinton and the son voted for “none of the above,” as he told Mr. Updegrove.

Indeed, at one point during the 2016 presidential campaign, the younger Mr. Bush confided to the author, “I’m worried that I will be the last Republican president.”

That inspired the title of the book — which will be published Nov. 14 by HarperCollins — as a quote that seemed to carry a double meaning.

“At the time, I think he was concerned that Hillary Clinton would win,” Mr. Updegrove, the author of several books on the presidency, said in an interview. “But if you look at his values and those shared by his father and Ronald Reagan, they are very much in contrast to the values of the Republican Party today, in particular the platform that Donald Trump ran on, which is essentially protectionism and a certain xenophobia.”

In discussing Mr. Trump, the elder president was blunter. “I don’t like him,” Mr. Bush said in May 2016. “I don’t know much about him, but I know he’s a blowhard. And I’m not too excited about him being a leader.” Rather than being motivated by public service, Mr. Bush said Mr. Trump seemed to be driven by “a certain ego.”

The younger Mr. Bush was more circumspect, but also clearly disapproving. The Bushes felt stung by Mr. Trump’s ground-burning attacks that helped destroy the campaign of Jeb Bush, the son and brother of the presidents.

“You can either exploit the anger, incite it,” George W. Bush told Mr. Updegrove, “or you can come up with ideas to deal with it.” Jeb, he said, came up with solutions, “but it didn’t fit with the mood.”

“If you’re angry with the powers that be,” he added, “you’re angry with the so-called establishment, and there’s nothing more established than having a father and brother that have been president.”

When Mr. Trump first entered the race, Mr. Bush thought he would not last and was surprised by the real estate developer’s success at capturing the nomination. Still, he was not impressed.

When Mr. Trump declared that “I’m my own adviser,” Mr. Bush thought he did not understand the presidency. He also lamented Mr. Trump’s lack of humility. “As you know from looking at my family, it is a certain heritage, that’s what they expect, and we’re not seeing that” in Mr. Trump.

The release of the book comes weeks after the younger Mr. Bush delivered a speech seen as a rebuke of Mr. Trump’s approach to the presidency and the world.

Addressing a conference in New York, Mr. Bush decried what he called the “nativism” of today’s policies and the “casual cruelty” of today’s politics. Without mentioning Mr. Trump by name, Mr. Bush said that “bigotry seems emboldened” and “our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication.”

Mr. Updegrove, the former director of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library and Museum and now the founding chief executive of the National Medal of Honor Museum, got to know both Bushes in recent years and persuaded them to talk with him for a book on their relationship, a subject that they had been allergic to while their political careers were still active.

The two men disputed Shakespearean assumptions about father-son rivalries and insisted they remained close throughout the younger Mr. Bush’s presidency, despite suspicions about a rift over the Iraq war. But George W. Bush’s parents were clearly disturbed by the influence of Vice President Dick Cheney and neoconservative advisers.

The elder Mr. Bush, Mr. Updegrove reported, counseled his son to consider “shaking up the ticket” in 2004, meaning to replace Mr. Cheney as his running mate — just as the younger Mr. Bush suggested to his father about Vice President Dan Quayle in 1992. Like his father, the son disregarded the advice.

Barbara Bush told Mr. Updegrove that she believed Mr. Cheney changed because of his health troubles, including a heart attack followed by a stent operation shortly after the 2000 election. “I do think he was different,” she said. “I think his heart operation made a difference. I always liked him, but I didn’t like him so much for a while because I thought he hurt George. I wasn’t that fond of him. I think he pushed things a little too far right.”

The younger Mr. Bush resented the implication that anyone was steering him. “The fact that there was any doubt in anyone’s mind about who the president was blows my mind,” he said. He added that Mr. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, his defense secretary, “didn’t make one fucking decision.”

But he insisted Mr. Cheney served him well and said that the vice president’s sometimes dark reputation was inevitable. “I understand the way the system works,” he said. “Somebody has to be the bad guy.”

See (“Both Bush Presidents Worry Trump Is Blowing Up the G.O.P.“) (emphasis added); see also (“George H.W. Bush calls Trump a ‘blowhard’ while his son says he lacks the ‘humility’ to be president in new father-son biography as White House immediately punches back with scathing Iraq war comment”—”The White House shot back Saturday. ‘If one presidential candidate can disassemble a political party, it speaks volumes about how strong a legacy its past two presidents really had. And that begins with the Iraq war, one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in American history'”) and (“Do Not Blame Trump: Clinton And Bush Are Two Failed Ex-Presidents, And Obama Is A Racist“) and (“White House attacks legacies of both Bush presidents after reports that they refused to vote for Trump“)

Lots of us voted for both Bushes, but are ashamed today of the fact that we did so—although the alternatives that the Democrats presented (i.e., Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry) were far worse.

They lament the end of Jeb Bush’s quest for the presidency, which imploded because of his own shrill, outdated voice.

They launched two wars in Iraq; and thousands of Americans were killed or maimed, while trillions of dollars were wasted, for nothing.

Their GOP is dead or dying, with a new and more vibrant party emerging, shaped in the image of President Donald Trump—which is a logical extension of Ronald Reagan’s GOP, not that of the Bushes.

The fact that the senior Bush voted for the criminal Hillary Clinton—who, hopefully, will be sent to prison in the future—speaks volumes, although it has been rumored for a long time that he has been in declining health, both physically and mentally.

See, e.g., (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) and (“Clinton Fatigue”)


23 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Partisan Divide In America Is Widening [UPDATED]

This is the title of an article in the UK’s Economist:

AS MILLIONS of Americans travelled home for Thanksgiving this week advice columns were filled with the perennial—but increasingly fraught—question of what to talk about at the dinner table. (“When your liberal aunt shows up at Thanksgiving in Trump country” ran one headline in the Washington Post.) In recent years generational and partisan attitudes towards a range of political issues have diverged, with political-party stalwarts holding increasingly negative views of the followers of the party they oppose. Yet at the same time, there is some hope to be drawn from growing agreement on a range of social issues.

Polls suggest that on a number of measures the partisan divide is wider than ever. Surveys by Pew Research Center, for example, report that in 1994 there was a 20-point disparity in the percentage of Republicans and Democrats who thought government should do more to help the needy; by 2017 that had increased to 47 percentage points. That reflects divergence in views about the fairness of the economic system—with the gap on opinions like “people can get ahead if they work hard” and “the economy in this country favours powerful interests”—also growing.

Pew’s analysis suggests that more people are consistently liberal or conservative in their outlook across issues, part of a trend towards greater partisan purity. Duane F. Alwin and Paula A. Tufis, sociologists, examined the General Social Survey to report a growing national alignment between views across a liberal-conservative spectrum and party identification. They also found that the percentage of people who describe themselves as moderate, slightly liberal or slightly conservative (as opposed to simply or “extremely” liberal or conservative) fell from 71% in 1974 to 62% in 2010, and that party supporters’ antipathy towards the other party had grown significantly since the 1960s. In 2016, 70% of Democrats felt that Republicans were close-minded and 52% of Republicans felt the same about Democrats.

This growing partisan rancour may be one reason people seem to be increasingly dissatisfied with the state of the country. Median household income climbed almost $6,000 between 2012 and 2016 to its highest ever level while the unemployment rate, at 4.1%, is at its lowest since 2001. But at just over one fifth, the proportion of voters reporting to Gallup that they are satisfied with the way things are going in America is only marginally up from a nadir of 7% in 2008, and still 50 percentage points lower than the three-decade high of 71% reached in February 1999.

And yet, partisan antipathy has its limits. Research by Jonathan Mummolo and Clayton Nall from Stanford University suggests there is no evidence to support the idea that Democrats and Republicans are moving to communities filled with those who share their politics, despite a widespread stated preference to do precisely that. Other factors still trump partisanship in choosing where to live: crime levels, school quality, and commuting time. And there are still issues on which both sides can agree. The majority of supporters of both parties believe that the average global temperature is rising, that America’s involvement in the global economy is a good thing, and that the cost of health care is too high. More than two thirds of supporters of both parties still back the right to protest, free speech, the constitutional system of checks and balances and the importance of free and fair elections.

For all that Republicans and Democrats may increasingly dislike each other, meanwhile, the partisan divide over attitudes towards other social groupings is shrinking. Only 3% of Democrats and 8% of Republicans believe that increasing number of people from different races, ethnic groups and nationalities in America makes the country a worse place to live. The proportion of Republican supporters who see immigrants as a burden on the country has fallen from 64% in 1994 to 44% today, which means that a majority in both parties now have positive views towards migrants. Democrats profess greater tolerance of sexual minorities, but the percentage of Republicans who think homosexuality should be accepted, at 54%, now matches the percentage of Democrats who favoured tolerance in 1994. According to analysis of the General Social Survey by Landon Schnabel and Eric Sevell of Indiana University, Republicans are also moving towards acceptance of gay marriage at similar rates to Democrats, if from a lower base level of support.

On the importance of racism in determining outcomes for African Americans, partisan disagreement remains. Yet most supporters of the Republican Party back affirmative action (along with 84% of Democrats). Because of shifting attitudes that have spread across partisan divides, Gallup surveys also report that 87% of people backed inter-racial marriage by 2013; more recent statistics show 73% of Americans back divorce and 69% find unmarried sex morally acceptable. That suggests that whatever the marital history, colour, nationality or gender of the partner that Americans turn at up at home with for Thanksgiving, they are more likely to be welcomed with open arms than in the past.

There also seems to be an improvement in the way that Americans think their own lives are going. Some 86% of Republicans believe they are on the way to achieving the “American Dream” or have achieved it, along with 80% of Democrats. In 2017 the proportion of Americans who reported they were satisfied with the way their life was going reached 87%, up from 78% in 2011 and only one percentage point below the highest number reported since the poll question was first asked by Gallup in 1979. It seems that many dinner tables divided by party politics will still be united by the idea that there is much to give thanks for—even if everyone agrees that America has a lot to worry about.

See (emphasis added)

First, the despicable Robert Mueller’s “witch hunt” must be shut down completely, whose aim is to reverse last year’s election victory for our President Donald Trump.

Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Barack Obama, the Clintons and others must be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for the rest of their lives—for T R E A S O N, relating to their roles in the “Uranium One”-Russian scandal, which former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (and historian) Newt Gingrich has described as “the greatest scandal in American history.”

Put succinctly, it involves the payment of approximately $145 million to Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and their foundation, in exchange for the sale of 20 percent of America’s critical Uranium assets to Russia’s despotic killer, Vladimir Putin.

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)

Second, more and more Americans have turned their backs on both political parties, the Democrats and the GOP (or Republicans). According to recent Gallup polling, approximately 42 percent of Americans “identify” as Independents. Yet, the Economist article and its data seem to be premised on having polled Democrats and Republicans, even though both parties are fragmenting as we write these words.

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

Third, more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that man-made so-called “global warming” or “climate change” is a hoax and the “Great Green Con,” and in reality nothing more than a $34 trillion wealth transfer. If Europe and its insufferable bureaucrats want to hobble their economy and growth, so be it—while the United States and China will be laughing at them, all the way to the bank.

See (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming“) (see also the comments beneath the article)

Fourth, the sex scandals that have been breaking in Hollywood, Washington, New York and elsewhere—in the sacred bastions of the Left and far-Left—and the steps taken by the Clintons to “rig” last year’s elections against Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and others, are taking their toll. A “cleansing” effect is possible, but do not bet on it inasmuch as sex and sexual abuses accompany power wherever it exists.


Fifth, political pundit, former Clinton advisor and now Trump supporter Dick Morris believes that President Trump is shrewdly engaging in “triangulation” by going after “Middle-American voters.” They have been abandoned by the Leftist Democrats; and they constitute a crucial bloc of Americans who were described in years past as the “Silent Majority” that propelled Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to their resounding election victories.

See (“Trump’s Historic Triangulation“)

Lastly, America is a vibrant democracy. It always has been, and it always will be. Those who look at our great nation from abroad do not understand this, much less fully.

See (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life“) (see also the comments beneath the article)

Nonetheless, in our “survival-of-the-fittest,” capitalistic society, some Americans are being left behind, through no fault of their own. Their children are suffering, which must be rectified.

Their plight is our plight.

See, e.g., (“Numbers Of Homeless Rise To Levels Not Seen Since The Great Depression“)



4 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Alan Dershowitz

Sandy Fitzgerald has reported for Newsmax:

If Congress charged President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice for firing former FBI Director James Comey, that would trigger a constitutional crisis, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz argued Monday.

“I think if Congress ever were to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we’d have a constitutional crisis,” Dershowitz told Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” program.

“You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and to tell the Justice Department who to investigate and who not to investigate.”

His comments were in response to those made by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who on Sunday told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” program “what we’re beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice.”

President Donald Trump was quick to weigh in on Dershowitz’ opinion, tweeting that the interview was a “must watch.”

Dershowitz further commented that presidents throughout the nation’s history have exercised their constitutional powers on investigations, said Dershowitz.

“We have precedents that clearly establish that,” he said. “When George Bush, the first, pardoned Caspar Weinberger in order to end the investigation that would have led to him, nobody suggested obstruction of justice.”

To bring such charges, there must be evidence of “clearly illegal acts,” Dershowitz continued.

“With [Richard] Nixon, hush money was paid,” he said, “[There was] telling people to lie, destroying evidence. Even with [Bill] Clinton they said that he tried to influence potential witnesses not to tell the truth. But there’s never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority.”

Dershowitz said that he hopes special counsel Robert Mueller, who is in charge of the probe into possible links between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign, does not press charges against the president.

“That would cause a constitutional crisis in the United States, and I hope Mueller doesn’t do that,” said Dershowitz. “Sen. Feinstein simply doesn’t know what she’s talking about, when she says it’s obstruction of justice, to do what a president is completely authorized to do under the Constitution.”

Trump also has the authority to speak to members of Congress, ask that the investigation be wrapped up, said Dershowitz, but Congress has the power to invoke the Constitution’s provision for separation of powers.

“You can’t have obstruction of justice by each party exercising their authority,” said Dershowitz. “The president could have pardoned [former national security adviser] Michael Flynn if he were really thinking about trying to end this investigation.”

Had that happened, Flynn would not have cooperated with the prosecution, or had been indicted, said Dershowitz.

“I think the fact that the president hasn’t pardoned Flynn, even though he has the power to do so, is very good evidence there’s no obstruction of justice going on here,” he added.

See (“Dershowitz: Obstruction Charges on Trump Would Bring ‘Constitutional Crisis'”) (emphasis added)

Of course Dershowitz is correct.

What he does not address, at least in this article, is the fact that the Clintons, Mueller and others must be indicted, convicted and sent to prison for their roles in the “Uranium One”-Russian scandal.

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); see also (“MUELLER’S INDICTMENTS“)


6 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Al Green

Alex Pappas has reported for Fox News:

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to impeach President Trump after a liberal Texas congressman forced a vote on his effort.

Democratic Rep. Al Green, who has repeatedly called for the president’s removal, introduced two articles of impeachment against Trump on Wednesday.

But lawmakers immediately voted to effectively kill his resolution, with 364 voting to table it and 58 Democrats voting to move ahead.

In a dramatic speech on the floor ahead of the vote, Green called Trump “unfit” for office and accused him of “high misdemeanors.”

The symbolic vote had been expected to fail in the Republican-controlled House. It put some lawmakers in competitive districts in a tough spot by forcing them on the record about impeachment.

Lawmakers did not actually vote on the actual articles of impeachment, but on a procedural measure that would have led to a vote on them.

“As I have said before, this is not about Democrats, it is about democracy,” Green wrote in a memo to his colleagues. “It is not about Republicans, it is about the fate of our Republic. May everyone vote their conscience knowing that history will judge us all.”

Green has discussed his intention to impeach Trump since last spring. In October, Green filed impeachment articles that nearly forced a vote — until House Democratic leaders persuaded him to abandon the effort.

At the time, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called the effort “pathetic.”

In his memo to lawmakers, Green didn’t allege “obstruction of justice” or reference the ongoing investigation into the 2016 presidential campaign’s connection with Russia.

Instead, Green highlighted Trump’s supposed association with “White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hate,” as well as “Inciting Hatred and Hostility,” as offenses worthy of impeachment.

“Friends, whether we like it or not, we now have a bigot in the White House who incites hatred and hostility,” Green wrote in a letter.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has insisted that any impeachment effort should be put on hold until there is evidence of an impeachable offense.

See (“House rejects Trump impeachment resolution after Dem Rep. Al Green forces vote“) (emphasis added); see also (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article) and (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) and (“A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS?“)

Beginning with Al Green and Maxine Waters, the following 58 members of Congress must be targeted for defeat:

Brady (PA)
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Davis, Danny
Frankel (FL)
Green, Al
Higgins (NY)
Jackson Lee
Kelly (IL)
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Thompson (MS)
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)

Black Racist Maxine Waters


15 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Lincoln and Trump

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

On Aug. 9, 1974, Richard Nixon bowed to the inevitability of impeachment and conviction by a Democratic Senate and resigned.

The prospect of such an end for Donald Trump has this city drooling. Yet, comparing Russiagate and Watergate, history is not likely to repeat itself.

First, the underlying crime in Watergate, a break-in to wiretap offices of the DNC, had been traced, within 48 hours, to the Committee to Re-Elect the President.

In Russiagate, the underlying crime – the “collusion” of Trump’s campaign with the Kremlin to hack into the emails of the DNC – has, after 18 months of investigating, still not been established.

Campaign manager Paul Manafort has been indicted, but for financial crimes committed long before he enlisted with Trump.

Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying about phone calls he made to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but only after Trump had been elected and Flynn had been named national security adviser.

Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats.

This is what security advisers do.

Why Flynn let himself be ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling.

Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for refusing to cut slack for Flynn.

But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority.

And Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July 2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been “extremely careless” in transmitting security secrets over her private email server.

We now know that the first draft of Comey’s statement described Clinton as “grossly negligent,” the precise statute language for an indictment.

We also now know that helping to edit Comey’s first draft to soften its impact was Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. His wife, Jill McCabe, a candidate for state senate in Virginia, received $467,000 in campaign contributions from the PAC of Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.

Comey has also admitted he leaked to the New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump to trigger the naming of a special counsel – to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow fell to Comey’s predecessor, friend and confidant Robert Mueller.

Mueller swiftly hired half a dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors and Andrew Weissmann, a Trump hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out Trump’s travel ban.

FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for hatred of Trump manifest in texts to his FBI lady friend.

Strzok was also involved in the investigation of Clinton’s email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk.

In Mueller’s tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found. But a connection between Hillary’s campaign and Russian spies – to find dirt to smear and destroy Trump and his campaign – has been fairly well-established.

By June 2016, the Clinton campaign and DNC had begun shoveling millions of dollars to the Perkins Coie law firm, which had hired the oppo research firm Fusion GPS to go dirt-diving on Trump.

Fusion contacted ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who had ties to former KGB and FSB intelligence agents in Russia. They began to feed Steele, who fed Fusion, which fed the U.S. anti-Trump media with the alleged dirty deeds of Trump in Moscow hotels.

While the truth of the dirty dossier has never been established, Comey’s FBI rose like a hungry trout on learning of its contents.

There are credible allegations Comey’s FBI sought to hire Steele and used the dirt in his dossier to broaden the investigation of Trump – and that its contents were also used to justify FISA warrants on Trump and his people.

This week, we learned that the Justice Department’s Bruce Ohr had contacts with Fusion during the campaign, while his wife actually worked at Fusion investigating Trump. This thing is starting to stink.

Is the Trump investigation the rotten fruit of a poisoned tree?

Is Mueller’s Dump Trump team investigating the wrong campaign?

There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the deep state-media conspiracy to break his presidency, overturn his mandate and reinstate a discredited establishment.

Trump has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him, and the mainstream media are deeply distrusted and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to convict him.

Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the executioner’s sword fall with dignity.

If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go quietly.

In the words of the great Jerry Lee Lewis, there’s gonna be a “whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on.”


As my article above indicates, Donald Trump is more akin to Abraham Lincoln than he is to Richard Nixon. Lincoln fought hard, against all who opposed him, and was triumphant.

Nixon was not a billionaire “street fighter” like Trump is—to Trump’s credit.



What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: