It Is Time For Trump Supporters To Fight Back

29 07 2018

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Enough is enough!

Rudyard Kipling-The Beginnings

“The Beginnings” is a 1917 poem written by Rudyard Kipling.  It is about how the English, “although naturally peaceful, slowly [became] filled with a hate which [would] lead to the advent of a new epoch.  . . .  The context [was] the anti-German sentiment in Britain during World War I.”[2]

Americans of all colors, races, religious beliefs, ethnic backgrounds and origins (including native Americans), and political persuasions elected Donald Trump to change the course of the United States; and yes, to make America great again.  He is in the process of doing just that, yet the Left, the far-Left, the so-called “mainstream media,” and elements within the Republican party seek to destroy him and what he stands for.

Perhaps one of their more vocal “poster children” is the black racist Maxine Waters, who has literally called for the President’s head, and urged violence against his supporters.[3]  Equally despicable are Robert Mueller and his fellow “Deep State” co-conspirators, who sought to destroy the candidacy and the presidency of Donald Trump, and continue their traitorous actions.[4]  They must be vanquished. Nothing less will suffice; there is no other choice.

Lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.  Like the British in Kipling’s poem, who rose up to defeat German imperialism and the Nazi hordes in two world wars, Trump supporters must rise up at every opportunity to smite down those who would seek to destroy the Trump presidency and our great nation’s heritage.[5]  We are in the midst of a war—America’s second Civil War—which may get uglier with each day that passes.  The stakes are the future of our great nation and its people.  Abraham Lincoln faced similar challenges.[6]


Bald Eagle and American Flag --- Image by © Ocean/Corbis


© 2018, 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, e.g. (“The Beginnings”) and (“Rudyard Kipling”)

[3]  See, e.g. (“Maxine Waters Must Be Sent To Prison For The Rest Of Her Life”)

[4]  See (“The Department Of Injustice’s Inspector General Is Complicit In The Deep-State Cover-Up!”) (see also all of the articles and comments cited in the footnotes)

[5]  See, e.g., Zechariah 9:4 (King James Bible) (“Behold, the Lord will cast her out, and he will smite her power in the sea. . . .”)

The traitorous “Deep State” co-conspirators include but are not limited to Barack Obama; Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton; and former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch; Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Deputy AG Sally Yates; former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey; former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper; former CIA Director John Brennan; former National Security Advisor Susan Rice; former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe; Senior Advisor to Obama, Valerie Jarrett; and DOJ/FBI current or former employees such as Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Andrew Weissmann.

[6]  See, e.g. (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond”) and (“This Is War!”)



27 responses

29 07 2018
H. Craig Bradley

I agree Tim, we are in a sort of (political) “Civil War” today and its got a ways to go, as the current cycle of Wars, Terrorism, and Ugliness (Conflicts) is global in nature and just warming-up, I am afraid. However, like any other social change, there is money to be made. For example, look at the defense stocks such as Raytheon. Stock keeps going-up the uglier it gets.

At home, its mostly the young Millineals ( twenty somethings) who are the Leftist activists on the streets ( Portland, Oregon riots most recently). The younger generation is the one who is going to determine the long term future and who are most involved. Older baby boomers are pretty set in their ways, and many of them here in California are Liberals. However, they are not activists at 65 or 70.

Established, Middle Class Homeowners in Glendale, CA where I live, are pretty sanguine. If they disagree with your (political) views, then they just don’t talk to you or interact much (shy-away). To each his own. Its bland around here, even apathetic. For example, you do not see activists petitioning homeowners with conservative (voter) initiatives in Glendale or at least in my neighborhood. Nobody is much interested in current events or ‘political’ issues anyway and everyone is busy with their own lives or routines for the most part.

The Glendale City Council and the Pasadena City Council have both put a new Citywide sales tax of .75% on the Nov. 6 Ballot for their residents to vote on. Its seems they “need” a new tax. Actually, both cities “need” the extra money. I predict sales tax revenue expectations will NOT meet their expectations or projections. Still, it may still pass with historically low voter turnout in off-year elections. ( Chicago style voter fraud works well too for narrow victories ).

Why do they both “need” more money? No lid on spending, sure. No Budget. Beyond that there is that sucking sound. For example, Jacobs Engineering moved their International Corporate Headquarters from their home in Pasadena, CA to Dallas,Texas last year. Likewise, Nestle’ moved its headquarters to South Carolina from Glendale. Other less prominent firms have also moved their offices and payroll out-of-town. So, there goes part of your tax base.

To make-up for being business unfriendly, both cities are becoming more (small) business unfriendly by…… proposing a new city sales tax. Its pretty easy to get around by going to another place to do your retail transactions or consuming. Who get hurt the most? Local business who then leave as their rents or lease rates keep going-up. See where its going? Still, Glendale Liberals want to blame someone and Trump is their favorite scapegoat, of course ( “Trump Derangement Syndrome” ). Some still even want to blame President George W. Bush. Ede-gads !

The Corporate money leaves town and at the same time, the residents and fixed costs remain. Not a great combo. Californians get squeezed in other ways too, such as from recent (Federal) Tax Reform. Who should be blamed? I blame the voters first, as its where the buck stops. President Trump is far away and not inclined to do the State of California any favors. Why should he? ( Sanctuary City and State).


29 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Craig, for your thoughtful comments.

Yes, the California in which I grew up and have loved seems beset with problems that are insoluble, at least at the moment.

Also, perhaps Maxine Waters is the face of what is wrong with the State today, albeit there is plenty of blame to go around.

There are warning signs on the horizon, which may impact the State beyond the factors that you have discussed.

See, e.g., (“Southern California Home Sales Crash: A Warning Sign To The Nation?”)


30 07 2018

Wow. A very precise evaluation. So, Mr. Naegele, what do you see in the near future? If events remain unchanged, where will this all lead?

Liked by 1 person

30 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Susan, for your compliment and questions. You are very precise, and they are the key questions moving forward.

A lot will depend on November’s elections. IF the Democrats win the House, they will move ahead with impeachment proceedings, in an attempt to deny reelection to the President in 2020 and to cripple his presidency—all to the detriment of the country.

If they lose, their only hope will be Mueller’s “witch hunt,” which I believe will come to naught. This is especially true if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.

Unlike the Democrats’ efforts against Richard Nixon, Trump is a “street fighter” who is likely to fight and use every power at his disposal, just as Abraham Lincoln did.

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


30 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

The New York Times Has Sought And Continues To Seek To Topple Our Freely Elected President [UPDATED]

Fake news

The New York Sun notes in an editorial:

News that the new publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Gregg “A.G.” Sulzberger, went to the White House to implore President Trump to lay off the press brings to mind the story about a visit to President Reagan paid by an earlier publisher of the Times, Punch Sulzberger. Supposedly A.G.’s grandfather was in Washington on a routine business matter, when Reagan, newly installed in the White House, heard that he was in town and invited him to lunch.

So Sulzberger suddenly found himself in the presidential dining room with not only Reagan but also the vice president and the secretary of state. Even for a seasoned publisher, it was a heady lunch. Afterward Punch telephoned his mother, Iphigene Sulzberger, the family matriarch. “Guess whom I had lunch with,” he exclaimed. His mother said she hadn’t a clue. So he told her: The president, the vice president, and the secretary of state.

“What did they want?” she replied.

The story may be apocryphal, but how the glory days have flown. Now it’s the publisher of the Times who wants something from the president. It wouldn’t have been an unreasonable request, either — save for the source. It is the Times that has sought to seize the van in a campaign by the press to topple this freely elected president. Where in the world does it get the standing to go into the White House with a special pleading that the president cut the press some slack?

We don’t gainsay for a moment that relations between the press and the president are at a nadir. Whose fault, though, is that? Not solely the press’s or the Times’s, of course. What makes the Times special is that in August 2016, in the homestretch of the presidential campaign, it publicly questioned, in a column on its own front page, whether the traditional principles of objectivity were appropriate with Mr. Trump. Its own chief editor then endorsed the abandonment of objectivity.

What a spot that put the Times in when Mr. Trump emerged as the president-elect. About Secretary Clinton’s chances of victory, after all, the Times had “lied” — we put the word in quotes because we mean it only in the sense that the Times itself has taken to using the word “lied” — right up into election day. It clearly hoped to fulfill its own prophecy. When the Blue Wall crumbled and, on the morning of the Trump era, the dust had cleared, the Times issued a wan apology.

Fair enough, people might have said had the Times’ apology been sincere. Instead, the Times fell into a total abandon, unleashing a campaign of disdain and distortion the likes of which journalism has rarely seen. It has been egging on a special prosecutor in hopes of driving Mr. Trump from office. It has raised the ratio of rhetoric to reporting to historic highs. And who’s to stop it? Under our constitutional system, the press is, and should be, sovereign.

What is shocking is for an officer of the Times to interrupt the paper’s campaign to go into the White House and to have “implored” — that’s the word Mr. Sulzberger used — the president for special dispensation. It’s like some industrial polluter going into the Oval Office to beg the president to restrain the EPA. A.G. Sulzberger later stressed that he was not asking for Mr. Trump to soften his attacks on The Times but to “reconsider his broader attacks on journalism.”

That’s like the industrial polluter who insists he’s concerned about the broader economy. It’s still special pleading. Mr. Sulzberger went so far as to suggest that Mr. Trump’s attacks on journalists have put journalists in physical danger, particularly overseas. The demarche did little to chasten Mr. Trump; he promptly unleashed a new tirade of tweets, including one suggesting that the press’s own disclosures have put Americans in danger.

Let us say that we’ve rarely met a person who loved as much as we have what the Times once was. We want no part of Mr. Trump’s suggestion that the press has responsibilities. If the press were responsible, no one would need the First Amendment. It is needed precisely because the press has always been irresponsible. This is why the Times can run headlines like the one about how Mr. Trump is a “treasonous traitor.” If one is going to do that, though, it takes some brass to complain about presidential guff.

See (“The Trump-Sulzberger Feud“) (emphasis added); see also (“New York Times publisher and Trump clash over president’s threats against journalism“)

The New York Times is yesterday’s news, and not worth reading. This has been true for years.

Newspapers (e.g., the Los Angeles Times) and newsweeklies (e.g., Time, Newsweek) are dinosaurs destined for oblivion in this Internet age. It could not happen to a nicer or more-deserving crowd.

Indeed, Sulzberger has the gall to complain that our President incites violence when Sulzberger’s newspaper, the Left and far-Left, the rest of the so-called “mainstream media,” and certified wackos like Maxine Waters have been doing just that and have fueled the hatred and violence.

See (“How Trump Lost Re-election in 2020“); see also (“NYT Publisher Complains to Trump About ‘Potential’ Violence Against Journalists – Ignores Over 500 Violent Attacks on Trump Supporters“) and (“Maxine Waters Must Be Sent To Prison For The Rest Of Her Life“)

Newspapers are dead


30 07 2018
H. Craig Bradley

Hmm, who owns the N.Y. Times? Is it Billionaire, Jeff Bezos of Amazon ? If so, figures. Tech. is powerful and powerful individuals eventually become overtly or covertly political. Most ordinary people do not have the time or money to be politically active or have much influence.


30 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Craig.

The Washington Post is owned by Bezos. The largest shareholder in the New York Times is Mexican multi-billionaire Carlos Slim.

See and


30 07 2018
H. Craig Bradley

I guess I got the two confused. Carlos Slim, a Mexican Billionaire apparently does not exert much editorial influence with the N.Y. Times newspaper. So, I can not infer his political views. I am speculating (guessing) a bit here but I do know for a fact Carlos was from Lebanon and is a practicing Lebanese Maronite Catholic who regularly attends Sunday mass.


30 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Please click on the link that I provided above. Slim is from Mexico, not Lebanon.


30 07 2018
H. Craig Bradley

Sorry to say, Mr. Slim ( its not his real name) was born in Lebanon. Bet money on it. You can bet and then just give me your money because even if he is now a Mexican National, Mr. Slim still came originally from Lebanon and does currently attend a local (Lebanese) Maronite Catholic Church when he is visiting in SoCAL. He is always accompanied by two armed bodyguards when in the U.S.A., even in church.

I wonder if Mexico is relatively safer for him to live in. Bet it is. Lots of notions and propaganda out there about how dangerous Mexico is. Apparently not for Carlos Slim, just for California surfers with not security or bodyguards.


30 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

As cited above:

Slim was born on January 28, 1940, in Mexico City, to Julián Slim Haddad (born Khalil Salim Haddad Aglamaz) and Linda Helú Atta, both Maronite Catholics from Lebanon.


Essentially all of the billionaires and multi-billionaires have bodyguards. It is a necessity in today’s lawless and violent world.

See, e.g., (“Jerry Perenchio: Kind And Caring”)


2 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Good News For The GOP, Hispanics Are Boosting Trump’s Poll Numbers [UPDATED]

Stewart Lawrence has written for the Washington Times:

Are Hispanics shifting their allegiances to President Trump?

A recent Harvard/Harris poll recorded a 10-point spike in Hispanic support for Mr. Trump. It hasn’t received much attention from the mainstream media, which is heavily invested in its portrait of the president as an unrepentant — and unpopular — “nativist.”

Coming in the midst of the nationwide controversy over children and families at the U.S.-Mexico border, it suggests that Hispanics may not be the entrenched liberal voting constituency that Democrats so often imagine.

And consider Florida’s hotly-contested Senate race. Republican Gov. Rick Scott is besting his Democratic opponent among Hispanics, according to a Mason-Dixon poll. Historically, a large and aging Cuban-American exile community has given Republicans a decided partisan edge in the Sunshine State.

But, in recent years their children and grandchildren have grown increasingly restive and independent. Meanwhile, a large concentration of Puerto Ricans, especially in the Orlando area, has continued to bolster Democratic candidates here.

Mr. Scott is leading Mr. Nelson among both Hispanic groups, a clear sign of a sea change in this key battleground state that seems to parallel the emerging national trend.

What’s going on? Hispanics, like most mainstream voters, are waking up to post-2016 America. The economic recovery disparaged by Democrats is gathering steam and Hispanics — at 17 percent, the nation’s most populous ethnic minority — are clearly benefitting. Unemployment among Hispanics has fallen to its lowest level in decades, and there’s little doubt that Mr. Trump’s pro-business policies are the reason.

There’s even more cause for optimism looking ahead. Mr. Trump’s $1 billion infrastructure plan will benefit the country as a whole, of course, but there’s a silver lining for Hispanics, who constitute nearly 30 percent of the U.S. construction workforce, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In fact, more than half the Hispanic job growth in recent years has occurred in construction, which is poised to expand even further as workers rebuild the nation’s long-neglected airports, bridges and roads.

Hispanic contractors and workers are already in the forefront of Mr. Trump’s border wall construction plan — a painful irony for the president’s liberal immigration critics. Most of these contractors are U.S. citizens or long-time permanent residents, proud Americans committed to keeping their homeland safe and secure.

In fact, the recent tilt in Hispanic support toward the GOP has highlighted the divergences in partisan affiliation that have existed for years, especially among different Hispanic nationalities. Most Central American and Caribbean Hispanics tilt Democratic. However, in addition to Cuban-Americans, relatively large percentages of Mexican-Americans in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and even southern California have often voted for Republican candidates.

Under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, roughly 40 percent of Hispanics overall voted Republican. And in 2013, the New Jersey governor won an unprecedented 51 percent of the Hispanic vote in his re-election campaign against a popular Democratic candidate and her Latina running [m]ate. Mr. Trump himself defied expectations by garnering nearly 30 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2016.

Hispanics, despite liberal pigeon-holing, defy easy characterization. Like most Republicans, they are pro-military and pro-law and order. They are also more conservative on social issues — especially abortion — than the average voter. At the same time, many support generous government support for welfare, education and health care.

Based on past polls and past voting behavior, about 20-25 percent of Hispanics consistently vote Republican in national elections. By contrast, roughly 45-40 percent vote Democratic. That leaves a “swing” constituency of about 30-35 percent. How they vote depends largely on the quality of the candidates, their leadership abilities and their attitudes toward Hispanics as an ethnic group.

Immigration does play an important role in how Hispanics vote, but it is not the overriding issue that liberals so often portray it to be. Hispanics do support leniency toward undocumented immigrants that have lived and worked in the United States for long periods, paying their taxes, raising families and staying out of trouble. But they also support tough enforcement measures at the border and in the U.S. interior, including crackdowns on lawless “sanctuary” cities.

What Hispanics don’t support is a broad-based campaign against immigrants that might deliberately or inadvertently stigmatize Hispanics as a whole.

Mr. Trump, it appears, is making real progress in the face of a massive liberal propaganda campaign depicting him as hostile to Hispanics, especially Mexicans.

In addition to the practical effects of his policies, Mr. Trump’s flexibility on granting legal status to the DREAMers — which has raised the hackles of Republican conservatives — has impressed his Hispanic skeptics. And Mr. Scott’s massive statewide ad campaign in Spanish has helped him connect in areas of Florida that might traditionally favor Mr. Nelson.

Right now, it’s too early to tell what this new Hispanic voter trend may mean for 2020. But in a number of close House races in California, polling suggests that Hispanics disaffected from the Democrats are likely to sit out this November’s election, which could help the GOP retain control of Congress.

“Si se puede,” President Obama used to say. Now, it may be the Republicans’ turn.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Hispanic unemployment again hits new record low in July“) and (“Trump Approval at 50% — 5 POINTS HIGHER THAN OBAMA at Same Point in His Presidency“) and (“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance“)

Now the following must take place: (1) the despicable traitor Robert Mueller’s witch hunt must be shut down immediately, and he and others must be prosecuted for treason and other crimes; (2) Paul Ryan must be deposed as Speaker of the House, instead of allowing him to pursue his personal agenda of being a roadblock to anything positive in the House; (3) non-Trump supporting Republicans must be purged from the Congress; and (4) the GOP must retain both chambers of the Congress to prevent the un-American Left from initiating nation-killing impeachment proceedings against our President.

See, e.g., (“WHO ARE WE, THE AMERICANS?“) and (“The New York Times Has Sought And Continues To Seek To Topple Our Freely Elected President“) and (“Maxine Waters Must Be Sent To Prison For The Rest Of Her Life“) and (“DEMAND IMPEACHMENT OF ROD ROSENSTEIN!“) and (“Jeff Sessions Defends Rosenstein, And Must Be Removed As Attorney General“) and (“Are Paul Ryan And The Neanderthals In the GOP Leading The Party To Crushing Defeats In November?“)

By and large, Hispanic-Americans are wonderful, hard-working, gifted individuals, who are a credit to our society. Many of us grew up with them, and love their food and culture. Indeed, others among us have relatives who are part Hispanic today.

It is important to note:

White Americans are Americans who are descendants from any of the white racial groups of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, or in census statistics, those who self-report as white based on having majority-white ancestry. White Americans (including White Hispanics) constitute the majority, with a total of about 246,660,710, or 77.35% of the population as of 2014. Non-Hispanic whites totaled about 197,870,516, or 62.06% of the U.S. population.

See (“White Americans“)

By way of contrast, black Americans or African Americans represented 12.7 percent of the total U.S. population in 2016.

See (“African Americans“) and (“Blacks’ approval of Trump reaches a high of 21% and NAACP charges ‘racism'”)


2 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

CNN’s Jim Acosta Cowers In A Padded Cell

Jim Acosta the Devil Incarnate

Fewer Americans watch CNN.

Lots of us used to watch it, but not anymore. We will boycott CNN until it changes, or disappears completely.

David Martosko has written for the UK’s Daily Mail:

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders visbly upset some journalists during a briefing on Thursday when she complained about physical dangers she has faced in her job and her unprecedented need for Secret Service protection, and blamed the reporters in the room for causing it.

Challenging her directly, one reporter responded: ‘Tell that to the five dead journalists in Maryland.’

On June 28 a gunman stormed the newsroom at the Annapolis Capital newspaper and shot dead John McNamara, Gerald Fischman, Rob Hiaasen, Wendi Winters and Rebecca Smith.

Another journalist at the White House Thursday griped afterward: ‘She’s going to get us killed!’

Hours earlier Ivanka Trump had expressed disagreement with the President Donald Trump’s repeated claim that the political media are ‘the enemy of the people.’

‘I have certainly received my fair share of reporting on me personally that I know not to be fully accurate,’ the first daughter said during an event convened by the Axios news website, ‘so I have some sensitivity around why people have concerns and gripe, especially when they sort of feel targeted.’

‘But no, I do not feel that the media is the enemy of the people.’

When a CNN correspondent asked Sanders if she would follow suit, she deflected the question.

Donald Trump, however, split a hair online later in the afternoon.

‘They asked my daughter Ivanka whether or not the media is the enemy of the people. She correctly said no,’ he tweete[d].

‘It is the FAKE NEWS, which is a large percentage of the media, that is the enemy of the people!’

The president first uncorked the controversial epithet less than a month into his presidency, tweeting that ‘The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!’

As with Thursday’s pronouncment, he limited his griping to a subset of the political press.

Trump most recently used the incendiary phrase four days ago, in a tweet about his reported conversation with New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger.

They ‘[s]pent much time talking about the vast amounts of Fake News being put out by the media,’ Trump recalled on Sunday, ‘& how that Fake News has morphed into phrase, “Enemy of the People.” Sad!’

He had announced on Twitter two weeks earlier, before a press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin that drew critiques and catcalls from reporters, that ‘[m]uch of our news media is indeed the enemy of the people.’

Sanders seemed to back up that sentiment on Thursday.

She told the CNN reporter, Jim Acosta, that it was ‘ironic’ to see ‘you and the media attack the president for his rhetoric when they frequently lower the level of conversation in this country.’

Acosta is among the network’s most vocal and consistent Trump skeptics.

Complaining about her own treatment that she sees as a consequence of media bias, she said some of the president’s adversaries have ‘said I should be harassed as a life sentence. That I should be choked.’

The was a reference to CNN anchor Nicole Wallace, who apologized in May for asking White House correspondent Kristen Welker: ‘How do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her neck?’

She also recalled comedienne Michelle Wolf’s stand-up act at this year’s White House Correspondents Association dinner, a vicious take-down that included a jab at her looks and an insulting characterization of her as ‘a traitor to my own gender.’

‘That wasn’t us!’ a reporter retorted as Sanders continued to insist that ‘the media continues to ratchet up the verbal assault against the president and everyone in this administration.’

‘And as far as I know,’ Sanders said, ‘I’m the first press secretary in the history of the United States that’s required Secret Service protection.’

Ultimately she sidestepped the question about ‘enemy of the people’ rhetoric, saying she was at the briefing room podium to relay the president’s views, not to state her own.

American Urban Radio Networks reporter April Ryan posted an Instagram video afterward, declaring: ‘Many in the media are very upset after this briefing.’

‘Never in my wildest dreams would I think that I would be called an enemy of the people, or a press secretary would never take those words back, because we ask questions!’ she said.

Sanders has carried particular resentments toward the press corps since the April correspondents dinner when Wolf said she looked like the frumpy Anut Lydia character in the Hulu series ‘A Handmaid’s Tale.’

Wold also called her ‘really resourceful. She burns facts and uses the ash to create a perfect smokey eye. Maybe she’s born with it, maybe it’s lies. It’s probably lies.’

And Wolf drew a mixture of hisses and guffaws by saying she wanted to coin a peculiar nickname for Sanders: ‘What’s Uncle Tom but for white women who disappoint other white women?’

See (“‘I was attacked at a restaurant, mocked for my looks, need Secret Service protection and it’s the media’s fault’: Sarah Sanders REFUSES to say the press is not the ‘enemy of the people’ in angry clash with CNN’s Jim Acosta”) (emphasis added)

Acosta is the Devil incarnate, who should be harassed nonstop until he ends up in a padded cell for the rest of his life.


4 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


Lots of us are Independents, or non-affiliated; and we rejected both political parties years ago, and have never looked back.

At the same time, we voted for President Trump, and are proud and very pleased with what he has accomplished thus far.

Are there some things with which we disagree, regarding his style from time to time, or some of his positions on issues? Sure, but that is true of spouses and best friends, and family members.

To turn the clock back to the racist presidency of Barack Obama, or to Leftist and far-Leftist policies, would be a tragedy for our great nation. Those who have joined the #WalkAway movement—abandoning the Democrats and the Left—are right on target, and must be commended and supported.

See, e.g., (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

As Mike DeBonis has written for The Washington Post:

A Democratic takeover of either chamber of Congress stands to set off investigations into President Donald Trump and his personal finances, members of his family, and senior administration officials, an onslaught that raises the stakes for the midterm elections.

While some Democrats have pressed for Trump’s impeachment, what would be certain is that Democratic committee chairs would swamp Trump and his deputies with subpoenas, document requests and public hearings that would bog down his administration and distract from his agenda ahead of the 2020 elections.

Already, congressional Democrats have amassed dozens of oversight requests targeting the White House, various Cabinet departments and private entities with business ties to Trump and his family.

So far those requests have mostly been ignored by the Republican majorities in the House and Senate. But if Democrats seize committee gavels, they would regain a plethora of tools to probe Trump over the next two years.

“Everything gets investigated,” said Thomas M. Davis III, the Republican former chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, discussing the implications for Trump. “You spend half your time answering subpoenas, digging up documents and having your people appear before these committees. . . . Frankly, your legacy is ruined at that point.”

Davis lost his gavel after the 2006 midterms, and Democrats spent the next two years hammering at President George W. Bush – using their power to elevate a national debate over the Iraq War while also shedding light on other missteps, such as the firings of U.S. attorneys and the use of private email servers by White House political staffers.

Four years later, Republicans turned the tables when they took control of the House after the 2010 midterms. They fired investigative salvos at President Barack Obama, taking aim at the Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny of conservative nonprofit groups, a failed Justice Department operation that resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent and the deadly attack on U.S. installations in Benghazi, Libya, among other controversies.

Some nonpartisan political forecasters now favor Democrats to flip the 23 seats necessary to win a House majority, citing fundraising, special-election results and national polling. There is a much narrower chance Democrats capture the Senate, due to an electoral map that heavily favors the GOP.

The risks of Democratic oversight for Trump and his administration stand apart from the more loaded question of impeachment – a possibility that both Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have sought to down play despite broad support for it among Democratic voters.

Some outside Trump advisers have mused in recent days that losing the House would be a political disaster but saw a silver lining in the possibility that Democrats would veer left next year and be a foil for Trump, according to two Republicans familiar with those discussions who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Those who served in the last GOP administration that dealt with a Democratic congressional majority said Trump and his allies would be making a mistake to minimize the consequences.

“There is a never-ending stream of outrage,” said Scott Jennings, a Republican political consultant who served in the final three years of the Bush White House. “The only difference is, now all of their outrage is directed at Twitter. But when you give somebody a gavel, they can actually hurt you.”

Jennings, who was among those investigated over the private email servers, predicted “investigatory paralysis” for the Trump administration if Democrats retake either chamber: “It will bog officials and staffers from the most senior levels of government to the lower levels,” he said. “Their mission would be to stop the EPA or any other regulatory agency from just functioning, basically, until they can regain power.”

Democrats are openly indicating that they will aggressively investigate Trump in a way that his own party hasn’t if they ultimately secure subpoena power. The investigative requests Democrats have already made over the past 18 months are a likely template for those efforts.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, for instance, released a 38-page summary in April of their attempts to probe Trump and his administration – including dozens of letters, legislative maneuvers and court filings. Few of those have generated any substantive response, the report conceded, but “these oversight efforts help lay the predicate for action by the committee if the Democrats retake the House majority in the fall.”

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee – the panel with the broadest investigative jurisdiction in Congress – was careful not to presume Democrats would regain control. But he said in an interview it was difficult not to contemplate the possibilities that would come with not only subpoena power, but also a much larger staff and investigative budget.

“You dream every day what you would do if you were in the majority,” he said.

Since Trump took office, Oversight Committee Republicans have blocked more than 50 Democratic subpoena requests ranging from documents pertaining to the administration’s health-care policies to information on the government’s use of chartered airplanes to a demand for testimony from former Trump strategist Steve Bannon.

Cummings acknowledged that his committee would take a close look at Trump and his administration, “exposing it where I believe that it is harmful to our country,” he said, but would also scrutinize policy issues such as prescription drug prices, postal reform and preparations for the 2020 Census.

“I want to actually use the hearings and the investigations to do something,” he said. “I’m not looking for any shows, like theater. I’m looking to try to resolve problems. So we’ll be looking at the Trump administration, but I don’t want people to get confused.”

Mindful of not appearing presumptuous about November’s results, both Cummings and a senior Democratic leadership aide said there has not yet been any effort in the House to develop a coordinated oversight agenda ready to deploy if Democrats regain the majority.

Unlike the partisan congressional probes into Bush and Obama, which focused mainly on alleged missteps by subordinates, Democrats are primed to put the president himself in the investigative crosshairs in a manner not seen since the public learned of Bill Clinton’s Oval Office trysts.

For one, Democrats would be able to inspect Trump’s federal income tax returns for the first time – a trove that they have long demanded but Republicans have shown no interest in obtaining. Under federal law, any tax return can be examined by the chairman of any of the three congressional tax committees.

Other information regarding Trump’s personal finances and business dealings could also be subject to Democrats’ prying eyes. They could include rosters of hotel clients and members of Trump golf and social clubs, as well as details of real estate deals that his companies have participated in. Some information is already in government hands, such as monthly cash reports on Trump’s Washington hotel, which is operated in the federally owned Old Post Office under a lease with the General Services Administration.

Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee have repeatedly sought records pertaining to Trump’s business dealings.

Last year, they called on the panel’s Republican majority to issue subpoenas to Deutsche Bank seeking copies of documents “related to any internal reviews of the personal accounts of the President and his family” – including records pertaining to hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to both the Trump Organization and companies affiliated with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

The Democratic leadership aide said that a likely oversight priority would be to shed light on the Trump administration’s efforts to undo policies enacted under the Obama administration, including the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law and various civil rights policies.

Democrats on virtually every House and Senate committee have pressed the Trump administration for answers on various controversies. The top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., has made repeated requests for information on the response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico last year, as well as Trump’s controversial border policies.

Four Democratic senators on Thursday requested a Pentagon investigation into whether the White House improperly offered tours of Air Force One to members of Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida.

See (“Trump’s worst political nightmare? Democrats with subpoena power“) (emphasis added)

Again, lots of us began as Democrats, but will NEVER vote for one again!


4 08 2018
H. Craig Bradley


Much speculation about nothing for now. To begin with, the House is not necessarily destined flip over to a Democratic majority at this time. Democrats were routed by the Defeat of Their Flag-bearer, Hillary Clinton. Still lying in the dust after their champion left the scene, Democrats have yet to even regroup, let alone mount a offensive for the Nov. Midterm Elections. The Democrats are still in disarray, stunned at their defeat nearly two years ago and still pursuing the Russian Collusion Theory and Investigations. This has delayed the time when Democrats might have something else to offer besides complaining and constant criticism. You have to have more to offer than that to win. Democrats for now have nothing worthwhile to offer.


4 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Craig, for your comments.

I agree completely. 🙂


4 08 2018

The time has come to make them bleed for their violence against us.


5 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

At the very least, they must be destroyed at the ballot box in November.

Also, the despicable Robert Mueller’s witch hunt must be shut down; and he and his fellow co-conspirators must be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for treason and their many other crimes.


5 08 2018
H. Craig Bradley


No, the time has NOT come for violence by anybody and advocating such a response here is not wise but foolish. Nobody wins a war, class war or “Civil War”. War causes everybody to lose something. Now, its true the country is equally divided politically and not in a mood to compromise or work with the other side. So, the feeling is mutual.

The Media with their non-stop hate Trump diatribes is inciting more hate and ill will with the people. Eventually, in some select locations (cities), we might see civil unrest. It could happen anywhere, from L.A. or San Diego. If trends keep-up, we can expect more street violence somewhere ( Chicago ). Most of my neighbors will be “hiding” in their homes comfortably if and when civil unrest erupts. No reward for being a Hero or a Rambo in civil society. Just take care of yourself and avoid the hot spots, if any.


5 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Craig, for your comments.

First, with respect to your title, we are a multi-cultural nation, which has been true since the beginning.

See (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”) (see also the comments beneath the article)

Second, with all due respect, we would not have a nation today if Lincoln, Grant and others had not fought back.

They did so, and preserved the union; and yes, Lincoln defied the courts when it was necessary to do so.

See, (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond”) and (“Ulysses S. Grant: An American Hero”)

Third, having endured the student riots at Berkeley, the Watts riots in Los Angeles, riots in Washington, D.C. when Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed, and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, I concluded long ago that they were vicious and senseless.

Fortunately, our law enforcement shut them down, and served as our great nation’s “enforcers,” restoring the rule of law. In a larger sense, this is what Lincoln, Grant and our miltary did too.

Obviously, other shining examples include Hitler’s Nazi hordes who overran Europe until they were stopped and destroyed. Tragically, no one saved the more than 60 million human beings who disappeared without a trace in the Soviet and Chinese Holocausts of the 20th Century.

See (“The Silent Voices Of Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust And Mao’s Chinese Holocaust”)


5 08 2018
John Ackerby

If irrefutable evidence that Team Trump conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election [existed,] you’ll still be singing praises for Trump because you don’t care if Trump is under Putin’s thumb.


5 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

With all due respect, neither the President nor his team members conspired with Russia or its killer Putin. They did not need to, inter alia, because Hillary and the Dems did themselves in.

Also, Putin is a lightweight whose days are numbered.

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


7 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele



I preface the comments that follow with the admission that I did not believe Barack Obama would win a second term in 2012, and said so.

See (“Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who Will Not Be Reelected“); see also (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

In retrospect, I might have been more prudent and changed the title of my article to read: “Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who May Not Be Reelected.”

This time around, and in 2020, lots of so-called “respected” political seers are predicting our President’s demise, and staggering congressional losses for the GOP in November.

For example, the UK’s Economist has argued:

What do women think of Donald Trump? The most recent Gallup polling suggests 35% of women approve of the president’s performance, compared with 49% of men. That 14-point difference is one of the largest since his term began. This discontent may have a big effect on the mid-term elections in November, particularly if it motivates young women to vote.

Democrats have long held an edge over Republicans amongst women voters. Mr Trump won the presidency with 52 percent of men’s votes and 41 percent of women’s votes. In 2012 Barack Obama won 55 percent of women’s votes compared with 45 percent of men’s votes, suggesting a gender gap that differs by only one percentage point. At the end of 2017, according to Pew, 39% of women identified as Democrats compared with 26% of men; that female support is similar to the level in 1998. (28 percent of men and 25 percent of women identify as Republicans, the rest of the population identify as independent).

Mr Trump’s time in office has seen intensifying animosity towards him from women. CBS polling earlier this year suggested 50% of women think that the president’s policies have mostly hurt women, compared with 7% percent suggesting they have mostly helped. And his gender gap in presidential approval ratings is particularly large—about twice as large as those for Presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton. As a measure of the strength of feeling against him, a Quinnipiac poll in late June found that 46% of women would like to see Democrats begin impeachment proceedings against Mr Trump if they win control of the House of Representatives this autumn. That compares with 29% of men. The nomination of a second Supreme Court justice who is seen as a probable vote for overturning Roe v Wade, and the ongoing harassment allegations against the president himself have not helped matters. They could sustain the depth of disapproval all the way to elections in November.

Most voters are looking at the mid-terms at least in part as a referendum on Mr Trump’s performance (26% positively; 34% negatively). Surveys suggest women have a slight edge over men in terms of enthusiasm to vote this year—the Quinnipiac poll had 51% of women reporting themselves more motivated to vote than usual, compared with 46% of men. That will favour Democrats even more than it usually does: 56% of women reported being Democrats or leaning Democratic compared with 37% leaning towards or identifying as Republican. The share of women leaning or identifying as Democratic is the highest-equal since 1992 (matching the level in 2008).

There are other signs of high motivation levels amongst left-leaning women. A series of protests led by women brought out more than 3m people in 2017 and more than a million at the start of 2018. And there has been a surge in women running for office. Democratic women have won a record 105 house primaries in this election cycle. Just 25 Republican women have done the same. Traditionally, women voters have not shown any preference for women candidates. But that is changing, particularly amongst the young. A third of women aged 18-34 report that they would prefer to vote for a woman candidate.

Anti-Trump feeling is particularly strong amongst that same demographic group. Just 5% of women aged 18-34 had a very favourable opinion of Trump in a March poll compared with 56% with a very unfavourable opinion. Whether that translates into polling-day results depends on how many come out to vote. Turnout amongst younger groups typically lags older ones, who swung behind Mr Trump in 2016 and have not changed their minds. In the 2014 mid-term elections, only 16% of 18-29 year olds voted, compared with 55% of those over the age of 60. Republican candidates will have to hope apathy overcomes antipathy amongst young women on November 6th.

See (“Women, especially younger ones, could swing the mid-terms“) (emphasis added)

With all due respect to the Economist—which, like other UK and EU publications, does not understand U.S. politics—American women are some of the staunchest Trump supporters.

The fact is that the Democrats are not resonating, in no small part because they prefer illegals over Americans. This wave is hitting Europe too, after the disastrous policies of Angela Merkel and others.

The Democrats have lost white voters. Hispanics and others are moving to Trump; and Americans do not trust the Left and far-Left so-called “mainstream” media, which seeks to topple our President and destroy his presidency and accomplishments.

The Left’s eco-Nazis are being soundly rejected; and the Democrats’ “poster children,” like the super-racist Maxine Waters, are an anathema to most Americans. They understand that the real Russian collusion, criminality and treason has involved Barack Obama, the Clintons and others; and that the greatest traitor in American history may be the totally-despicable Robert Mueller.

At the very least, he should spend the rest of his life in prison where his fellow inmates will dispense true justice to him.

See, e.g., (“Democrats Choose Illegals Over Americans!“) and (“DEMOCRATS HAVE LOST WHITE VOTERS“) and (“Good News For The GOP, Hispanics Are Boosting Trump’s Poll Numbers“) and (“The New York Times Has Sought And Continues To Seek To Topple Our Freely Elected President“) and (“New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate“) and (“The Consummate Un-American Black Racist And Race Hustler“) and (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) and (“Robert Mueller Should Be Executed For Treason“) and (“What Atrocities Did Robert Mueller Commit In Vietnam?“)

Lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.


7 08 2018
H. Craig Bradley

Bill O’Reilly said last night on his podcast that its the Independent Voters who determine whether President Trump wins a second term in 2020. So, who cares about the women ? They are not the voters that will determine our next president or keep Trump in office unless they are also Independents who happen to vote, as well. Know your base. Women are only coming along for the ride, perhaps.


7 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments, Craig.

First, Bill O’Reilly is not a respected authority for anything, anymore. As I have written:

Tragically, with the passage of time, what looms largest is that O’Reilly purportedly paid $32 million to FOX’s Lis Wiehl, and he has never denied it.

No one pays a staggering sum of money to someone else, and especially $32 million, unless they are guilty as sin.

See (“Will Newsmax TV Replace FOX, And Star Bill O’Reilly?”) (emphasis added)

O’Reilly has no credibility today, and may well be the Harvey Weinstein of FOX.

Second, I am an Independent and have been since I left the U.S. Senate. According to recent Gallup polling, approximately 42 percent of Americans “identify” as Independents, of which I am proudly one.

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

Women and Independents, and Independent women, are vital to President Trump and his campaign; and none are ignored, or belittled.


8 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Boasts He Went 5 For 5 In Tuesday’s Elections

Teflon Don

Jordan Fabian has written for TheHill:

President Trump on Wednesday boasted that all five candidates he endorsed in this week’s elections won their races, even as contests in Ohio and Kansas were too close to call.

The president declared victory in a brief tweet: “5 for 5!”

Trump in a second tweet accused the media of downplaying the Republican Party’s record of success in special elections.

“The Republicans have now won 8 out of 9 House Seats, yet if you listen to the Fake News Media you would think we are being clobbered. Why can’t they play it straight, so unfair to the Republican Party and in particular, your favorite President!” he wrote.

The president left out a special election in Southern California to replace former Rep. Xavier Becerra (D) in which no major Republican candidate ran.

Trump also claimed that “as long as I campaign and/or support Senate and House candidates (within reason), they will win!” and said Republicans will “have a giant Red Wave” in November’s midterms “if I find the time” to hit the campaign trail.

Trump sent the messages from his New Jersey golf club, where he is spending the week on vacation.

Troy Balderson, a Trump-backed Republican running in a House special election in Ohio, held a narrow lead over his upstart Democratic challenger after Tuesday night’s voting.

The same goes for Republican Kris Kobach, who was less than 200 votes ahead of incumbent Gov. Jeff Colyer (R) in Kansas’s GOP gubernatorial primary.

Even if both candidates pull out victories, the close results are not encouraging for Trump and the Republican Party.

Balderson’s district is solidly Republican and has been in the GOP’s hands since 1983. But Republican groups were forced to spend millions of dollars to fend off Democrat Danny O’Connor, and Trump made a last-minute stop in the district to stage a rally for Balderson.

In Kansas, Trump’s endorsement did not give Kobach a decisive edge like it did in Georgia’s gubernatorial primary or in a South Carolina House primary, where it propelled his hand-picked candidates to victory.

Still, Trump’s team sought to portray the results as clear-cut wins.

“Clearly, the president’s support was pivotal in GOP primaries yesterday,” Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement. “President Trump is delivering the right kind of leadership, results, and inspiration to unify our party at just the right time to keep America winning.”

Trump-backed candidates pulled off two wins in Michigan, where John James won the GOP Senate primary and Bill Schuette won the party’s nod for governor. Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley (R) won the state’s Senate primary.

See (emphasis added; Tweets omitted); see also (“Democratic Party’s liberal insurgency hits a wall in Midwest primaries“) and (“Why it’s time for Donald Trump to play his ace in the hole“)


12 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Sen. Graham: DOJ Probe Of Trump Campaign Corrupt At The Core

Lindsey Graham

Will miracles never cease? Eric Mack has written for

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., ripped the Department of Justice for starting the investigation into the Trump campaign — “corrupt at the core”— under the direction of DOJ No. 4 Bruce Ohr, whose wife worked for Fusion GPS and “was at least unethical.”

“Here’s what I would tell the American people — both campaigns were investigated by the FBI and the Department of Justice in 2016 — when it came to the Clinton campaign, she got a pass,” Graham told “Fox News Sunday.” “The criminal investigation of the Clinton campaign was a joke. When it came to the Trump campaign, it was corrupt, it was biased, and I think unethical.

“Mr. Ohr should not have had any role investigating the Trump campaign because his wife worked at Fusion GPS.”

Ohr’s wife’s company was hired by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump, hiring Christopher Steele, a former British agent who went to Russia to gather “a dossier, which I think is a bunch of political garbage,” Graham said.

Graham pointed to a DOJ political double standard with then-candidate Trump and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who fired a potential Chinese spy after being alerted by the DOJ.

“When it came time to, they never did the same for Trump,” Graham said. “These investigations against Trump were corrupt at the core. They gave Clinton a pass.

“Bruce Ohr was at least unethical. We need a special counsel to look at all things Department of Justice and FBI when it came to the Trump investigation, particularly the counterintelligence investigation.”

See (emphasis added)

Graham has not been much of a Trump supporter. Perhaps the fact that the President has such fervent supporters in the GOP has affected Graham’s thinking and actions. Also, he is up for reelection in 2020. 🙂



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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: