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!”)



67 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?”)


22 08 2018

New Jersey is becoming the next California, with the new, progressive Governor. He wants the state to be a “welcoming (i.e., sanctuary) state”, taxes keep rising and small businesses and residents are relocating to more affordable states.


22 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Keith, for your comments.

It seems like lots of States, on the Left Coast and the Eastern corridor, are going berserk.


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”)

Liked by 1 person

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.

See, e.g., (“‘The Time Will Come When This Is a Digital-Only News Organization’: A.G. Sulzberger, Sam Dolnick, and David Perpich Open Up About Succession, Trump, and the Eventual End of Print”)

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 [UPDATED]

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

See, e.g., (“Trump Attacks CNN’s Jim Acosta as “Rude, Terrible Person” During Press Briefing“) and (“Trump Rips Into CNN’s Jim Acosta: ‘You Are a Rude, Terrible Person’”)


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. 🙂



16 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

New York’s Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo: America Was Never That Great

See also (“In knocking Trump, Cuomo criticized for saying America ‘was never that great'”)

Barack Obama set the tone for the Democrats, by (1) trashing any notion of American “exceptionalism,” (2) promoting racism, and (3) unleashing treasonous actions to destroy the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump.

Cuomo is merely the latest proponent of such un-Americanism.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?“)


22 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

It Is Time For Trump Supporters To Rejoice [UPDATED]

Democrats are losers

Jason L. Riley has written for the Wall Street Journal:

Donald Trump has long demonstrated a knack for getting his political opponents to make fools of themselves. Sen. Marco Rubio learned this the hard way on the 2016 campaign trail when he tried to out-Trump Mr. Trump. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and former CIA chief John Brennan got caught in the trap last week.

Mr. Cuomo took issue with Mr. Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” telling an audience full of Democrats that “we’re not going to make America great again—it was never that great.” The audience booed. Mr. Cuomo was attempting to insult the president but wound up insulting the country and then spent several days walking back what he said. Mr. Cuomo’s late father, Mario, also served as governor of New York. He once remarked: “There are few things more amusing in the world of politics than watching moderate Republicans charging to the right in pursuit of greater glory.” His son is evidence that such behavior is bipartisan.

Mr. Brennan, who called Mr. Trump’s July press conference with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin “nothing short of treasonous” on Twitter, had his security clearance revoked by the president last week. But during an appearance on MSNBC a few days later, he rescinded his comment. “I didn’t mean that he committed treason. But it was a term that I used,” he said. “Sometimes my Irish comes out.” Mr. Trump’s statements after the meeting with Mr. Putin were roundly criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike, and Mr. Brennan was free to add his voice. But a former top intelligence officer who wants to decry the president’s reckless behavior on cable news and social media might want to be more mindful of his own behavior.

Likewise, the political press has decided that its job isn’t merely to inform the public but also to take down the current White House, even if such efforts cost journalism what little credibility it has left. Last Thursday, hundreds of newspapers nationwide simultaneously published editorials attacking Mr. Trump in the guise of promoting a free press. The president regularly accuses news outlets of biased coverage. He prefers tweets and rallies to news conferences because he doesn’t trust the Washington Post and CNN to give him or his agenda a fair shake. Mr. Trump’s base comprises tens of millions of voters convinced that the media is as eager as the Democratic Party to run their guy out of office, and last week’s stunt only feeds those fears. Journalists who don’t like what the president has said about the press might want to start behaving like objective reporters instead of liberal political activists.

Take the economy, which is faring better under Mr. Trump by many measures than it has in a generation or longer. Each week throughout this summer has brought almost nothing but economic sunshine. The pace of factory hiring has more than doubled since last year. A July survey from the National Federation of Independent Business notes that optimism among small-business owners, who employ nearly half the nation’s private-sector workforce, is at levels not seen since 1983. Wages are also increasing, which was reflected in a Commerce Department report last week that showed retail sales—on groceries, restaurants and clothing—far exceeding economic forecasts and surging at double the rate of inflation.

The best feature of this economic growth is its inclusiveness. The simultaneous gains among various demographic groups is something the country hasn’t experienced in a long time, if ever. Older workers, women, minorities, seniors and the less-educated all are faring better in the labor force today than they did under President Obama. The jobless rate for Americans age 16 to 24 hit a 50-year low this summer. In May, the black unemployment rate dipped to 5.9%, the lowest number on record at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. People who had stopped looking for work are sending out resumes. More people are quitting jobs because they are confident that a better one awaits. Employers are increasing perks and benefits in an effort to attract new hires and keep the ones they already have. There were 6.7 million job openings last quarter, a 17-year high.

When the media reports this good news, the stories too often resemble a Democratic National Committee press release. The main objective is to assure you that Mr. Trump’s tax cuts and regulatory reform had nothing to do with it, that his predecessor deserves the real credit or that it was all just inevitable. Hogwash.

For all of his faults, the president deserves some praise for the ramped-up economy, just as he’ll deserve blame if his counterproductive trade wars reverse these gains over time. Covering the Russia meddling investigation and keeping the White House honest is important, but these things are hardly the sum of Mr. Trump’s presidency. Reporters look foolish when they insist otherwise.

See (“The Media Keep Falling Into the Trump Trap“) (emphasis added); see also (“Newspapers Are Dead, Not Dying“)

Should Trump supporters despair that Trump campaign aide Paul Manafort has been convicted, or that President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to another set of charges? NO, these are simply more ripples in the water, brought to Americans by the despicable traitor Robert Mueller and his “Deep State” co-conspirators.

See, e.g., (“Storm clouds gather for GOP as midterms approach – but forecast isn’t clear“) and (“Dershowitz: Trump ‘Absolutely’ Did Nothing Wrong With Payments“) and (Ann Coulter: “The Pantsuit That Cried Wolf”)

First, Donald Trump is NOT George W. Bush. By comparison, GWB was a pathetic wimp—who brought us the tragic Iraq War in which 5,000 Americans died, and many more were maimed, while trillions of dollars were wasted, for nothing.

Second, GWB never had an army of fervent, dedicated supporters with him. Trump does, and they are more determined than ever.

Third, the Democrats have veered farther to the Left than ever; and those in America’s Center—Republicans, Independents, and what used to be described as “Reagan Democrats”—do not relate to them.

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

Fourth, Lanny Davis—Cohen’s attorney—has been one of the most-outspoken Clinton sycophants to have lived. Representing the slimeball Cohen is a combination “made in Heaven.” It guarantees that Trump will never pardon Cohen, and that he will rot in prison.


Fifth, unlike GWB, Trump is a “street fighter” and always has been. He will be campaigning nonstop for candidates who support him between now and election day, and energizing (1) the GOP base, (2) moderates, (3) Independents, and (4) #WalkAway Democrats who are fed up with the Left and far-Left, and yes with Socialists.

Sixth, the economy is humming along, and black and Hispanic unemployment has never been better.

Seventh, the faces of the Dems today are (1) the black racist Maxine Waters and her fellow racists in the Black Caucus; (2) Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi; (3) Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry, who won’t go away; (4) Antifa and other violent Leftist groups; (5) those advocating open borders and an end to ICE; (6) etc, etc.

Eighth, Brett Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed as a Justice of our Supreme Court before the Court’s October term begins, which means that Trump should have a majority on the Court if he needs favorable decisions from it.

Ninth, a lot can happen between now and November (e.g., North Korea, China), but right now it seems like “smooth sailing” internationally. Let’s hope things stay that way.

See also (“Dems Lean Toward Socialism“) and (“Megyn Kelly Audience Boos and Laughs at Lanny Davis For Seeking Donations For Michael Cohen“) and (“Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: ‘Bad Day,’ But Trump’s Not Out”) and (“Biden’s Still Democrats’ Choice to Challenge Trump in 2020“)

Tenth, as one Wall Street Journal commenter noted:

We just had another American woman KILLED by an Illegal found out yesterday. Why vote for more of that !!!

See (“Mollie Tibbetts’s suspected killer, in the U.S. illegally, told investigators about her final moments“) and (“Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts died of ‘multiple sharp force injuries'”) and (“Democrats Choose Illegals Over Americans“)

Eleventh, the so-called “mainstream” media and President Trump’s critics have missed the forest for the trees, and continue to ignore, obfuscate and distort the greatest scandal in American history: the efforts by Barack Obama’s “Deep State” to destroy the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump—which has been and continues to be treasonous.

See, e.g., (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) and (“Robert Mueller Should Be Executed For Treason“) and (“What Atrocities Did Robert Mueller Commit In Vietnam?“) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?“) and (“The Department Of Injustice’s Inspector General Is Complicit In The Deep-State Cover-Up!“) and (“The American Left’s Feeding Frenzy“) and (“It Is Time For Trump Supporters To Fight Back“) and (“Bruce And Nellie Ohr Are The Bonnie And Clyde, Or The Julius And Ethel Rosenberg, Of The Russian Hoax Scandal“) and (“FINALLY, The Traitor Peter Strzok Is Gone!“) and (“The New York Times Has Sought And Continues To Seek To Topple Our Freely Elected President“) and (“DEMAND IMPEACHMENT OF ROD ROSENSTEIN!“) and (“Jeff Sessions Defends Rosenstein, And Must Be Removed As Attorney General“) and (“One FBI Text Message In Russia Probe That Should Alarm Every American“) and (“Peter Strzok’s Arrogance Is The Product Of A Corrupt FBI“) and (“Dershowitz: Time For Mueller To End Pursuit Of The President And Say Trump Is Completely Innocent“) and (“DOJ’s Rod Rosenstein Is A Traitor“) and (“Traitor Mueller’s Pit Bull Weissmann Arranged Meeting With Reporters To Discuss Manafort Investigation“) and (“Socialist Dems Say Bernie Sanders Too Right-Wing“) and (“OUTRAGEOUS: 25 States Move To Keep Trump Off 2020 Ballot“) and (“Three Of The Five FBI Employees Dinged For Anti-Trump Bias In IG Report Ended Up Working On Mueller Probe“) and (“Yes, The President Can Pardon Himself“) and (“THE TREASONOUS ROBERT MUELLER SEEKS TO OVERTURN 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION“) and (“The Traitor Mueller Found A Very Dishonest Way To Shroud His Investigation In Secrecy“) and (“Dershowitz On Special Counsel: The Investigation Should End“) and (“ANOTHER DESPICABLE: THE TRAITOR JAMES CLAPPER“) and (“ANOTHER TRAITOR JOHN BRENNAN SQUEALS“) and (“DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-SEMITES“) and (“The Traitor Mueller Has Been Botching Investigations Since The Anthrax Attacks“) and (“ANOTHER FACE OF PURE EVIL FALLS“) and (“NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA“)

Lastly, the President’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani was correct when he stated that impeaching Trump would bring about a “people’s revolt”—in which targets would be placed on the backs of those who brought it about, with repercussions not seen in this great nation since our last Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln wasn’t timid about exercising presidential powers; and Donald Trump won’t be either. The Left must be crushed and destroyed. Lincoln had no other choice; and Trump will not either.

See (“Rudy Giuliani: Impeaching Trump would mean ‘people’s revolt'”); see also (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond“) and (David Catron: “Mueller and the Media Represent the Ancien Régime”—”Trump is the voice of a voter revolt that they intend to crush”—”The bureaucrats who support the restoration of Beltway despotism call themselves public servants, yet despise the public. The politicians who support it call themselves Democrats, yet despise democracy. . . . Mueller and his apologists know Trump is the voice of a nationwide rebellion against their authority, and realize that the threat can’t be neutralized until he is silenced. The end game is to crush what they see as a peasant’s revolt. Mueller’s function is to provide a legal pretext for removing the President from office. The role of the media is to misrepresent everything he does in order to trick independent voters into giving the Democrats a majority in the House. This will prevent Trump from continuing to act on his 2016 mandate. The Democrats will impeach the President if they gain a majority in the House, regardless of their chances of securing a conviction in the Senate. Impeachment will effectively shut down his Presidency either way. Fighting it would involve so much White House time that virtually nothing else would get done. And this is an important Democratic goal. Moreover, if Senate Republicans are as weak-kneed as they were in 1974, a conviction may not be necessary to get Trump out of the White House. If the Democrat-controlled House had impeached President Nixon in August of 1974, the Democrat-dominated Senate would not have been able to convict him without six Republican votes. . . . If the voters are crazy enough to give the Democrats a majority in the House, they will (for the third time) begin drawing up articles of impeachment. . . . All of which brings us back to the point of the collusion between Mueller, the Media, and the Democrats. They are out to get Trump only because they want to crush the populist revolt and restore the Ancien Régime. They have no respect for democracy and even less for the voters. They want to disenfranchise 63 million ‘deplorable’ Trump supporters and go back to business as usual — fundamentally transforming the U.S. into a Venezuela. There’s only one way to stop these creeps from impeaching the President and ruining the country. Every Trump voter who came out in 2016 must to go to the polls on November 6 and drown the Democrats in a red wave”) and (Dick Morris: “The Cohen/Daniels Scandal Will Backfire on Mueller”) and (“Voters Say Manafort, Cohen Verdicts No Criminal Problem for Trump“) and (“Voters Say Next Democratic Nominee Likely to Put World Before America“)


24 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

All The Talk About Impeaching The President Is Nonsense

MAGA hat

This is the title of a fine article by Dov Fischer in the American Spectator, which is subtitled “The networks will need to find another way to excite their ratings”:

First a preliminary word from someone whose published writings of the past two years demonstrate quite clearly why these past nineteen months under President Trump mark him already as one of America’s greatest Presidents in contradistinction to the nightmare of the prior eight years that saw one of America’s three or four worst-ever Presidents occupying the White House:

1. When a man is married to one of the most beautiful women who ever lived… and she also is quite brilliant… and she also has a wonderful head for business… and she is profoundly loyal to him… and she loves that man enough to be pregnant with his child… and she stands by him publicly no matter what scandals and other controversies embroil him amid his public ventures… then it is quite unacceptable to imagine that such a man would cavort on the side with a bimbo (or even a coherent person) whose sole assets are two balloons that some physician presumably superimposed onto her torso. If a man truly desperately needs to get his hands around two balloons, he can get himself invited to a children’s birthday party, or he can go to Party City. The last I looked, balloons at Party City were selling at ten cents each. For an incredibly keen business tycoon, a billionaire, it seems a no-brainer to prefer grasping two balloons at a dime apiece rather squeezing them at $65,000.00 per balloon. And, when you get the balloons at Party City, you don’t have to take those balloons out to dinner or pretend to be interested in whatever babble they expel under the misconception that they are engaging in “conversation.”

2. Two hundred and forty-two years of recorded American history document that nothing good ever comes from being involved with someone named “Stormy.”

Now, to impeachment and why the whole discussion is nonsense…

The television-news media desperately need to fill twenty-four hours every day in order to sell advertising to support their stations, their management, their employees, and their negotiated settlements and non-disclosure-agreement pay-outs to women whom they must silence after one or another of their male employees has violated them. CBS has had Charlie Rose. NBC Matt Lauer. With too much money, too much perceived power, many intelligent media-attractive women who benefit further from the daily efforts of world-class aestheticians and make-up artists, the ingredients are there. Certainly Fox News has had their share of pay-outs, too. And the thing is, we have no idea how many others also are being paid to shut up. So the television-news media have to keep the money pouring in. Same with the print media. They need to grab your attention and hold it all day and night, every day.

Would you watch TV news 24/7 to get the latest commodities reports on oranges? For how many hours daily? Unless you deal in oranges, probably not a whole bunch. How about “sweet crude oil” futures? It would have to be pretty sweet, indeed, to keep your attention. I am an Orthodox rabbi, and I cannot remember the last time I put down a volume of the Talmud to keep abreast of the latest prices on pork bellies.

So they have to figure out how to keep the ratings up. They love a murder — oh, how they love a murder! Especially of a young pretty White girl. That grabs the attention of everyone: men, women, liberals, conservatives, young, and old. (Amazing how, for all the Political Correctness of “Black Lives Matter,” the media do not care a whit about the genocide happening to African Americans under Democrat governance in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis, and Detroit.) And omigosh how they love serial killers who murder young White women! They make them as famous as Babe Ruth, Abraham Lincoln, Kim Kardashian, Miley Cyrus: The Hillside Strangler, Ted Bundy, the .44 Caliber Killer/ “Son of Sam,” the Zodiac Killer, Richard Speck. Imagine how they would have loved to cover Jack the Ripper! Even an isolated unsolved murder of a single young White woman gets the media exercised into a frenzy: Jonbenet Ramsey, Elizabeth Short, Chandra Levy, Kate Steinle, Mollie Tibbets. The Seedier Media obsess over these individual murders round-the-clock until it emerges that the murderer was an illegal alien. Only then do they return to sweet crude and pork bellies.

Other methods to grab viewers and hold them are more idiosyncratic, like the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 370. In its time, CNN milked it for all it was worth. You would think that CNN had become the Travel Channel. And then the great natural disasters: tsunamis that destroy much of Japan, volcano eruptions that threaten to end Hawaii as a vacation spot, tornadoes that devastate Oklahoma, and California wildfires enhanced by liberal environmentalist extremes that bar responsible forest management and clearing dead and rotted wood and brush from forests, thus assuring the fuel to create true man-made disaster. You would think that CNN had become the Weather Channel.

But no subject, no Holy Fire, has proven as sure-fire a media grabber as President Donald J. Trump. Half of us have come to appreciate him so much that we cannot get enough of him. Many watch each-and-every one of his almost-weekly stadium-overflowing live campaign speeches. One week in Wisconsin. Another week in Pennsylvania. Missouri. Montana. West Virginia. The fans cannot get enough of him. Eighty percent of each speech is the same as all the others, but fans like to hear it again and again — like listening again and again to a favorite song. And one never knows what kind of comical inanity he will interject in any given speech at any given moment. Will he start talking off-script about flies and mosquitoes? About some childhood inanity? One never knows, and that makes it even more fun. In a completely different way from the way that President Reagan meant it when he said it about Jimmy Carter, when President Trump goes off-script into inanity and ridiculousness, fans gleefully chuckle: “There he goes again!”

At the same time, half the country really oppose him. Many hate him. Some despise him. Others just don’t care for him. But they also are glued. They also cannot get enough of him. And so the media feed the beast that pays the bills — heavy daily doses of Trump.

The thing is, people will get bored if the Trump story is the exact-same every day for nineteen months. So the Seedier Media have to vary it. One week, they generate the lie that Trump has Alzheimer’s. Then he runs a cabinet meeting with such proficiency that they need to change the story. So maybe it is that Trump is a traitor because a guy who voted for the Soviet Communists says so — a guy whom Obama made head of the CIA and who conducted the CIA as though he still were a supporter of Soviet Communism. (Come to think of it, what better way to cover your own tracks as an insider Soviet Double Agent with access to top American security secrets, colluding with the Russians, than by tweeting that some other guy is the double agent?) The next week it is that Trump is going to cause a nuclear war with North Korea. Then when the North Korea Doughboy invites Trump to talks, the media change the story line to Trump being unprepared for such high-level negotiations. Then when the talks result in a signed agreement, and the Doughboy stops shooting missiles and returns the bodies of American heroes who fell there half a century ago, the media change the story to Trump not having achieved enough. When the Admiral who serves as the President’s personal physician reports that Trump has passed his physical with flying colors, the media start picking it to pieces and start analyzing his cholesterol numbers and whether he is taking enough statins — because they are oh-so-concerned that he live to 120 years of good health. Then when his wife undergoes surgery — understand that doctors are cutting her up, then sewing her back together — and she understandably decides that she does not want to appear before the media for a few weeks while she recovers, the frenzied media report that maybe she is divorcing the President or maybe she is dead. Then when she shows up in public at the border to evaluate the situation there first-hand, they obsess over the writing on her jacket. (A good thing they cannot see the writing on her undergarments, or they would start a two-week frenzy over whether she is having an affair with Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, or whoever else’s name is on the label. One can imagine the headlines: “Is First Lady Melania Cheating with a Lover Code-Named ‘Wash in Cold Water with Like Colors’”?) And, of course, when all else fails, Omarosa.

So now that Omarosa has played out her fifteen minutes of media usefulness, the new idiocy is the impeachment story: Michael Cohen, at the behest of Clinton Enabler Lanny Davis, has pleaded guilty to election-law violations for having remitted some $130,000 to Stormy (at $65,000 per balloon), and now the media have President Trump out of office. So let’s get real:

Let’s say two Antifa members hold up a bank. That means they are wearing masks over their masks. One gets caught and faces a hundred years in prison. He or she makes a deal with Robert Mueller and pleads guilty as follows: “I held up the bank, and my masked accomplice was Donald Trump.” OK. So the person who copped a plea is guilty. But that does not mean that Trump was in the bank with him or her. Well, you may ask: “Why would a person plead guilty and knowingly set himself up for a prison sentence if the underlying plea were not true?” Lots of reasons:

Let’s say he is facing $500,000 in future legal bills in defending himself, and he just cannot bear that cost. Let’s say he faces 50 years in the hoosegow, but this deal will assure him that he is out in 3-5 years. Let’s say he also has perpetrated tax fraud or $20 million in bank fraud. Or — only in New York — taxi-medallion fraud. (And, in a state where it once cost over a million dollars to have the right to drive a taxi, Andrew Cuomo can say that American never was that great?) Let’s say he, an attorney, also has been exposed to the world as a creep who audio-records his own law clients — pretty much assuring that his legal career is over: either the New York State Bar will close him down for good, or he simply will find that no new clients ever again retain him. (OK, one exception: Omarosa. Can you imagine Omarosa coming into Michael Cohen’s law office to retain him, and the two of them are secretly recording each other?) So, Cohen has any number of reasons to cop a deal.

And what is the Trump link? That (i) Trump cavorted with two balloons, (ii) the mouthpiece attached to the two balloons threatened to tell the public about a man whose relationship with the “fairer sex” the voting public already knew quite well after 24/7 reportage of his taped comments years earlier in that trailer, (iii) Cohen paid $65,000 per balloon to shut the mouthpiece, and (iv) Trump paid Cohen $130,000. Oh — and by the way: instead of Trump handling the whole messy matter through a business associate, he specifically went to his attorney, a member of the New York State Bar presumed to have expertise in the law, to assure that everything would be handled in proper compliance with governing law.

And that is a supposed to be a violation of election law?

First of all, such men, alas, pay women to be quiet all the time. What elected office was R. Kelly seeking? Howzabout Tiger Woods? (For theater-goers and ten-dollar-bill lovers: Alexander Hamilton.) It almost seems to comprise actionable societal sexual discrimination against men: If only more men could be eligible to get $130,000 to stay quiet about something (other than baseball). Wouldn’t it be amazing — and just plain fair — to live in a society where men likewise have women paying $130,000 to remain quiet? Most men are pretty quiet anyway. And most men even would be glad to give the paying woman two balloons as a gift. But married male tycoons throughout history have been paying such women to shut up. That is not election law. That is erection law.

Second, was it a violation of campaign election law when Wall Street insiders were paying Hillary Clinton $225,000 a pop for 15-minute “speeches” behind closed doors? In three speeches, she pocketed $675,000. They knew how to invest without listening to her. They did not need her advice for investing in land deals like Whitewater — and it was the insider pros who advised her on cattle futures. So what wisdom were they paying Hillary for? Obviously they expected her to be President, and they were contributing to her effort in return for having a pro-Wall Street President who would “talk the talk” of “sharing the wealth” and would condemn “Deplorables” but who, like Obama, actually would take good care of friends on Wall Street.

Likewise, was it a violation of election laws when mobster and later-convicted felon Tony Rezko helped the Obamas acquire a magnificent house for hundreds of thousands below market? Gimme a break.

The bottom line is that this is The Swamp. Our billions and trillions in tax money float around Washington and attract the mosquitoes and tsetse flies that inhabit The Swamp. They infect the public not with Yellow Fever but with Green Fever — the color of money. The President has done an amazing job of exposing Swamp People: James Comey, John Brennan, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Ohr’s Wife, the Hillary Basketful of Deplorables (Huma, Weiner, Hillary Herself, etc.), Andrew McCabe. That is how it goes.

None of this has anything to do with “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Realistically, in order for the President to be impeached it will take a majority of the House of Representatives to vote for impeachment. If Republicans hold the House in November, all the talk about impeachment will be so much Fake News like all the talk about Alzheimer’s: there will be no impeachment. End of story. By contrast, if the Democrats take the House they might very well pass a Maxine Waters–Al Green bill for impeachment. It then will go to the United [States] Senate, where a two-thirds majority will be needed for conviction. The Republicans will control the Senate with between 51-57 seats. Even if the Democrats miraculously grab the Senate in November, there still would be at least 48 Republicans in the Senate. The Democrats would need to get 15-20 Republican Senators to vote with them to oust President Trump. Any Republican Senator who would vote that way would be signing his or her political death warrant — the end of his or her political career. They all know it. Therefore none of them would do it. Thus, after much ado about nothing, and two weeks of evidence presented in the Senate about the cost of two balloons and how they were reimbursed, a vote on conviction would go down in flames anyway. The last time this gambit was tried, the Republicans paid severely for wasting the country’s time and money over a President who lied under oath about cavorting with women behind his wife’s back. This time will be no different, and this President has not even lied about it under oath. Thus, another weekly drama will pass.

In the end, the media will need a new Omarosa, a new missing plane, a new murder of an innocent pretty White young lady. Or it will be back to orange futures, sweet crude, and the revival of much-lamented pork bellies futures.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Dov Fischer“) and (“ANOTHER TRAITOR JOHN BRENNAN SQUEALS“)

This article is not only humorous, but it is brilliant too, and very well done.


24 08 2018
H. Craig Bradley


Common sense says nothing good comes from a common Tramp either. “Stormy” is a real Tramp, just a bit more conniving. As the saying goes, “you get what you pay for “. I doubt President Trump ever thought he would be elected President. It appears to be a fluke or just Fate (Karma). Regardless, this latest attempt or tact to smear President Trump won’t likely amount to anything much in the end. (It won’t work).

President Trump is secure in His job. This is the reality of this administration, destined to last a full 8 years, I predict. Democrats need to swallow their pride and accept reality as the show progresses. We all have our (bit) part.

Congress, on the other hand, may have something to worry about by 2020. Time will tell on the public’s mood and the success of the Main Stream Media, united against President Trump. Will the low information voters ( Low I.Q.) prevail or not?

In California, the dummies win elections most of the time in recent decades. As long as real estate prices hold-up, California public policy is unlikely to change much in the next two elections, at least. We are a lagging indicator nowadays, not a leader any more. California is not “progressive” anymore, but instead very regressive. The trend(s) is still intact and not weakening.

(Federal) Tax Reform will dole-out the necessary disciplinary measures ( higher taxes ) for the top income earners in California. They can then decide what they want to do about it on an individual basis, if anything.

Some high income households in California may choose to relocate to “Greener Pastures” out-of-state in due course, if possible. We will indeed see. The next five years should be very interesting. Living in “interesting times” indeed.


6 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

You make an excellent distinction. The Left is not progressive, but regressive.


28 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Lindsey Graham Is A GOP Turncoat Who Cannot Be Trusted [UPDATED]

Lindsey Graham

The Associated Press and have reported:

The relationship between President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions is “dysfunctional” and “beyond repair,” a Republican senator said Tuesday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC’s “Today” that the Justice Department needs a leader who can work with the president and that Sessions was not the only person for the job. But he said anyone picked to replace Sessions would have to commit to the Senate to allowing special counsel Robert Mueller to finish his investigation into Russian election interference and potential coordination between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

“The president’s lost confidence in Jeff Sessions,” Graham said. “And I’m telling you what everybody on the country knows: This is a dysfunctional relationship. We need a better one. Is there somebody who’s highly qualified that has the confidence of the president who’ll also understand their job is to protect Mueller? Yes, I think we can find that person after the election, if that’s what the president wants.”

The comments represent a stark turnabout for Graham, who served with Sessions on the Senate Judiciary Committee and who said last year that there would be “holy hell to pay” if the attorney general was fired.

Graham said he was not asking for Sessions to be fired and still considered him a “fine man,” but the remarks nonetheless signal willingness from a key Judiciary Committee member to consider a replacement and a break from the chorus of support Sessions had received from former Senate allies.

Trump has repeatedly lashed out at Sessions for recusing himself last year from the Russia investigation and leaving the probe in the hands of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who then appointed Mueller as special counsel. He told Fox News last week that Sessions had never had control of the Justice Department and that the only reason he had selected him was because he had been loyal on the campaign trail.

Sessions, previously a Republican senator from Alabama, responded with a rare public statement saying that he and his department “will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.”

See (“Lindsey Graham: Relationship Between Trump, Sessions ‘Beyond Repair'”) (emphasis added)

Like most politicians, Graham speaks with “forked tongue” and cannot be trusted.

Among other things, he said:

[A]nyone picked to replace Sessions would have to commit to the Senate to allowing special counsel Robert Mueller to finish his investigation into Russian election interference and potential coordination between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

. . .

Is there somebody who’s highly qualified that has the confidence of the president who’ll also understand their job is to protect Mueller?

This is utter nonsense. Mueller and his fellow “Deep State” co-conspirators must be ridden out of Washington on a rail—and at the very least, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for treason and their other crimes.

Nothing less will suffice.

See, e.g., (“Robert Mueller Should Be Executed For Treason“) and (“What Atrocities Did Robert Mueller Commit In Vietnam?“) and (“The Department Of Injustice’s Inspector General Is Complicit In The Deep-State Cover-Up!“)

For Sessions to state that his department “will not be improperly influenced by political considerations,” is the very essence of absurdity.

What does he think that the following “Deep State” co-conspirators and others have done and continue to do:

Barack Obama; Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton; 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; DOJ/FBI current or former employees such as Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Andrew Weissmann; and Bruce And Nellie Ohr.

Sessions is a fool.

See also (“Jeff Sessions Defends Rosenstein, And Must Be Removed As Attorney General“)


30 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Woodward And Bernstein: Despicable Leftists Bent On Destroying Nixon, Like They Are Doing Now With Respect To President Trump [UPDATED]

Woodward and Bernstein

Tal Axelrod has written for TheHill:

President Trump on Wednesday stepped up his personal attacks against CNN, lambasting the network and veteran journalist Carl Bernstein for a July report about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting.

“CNN is being torn apart from within based on their being caught in a major lie and refusing to admit the mistake,” Trump tweeted Wednesday evening. “Sloppy @carlbernstein, a man who lives in the past and thinks like a degenerate fool, making up story after story, is being laughed at all over the country! Fake News.”

Bernstein, known for his coverage of the Watergate scandal, co-wrote an article for CNN reporting that Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer,” Michael Cohen, was willing to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that then-candidate Trump knew about the June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer promising dirt on the-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, later publicly confirmed that he was a source for the story. He walked back his claim that Cohen knew Trump was aware of the meeting.
“I regret not being much clearer in saying I’m not sure about this story,” Davis, who is an opinion contributor at The Hill, told NBC News.

CNN says it spoke to multiple sources — not just Davis — for its article.

Trump Jr. also criticized CNN for the story, tweeting Sunday, “Comical to watch @CNN covering for leftist hack @carlbernstein. He & Obama staffer @jimsciutto obviously got story wrong. CNN ‘stands by’ it anyway, defending literal fake news. 3 ‘reporters’ were fired for false CNN hit on [White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci] & this is FAR worse!”

“We stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it,” a CNN spokeswoman said on Tuesday.

See (“Trump heightens attacks against CNN, Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein over Trump Tower story“) (emphasis added; Tweets omitted); see also (“Trump mocks CNN, ‘sloppy’ Carl Bernstein: ‘Caught in a major lie'”) and (“Trump takes aim at Watergate scandal reporter Carl Bernstein“) and (“THE IMPLOSION OF CLINTON SYCOPHANT AND COHEN LAWYER, LANNY DAVIS“) and (“Bob Woodward“) and (“Carl Bernstein“) and (“Newspapers Are Dead, Not Dying“) and (“Bob Woodward’s New Book Will Detail ‘Harrowing Life’ Inside Trump White House”—”Mr. Woodward, 75, is an associate editor at The Washington Post”) and (“Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency“)

Bernstein and his hack partner Bob Woodward represent the very worst of the Leftist, dying, so-called “mainstream media.” If they think that they are going to destroy another presidency, they are dead wrong.

Some of us lived through Watergate (e.g., it was breaking just as I was leaving the U.S. Senate); and in hindsight, Nixon should not have resigned. The despicable Left was bent on destroying him, like they are doing now.

The “Deep State” cabal—involving Barack Obama, his co-conspirators, and the so-called “mainstream media”—must be destroyed. Nothing less will suffice. They gave us Leftist scurvy, from which we must extricate ourselves permanently.

. . .

The very worst that has ever been said about Donald Trump does not hold a candle to the depravity and treason of John F. Kennedy, the Clintons and Barack Obama— or the racism of Barack Obama, which has torn our great nation apart.

Compare (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“) (see also all of the comments beneath this article) with (“Clinton Fatigue“) with (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) with (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?“) with (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

Where are the despicable Woodward and Bernstein with respect to such un-American traitors and criminals?

Lastly, Bernstein is a total cipher who is not worth talking or writing about. He has done nothing of merit since Watergate. Woodward is capable of much more, if he was objective and fair, and truly looked at American history in an unbiased way.

For example, he might write a book about the black racist Barack Obama, and all of his hidden secrets (e.g., how he paid for his colleges and extensive travels abroad; all of the white women he dated; his real links to Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., and their roles in his life; the sexual relationship with women in his life since his marriage, which have prompted Michelle to be so jealous of him).


30 08 2018
H. Craig Bradley

The Deep State can Wait (-out) President Trump. Therefore, President Trump must practice the lost art of “Wack-a-Mole” as the opportunities arise.

Liked by 1 person

31 08 2018
mary peklar

Thank you, Mr. Naegele, and we are on the same page with most of your comments. We agree that Sessions needs to go and should have never taken the job if he was going to recuse himself. He is a disgrace and that move is truly hurting our country. I wonder if he understands that! Mueller’s Witch Hunt is a persecution of the President and insult (maybe more) to his supporters. That being said, I believe the Rs will maintain their majorities in both Chambers of Congress. Unless the economy tanks, the Dems will have a hard time getting the House since their mantra is hate Trump, open borders, higher taxes, etc.. People want to move forward, not backward! My hope is that Trump gets people in those seats that support him. Ryan and McConnell have proven to be lackeys for the NWO Elites, Pelosi and Schumer are a disgrace. The China connection and Hill’s illegal server with the knowledge of Obama’s Intel. Agencies has me in an uproar. Sessions, if he is as honorable as he claims, cannot/should not hide behind another recusal this time. This scandal is too big. In this instance, I think Trump should fire Sessions and Rosenstein for dereliction or negligence of duty (anything) and take the heat because he will get it no matter what he does. Unfortunately, I believe Trump will Own this morass because Sessions, Rosenstein, and Wray are his FBI/DOJ. Most of Obama’s top people in those agencies are no longer there (fired, demoted, new jobs) and too much info has come out against Obama’s people and STILL WE HAVE NO INDICTMENTS. Justice, will not be served until most of these people are in prison. Otherwise, and with regret, I believe we have become a country without laws, or a two tiered justice system. . . . . . . P.S. I did Link the “Trump Supporters . . ” piece to one of my critics on the DM site. He never read it and thinks it was written by an anti-Constitutionalist. but he is pro-Mueller (pro-Police Stater) Crazy, Hypocritical Left!! MP

Liked by 1 person

31 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Mary. I agree completely.

Sessions has collapsed, and needs to be jettisoned ASAP.

Obama had Holder and Lynch, who were his “lapdogs.” I agree that Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray were enormous mistakes, but our President learns from mistakes, and generally does not repeat them.


1 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

It’s Time To Boycott The Democrats! [UPDATED]


Tyler Durden has written for ZeroHedge:

A call from the head of the California Democratic Party to boycott In-N-Out Burger over its $25,000 donation to the GOP, appears to have backfired rather spectacularly according to the Los Angeles Times. Take Anthony Grigore, a true-blue Democrat. But as he waited Thursday at an In-N-Out Burger in El Segundo for his meal, Grigore made it clear party loyalty would only go so far.

Just hours earlier, the head of the California Democratic Party called for a boycott of the famed burger chain after a public filing revealed that the company had recently donated $25,000 to the state’s Republican Party.

Eating at In-N-Out is such a standard thing to do across California,” Grigore told the LA Times dismissing the boycott idea as a bit silly.

. . . California Democratic Party chairman Eric Bauman kneejerked into action and called for a boycott, tweeting; “Et tu In-N-Out? Tens of thousands of dollars donated to the California Republican Party… it’s time to #BoycottInNOut – let Trump and his cronies support these creeps… perhaps animal style!” along with a link to a local paper.

At this point, Bauman went too far for some California Democrats who distanced themselves from the political dust-up between their social justice warrior leadership and the California eatery owned by an evangelical Christian family with a history of support for GOP candidates.

By the end of the day, Democrats were distancing themselves from the idea and Republicans were enjoying a political feast, with many making big lunch orders to show their support for the chain and posting photos on social media. Some were even feeding their dogs:

We have all of our children eating In-N-Out burgers. Even my son’s German shepherd eats In-N-Out,” said state Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, whose staff ordered 25 burgers and 50 bags of fries for lunch.

Political experts said they aren’t surprised that In-N-Out has proved hard to demonize, especially if the company’s sin was simply donating to the Republican Party.

The stomach overrules the mind,” Jaime Regalado, emeritus professor of political science at California State University, Los Angeles. “A cheap, good-tasting burger is hard to dismiss politically.” -LA Times

Shortly after the story went viral, In-N-Out issued a statement from Executive Vice President Arnie Wensinger noting that the company had “made equal contributions to both Democratic and Republican” PAC’s in 2018.

“For years, In-N-Out Burger has supported lawmakers who, regardless of political affiliation, promote policies that strengthen California and allow us to continue operating with the values of providing strong pay and great benefits for our associates,” Wensinger said.

The boycott quickly turned into a free publicity stunt for republicans: GOP gubernatorial candidate John Cox posted a photo of himself in front an In-N-Out on Thursday on Twitter and declared, “There’s nothing more Californian than In-N-Out Burger.”

After Bauman’s tweet went viral and made national news, Bauman referred questions to the party’s communications director, John Vigna, who responded that the Bauman’s tweet was “just his personal view,” and that the official California Democratic Party was not involved.

“We’re not happy that In-N-Out gave the money, but we’re not calling for an official boycott,” Vigna said. “Democrats are very fired up. Chair (Bauman) is definitely giving voice to a feeling a lot of people have right now.

Amusingly, boycotts of companies that give money to the opposition would take political partisanship to a whole new level. The SF Chronicle looked at 2018 donations to the two main California parties, to show[] just what dueling, tit-for-tat boycotts could mean for businesses.

Democrats, for example, would have to avoid not only In-N-Out, but also Facebook, Target, Microsoft, Anheuser-Busch, McDonald’s and virtually every oil company. They’re just some of the many groups that have given money to the state Republican Party this year.

For Republicans, boycotting Democratic supporters would mean never using Uber, not drinking Gallo wine or Pepsi, dropping T-Mobile cellular service, refusing to have garbage hauled by Recology or to go to a Paramount Pictures movie.

Ultra-partisan fighting over who gives what to whom is something neither party wants to contemplate. If companies are forced to choose between a boycott by their customers or making political contributions, it would suddenly become much tougher for Democrats and Republicans to raise money to run their campaigns.

For Democratic Party officials, the answer was to laugh off Bauman’s hasty tweet and hope the kerfuffle goes away.

“Chair Bauman’s personal tweet reflects his belief that he shouldn’t support companies that support the Trump agenda, and that Jeff’s Gourmet Kosher Sausage Factory on West Pico Boulevard is the best All-American treat in California,” the party said.

See (“California Democrats Boycott Of In-N-Out Backfires Spectacularly“) (emphasis in original; Tweets omitted)

Lots of us have loved In-N-Out for decades!

Lots of us were Democrats too, but will never vote for one again. The #WalkAway—from the Democratic Party—movement is correct.

The face of the Democrats in California today—and nationwide—is the despicable, demonic race hustler, Maxine Waters.

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

Black racist Maxine Waters


3 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Town Desperate After Restaurant Kicked Out Sarah Sanders

Democrats are losers

Joe Kovacs has written for WND:

Perhaps it’s a lesson in simple economics: Don’t enrage your customers, especially with politics.

In the wake of the June incident in which White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to leave The Red Hen Restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, because she works for President Trump, the local area is suffering a serious financial slump.

Now, officials with Rockbridge Regional Tourism Board have approved a measure to bolster the marketing of the area after the Red Hen ouster sparked a national fury.

Members from Lexington, Buena Vista and Rockbridge County met with the Lexington City Council, and “each locality agreed the region was in desperate need of positive coverage after The Red Hen incident,” reported the Roanoke Times.

The paper noted: “Director of Marketing Patty Williams said the area is still feeling effects from the controversy – the tourism office received a letter Thursday from a family in Georgia who said they would never come back to the area because of what happened. And during the immediate aftermath of the incident, the tourism office received thousands of phone calls and emails.”

Williams said, “For a town our size, it was a significant impact.”

An additional $5,000 per month is being spent from the tourism board’s emergency fund to help improve local traffic.

As WND previously reported, the Virginia restaurant owner who kicked out Sanders didn’t stop her political activism after Sarah and her family left, according to Sanders’ father, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee explained that his daughter and her husband went home after they were kicked out of The Red Hen – “they had had enough” – but the rest of the accompanying family members went across the street to a different restaurant.

“The owner of The Red Hen then followed them across the street, called people and organized a protest, yelling and screaming at them from outside the other restaurant and creating this scene,” he told [Laura] Ingraham.

Huckabee noted that most of her husband’s family members – not her parents in-law – are “liberal,” and “one of them walked out and said, ‘Look, I don’t like Trump. I’m not a supporter, I’m considered liberal, but you guys are embarrassing me, and you’re not helping the cause.”

The family member pointed out that Sarah Sanders wasn’t even present.

“This is what the left has been reduced to,” Huckabee said. “It’s really tragic. And it is dangerous.”

At the time, Democrats and establishment media had been fiercely protesting a policy in effect under the Obama administration that requires children to be temporarily separated from parents who are being prosecuted for crossing the U.S. border illegally. Trump issued an executive order in June to ensure the children stay with their families while urging Congress to come up with a permanent solution.

‘The restaurant has certain standards’

Ingraham cited news reports saying Wilkinson decided to boot Sanders from her restaurant after taking a vote of employees, some of whom are gay.

[Red Hen owner] Wilkinson said she asked Sanders and her husband to step outside after they already had started eating appetizers.

“I was babbling a little, but I got my point across in a polite and direct fashion,” Wilkinson said. “I explained that the restaurant has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion and cooperation.

“I said, ‘I’d like to ask you to leave.’ ”

Wilkinson said he didn’t know how Sanders would react.

According to the restaurant owner, Sanders immediately responded, “That’s fine. I’ll go.”

Sanders tweeted at the time: “Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so.”

President Trump reacted to Sanders’ expulsion in a tweet.

“The Red Hen Restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy canopies, doors and windows (badly needs a paint job) rather than refusing to serve a fine person like Sarah Huckabee Sanders,” Trump wrote.

See (“Town now ‘desperate’ after restaurant kicked out Sarah Sanders“) (emphasis added)

Close the Red Hen!

Trump supporters must boycott all who disparage them and our great President.

Nothing less will suffice.


3 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Slams Sessions, Says AG Is Hurting GOP In Midterms

Jeff Sessions

Andrew O’Reilly has written for Fox News:

President Trump lashed out at Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a string of tweets on Monday, accusing him of hurting Republican chances in the upcoming midterm elections with a series of Justice Department investigations.

“Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department,” Trump tweeted. “Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff. . . .”

The president apparently was referring to the current investigations into GOP Reps. Duncan Hunter of California and Chris Collins of New York. Fox News has reached out to the White House for additional clarification, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond.

Hunter and his wife, Margaret, were indicted last month on charges of illegally converting $250,000 in campaign funds for personal expenses and filing false records, while Collins was indicted earlier in August on insider-trading charges. Prosecutors pinpointed the alleged insider trading to June 2017, after Trump took office.

Trump also tweeted: “The Democrats, none of whom voted for Jeff Sessions, must love him now. Same thing with Lyin’ James Comey. The Dems all hated him, wanted him out, thought he was disgusting – UNTIL I FIRED HIM! Immediately he became a wonderful man, a saint like figure in fact. Really sick!”

Monday’s tweets continued a long-running gripe Trump has had with Sessions ever since the attorney general recused himself last year from the Russia investigation. Last month, the president tweeted that Sessions “doesn’t understand what is happening underneath his command position” and told “Fox & Friends” that his attorney general had “never taken control of his department.”

The president also said the only reason he named Sessions to one of his most important Cabinet-level positions was the former Alabama senator’s early support in the 2016 presidential election.

The comments prompted a pointed response from Sessions, who said in a statement that “While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.”

In an interview with Bloomberg on Thursday, Trump said Sessions would remain in his job at least until the November midterm elections. The president did not elaborate on whether he would keep Sessions on as attorney general following the election.

See (“Trump slams Sessions on Twitter, says AG is hurting GOP in midterms“) (emphasis added; Tweets omitted)

As I have written:

Tragically, the United States has had a succession of lawless and despicable Attorneys General, including but not limited to Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

Lots of us had great hope for former Alabama senator Jeff Sessions’ tenure in that office, but we have been proven wrong and are gravely disappointed. His conduct—or absence of actions when leadership has been so essential—has tarnished his reputation forever.

In a sense, he is far worse than his despicable predecessors, inter alia, because he has allowed the greatest scandal in American history to unfold on his watch. Americans need faith in their government restored, and Sessions has been “Missing In Action” (MIA).

See (“Jeff Sessions Defends Rosenstein, And Must Be Removed As Attorney General“)


6 09 2018
mary peklar

Thanks and I agree, and have written numerous times referring to Sessions with a quote (paraphrased) that evil prevails when ‘good’ people (I am starting to have doubts about JS) do nothing! His silence is allowing this Witch Hunt to continue —- “To walk in silence is to hang the innocent and set the guilty free . . . The mute is the executioner.” ():-( Bottom line, Sessions should have told Pres Trump about the recusals before being confirmed as AG. The honorable thing to do, is for JS to resign (or unrecuse himself and do his job, if possible) and save the country from more political fallout if he gets fired.

Liked by 1 person

6 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Mary. I agree completely.


6 09 2018
H. Craig Bradley


AG Sessions apparently does not have the temperament or personality to directly confront the so-called “Deep State”, so in a way, he chickened-out. I don’t hold it against him but someone else just might.

For example, Joshua was the leader who brought the Israelis into the “Promise Land ” is a good case study. His predecessors did not have the necessary faith to proceed so according to the Old Testament, “The Almighty” responded in anger and a whole generation “wandered in the Wilderness” and never entered the “land of milk and honey” promised to them through their forefather Abraham. That’s life.

So, the next AG will or should be a “Joshua”. President Trump should make sure of it if he is “smart”. The proof is in the pudding. AG Sessions reminds me of President George W. Bush’s last AG, Michael Bernard Mukasey, who was Lazy.


5 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Naïveté And Treason In The Trump White House [UPDATED]

Teflon Don

The New York Times is known as a Leftist newspaper, with credentials that date to the past when journalism was not scrutinized with the critical eyes that it is today. Neither it nor the once-vaulted Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal are considered fair or accurate today. They are shining examples of “FAKE NEWS,” and of the so-called “mainstream media” that is dying and being rejected by broad swaths of the American people.

See, e.g., (“Woodward And Bernstein: Despicable Leftists Bent On Destroying Nixon, Like They Are Doing Now With Respect To President Trump“) and (“Newspapers Are Dead, Not Dying“) and (“The New York Times Has Sought And Continues To Seek To Topple Our Freely Elected President“)

The latest example from the Times is the following editorial, ostensibly written by an anonymous White House aide, operating within the “Deep State” and trying to save the country from President Trump:

[“The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.”]

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

See (“I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration“) (emphasis added); see also (“Obama prosecuted staff leakers, gave lie-detector tests, ‘paranoid’”)

Lots of us have worked at the highest levels of government in Washington, D.C.—and with billionaires, captains of industry, celebrities, etc. The writer of this piece seems naïve beyond belief. Why should any of us take him (or her) seriously?

Amorality reigns at the highest levels of this and other countries; it is not unique to the United States. The globalism pushed by the Bushes and others resulted in tragic wars such as Iraq, and in trade deficits of staggering proportions. And Americans are sick and tired of “civility,” as practiced by the so-called elites.

With respect to John McCain, there are reasons to believe that he might have been court-martialed for aiding the enemy in Vietnam, but for the fact that his father and grandfather were admirals. His divisiveness in politics mirrored his abandonment of his first wife who had nursed him back to health. He is not a hero or role model, even though many of us voted for him—because of Sarah Palin’s presence on the GOP ticket, and because Barack Obama was the other choice.

It is respectfully submitted that President Trump has accomplished more in his brief time in the presidency than any president in my lifetime, and perhaps in the span of American history. And considering the greats who have occupied his office (e.g., Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan), this constitutes enormous praise. Yes, he is brusque and a bit rough at times, but so were Lincoln and other presidents.

His task is not finished—possibly until January of 2025—and he has been enduring the slings and arrows of those who hate him and the history of our great nation. Many of us could not stomach Barack Obama, but we never tried to destroy his presidency, even though he was and is a racist.

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

Lastly, surely there is great smugness at the New York Times today for having printed an “insider story” from the White House (i.e., “The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration”). What those who work there do not appreciate, much less fully, is that Americans in the “Flyover States” and elsewhere in this wonderful nation have rejected them completely, and consider them to be traitors.

We can see President Trump’s accomplishments, as well as the traitorous efforts to destroy his candidacy and now his presidency. There is nothing gallant about this editorial, or the decision to print it by the New York Times.

America’s second Civil War may be coming; and once again, the “good guys” have the guns (e.g., NRA members, the police, ICE, our military), and they will not be reticent to use them—if necessary. Yes, armed resistance like Antifa and “Black Lives Matter” is not to be supported or condoned. But the countervailing forces, once unleashed, will bring about a result similar to our last Civil War.

See also (“The New York Times takes it on the chin after asking for help finding ‘false information’”)

Fake News


8 09 2018
mary peklar

Thank you. Pres Trump is holding up well, esp. with the “in your face” criticisms from the “Regressive” Left and back stabbing members on his WH team. God Bless our president. I agree with you and have some thoughts regarding John McCain and the “unknown” author. First, the McCain family did a poor job keeping the president out of the funeral. Actually, he was there (not physically). HE WAS IN THEIR HEADS. (not a good place to be for the grieving family) To his credit, Pres Trump stayed away as requested and flew the flag half-mast following protocol. He went about his business. In the meantime, the family disgraced (imo) John McCain’s memory by bringing politics and Trump into the service with their snarky remarks. The media highlighted those remarks more than John’s accomplishments. It’s unfortunate, because the electorate has mixed feeling about the man. His “thumbs down” vote on Repeal O’Care was a big disappointment to Trump supporters and reminded people why he was a RINO! That being said, May he Rest in Peace. Second, and concerning the NY Times Op-Ed article, I believe the author is a coward (no name) and should have never accepted the job if he did not support Pres Trump in the first place. (Reminds me of Sessions and his recusals After being sworn in as AG.) Next, I believe the story is a fabrication, or at a minimum, embellishment of what goes on in the Trump WH and most likely has to do with personality clashes. Pres Trump (imo) seems to be an “I wanted it yesterday” type of boss. (I actually think it is someone like Brennan and his payback for losing his Security Privileges.) Some people (if the person is real) have a hard time working for others with that type of personality. We have heard similar stories from ex-Trump personnel before and it leads me to believe that the Disingenuous Left Media is starting to bang the drums again for the application of the 25th Amendment since the Enemies of our president most likely will not be able to Impeach him because Mueller’s Witch Hunt is going NO where and (again my assumption) is they (like myself) do not trust the polls (Hillary 2016) about a Blue Wave taking over the HOR and/or Senate after the Midterms. I think we will maintain our slim majorities. It may also be as simple as selling hate books about Trump. . . . . . . (Added, Brennan is the type to say this publicly but I think since the NY Times knows the author, they thought it best to keep it silent due to Brennan’s contentious relationship with Pres Trump and part of the reason I believe all or part of this story is a fabrication.)

Liked by 1 person

8 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Mary.

First, I do not believe that the flags should have been flown at half-mast for McCain. He did not deserve it; he was not a hero—as discussed in my comments at the following link.

See also (“Vicious Un-American Efforts To Bring About Regime Change In The United States, And A Civil War”)

Second, McCain and the so-called dignitaries who attended are—in many ways—”yesterday’s news.” The Americans who support Donald Trump have rejected them, and rightly so.

Third, the New York Times‘ “editorial” is a non-issue, as Pat Buchanan states at my link immediately above.

Fourth, I agree with you: “Pres Trump . . . seems to be an ‘I wanted it yesterday’ type of boss.”

He is very impatient, and believes he has eight years at best to alter the course of America. The progress that he has made thus far is truly astounding.

Fifth, I agree: “I think we will maintain our slim majorities”—and efforts to invoke the 25th Amendment will go nowhere, or so I believe.


8 09 2018
mary peklar

Thanks for your reply. I cannot comment on McCain’s military record except through articles I read. I witnessed his RINO votes and was disappointed with his broken promises. He had a chance to be a “hero” by voting to repeal O’Care and chose not to. Also, I agree about the 25th Amendment going nowhere because VP Pence needs to sign off on that and he will never do it. Next, the point I wanted to make is that the hoopla with the NY Times article is the disingenuous Left Media uses these embarrassing stories (imo) about the president to keep the Dem base motivated and, in this case, to vote in November. (or sell hate Trump books) It also served to embarrass Trump supporters who want to be proud of Trump as “presidential” and, not just for his fine policies. (Job Performance and Approval ratings are at variance with each other) I personally think this story is a fabrication and in a different political environment, I would not waste my time. The man is getting it from both sides of the aisle with the help of the media. It’s disheartening. However, I believe the story has merit in exposing the lengths that the nefarious Left-leaning media will go to in order to humiliate and weaken Pres Trump.

Liked by 1 person

8 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Mary.

McCain’s life is littered with treachery and misdeeds, which is not the stuff of heroes.

I believe it is possible, if not likely, that Pence will be jettisoned from the GOP ticket in 2020; and this will be a certainty if he shows any disloyalty to Donald Trump.

After all, FDR dropped his VP running mates; and Adlai Stevenson dropped his 1952 running mate in 1956.

One should never rule out the possibility that the New York Times‘ piece was written by someone close to Pence. If so, that may doom Pence politically.

He is a professional politician, and Washington is full of them.


8 09 2018
mary peklar

(LIKE) Hmmmm!! I never would have thought that about Pence, Thanks! MP

Liked by 1 person

10 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Reminds Voters Why They Backed Trump [UPDATED]

Barack Obama and Louis Farrakhan
[Barack Obama and Louis Farrakhan]

Charlie Hurt has written in the Washington Times:

Just in time to remind America why voters elected Donald Trump president two years ago, ex-President Barack Obama emerged from political exile last week.

Pompous, insufferable, self-enthralled, cliched and uninspiring, he picked up right where he left off.

Reliving his eight-year campaign that cost over 1,000 Democrat politicians their seats, Mr. Obama put on his psychiatrist cap and declared our current politics mentally unwell.

This November, he lectured, is “a chance to restore some sanity in our politics.”

And his history professor cap. The “arc of American history” blah blah blah blah. The whole class was fast asleep before he got to his point. Including President Trump.

He even donned his old commander-in-chief cap and tried some military talk.

“We’re going to put on our marching shoes,” Mr. Obama said. The crowd just stared up and blinked in confusion.

He said he had to break his silence in order to complain about Mr. Trump because things had become so “dire.”

He called Mr. Trump a “demagogue” and a “threat to our democracy.” Which is why, perhaps, Mr. Obama’s administration deployed America’s entire espionage apparatus to spy against the Trump campaign at the height of the 2016 election.

“If we don’t step up, things can get worse,” Mr. Obama said.

So, he was stepping up.

Either that or Mr. Obama had heard a Red Heifer had been born at the Temple of Israel last week and assumed that was his signal to return. Time for the Second Coming of Obama.

Actually, his return to the political stage sounded more like somebody had fed a really terrible high-school term paper into Mr. Obama’s trusty old teleprompters.

Also, he was sick and tired of hearing all these economists and financial experts talking about how great the Trump economy is doing. So he delivered a speech and declared that Mr. Trump’s excellent economy was actually a result of Mr. Obama’s eight-year assault on industry, small businesses, corporations, taxpayers and health care.

Mr. Obama’s re-emergence comes after a truly remarkable week — in addition to the birth of a Red Heifer in Israel.

Legendary swamp man Bob Woodward — jealous over the star treatment Omarosa Manigault Newman got over her kiss-and-tell book — responded with a kiss-and-tell book of his own. Only, Mr. Woodward failed to get the access inside the White House that she achieved.

In time, perhaps, Mr. Woodward might develop Ms. Manigault Newman’s level of reporting chops.

Anyway, the books were remarkably similar in their obsession with palace intrigue — and nothing else.

Mr. Obama’s return to the swamp also follows an anonymous opinion article in The New York Times confirming the existence of a “Deep State” aimed at thwarting the will of American voters from inside the White House.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump remains focused on stoking the economy, expanding opportunity for all Americans, slashing government red tape, maximizing freedom for ordinary Americans and putting law-abiding constitutionalists onto the federal courts.

Good luck, Mr. Obama. Looks like somebody jumped the Red Heifer.

See (“Obama re-emerges to remind voters why they elected Trump“) (emphasis added); see also (“DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-SEMITES“) and (“Vicious Un-American Efforts To Bring About Regime Change In The United States, And A Civil War“) and (“Naïveté And Treason In The Trump White House“) and (“Woodward And Bernstein: Despicable Leftists Bent On Destroying Nixon, Like They Are Doing Now With Respect To President Trump“)

The only thing that Hurt neglected to mention is that the black racists Obama and Maxine Waters are the “poster children” of the Democratic Party today—which is among the many reasons why lots of us who began as Democrats will never vote for one again.

See, e.g., (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?“) and (“Maxine Waters Must Be Sent To Prison For The Rest Of Her Life“) and (“MAXINE MELTDOWN: ‘I say impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment!'”) and (“Maxine Waters vows to ‘get’ Pence once Trump impeached“) and!2018/09/10/carole-cook-donald-trump-john-wilkes-booth-assassinate-president/ (“Broadway Star Carole Cook on Trump, ‘Where’s John Wilkes Booth When You Need Him?'”) and (“Louis Farrakhan: ‘I’m Not An Anti-Semite. I’m Anti-Termite’”)


16 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump’s Dilemma: Leave Justice Department Control To Sessions, Rosenstein, Wray And The Deep State? [UPDATED]

The Goon Squad: Sessions and Rosenstein
[The Goon Squad: Sessions and Rosenstein]

Jeff Mordock has written in The Washington Times:

Firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as President Trump has repeatedly hinted he might do, would leave key components of the Justice Department in the hands of the very career officials the president has railed against as his “deep state” enemies.

Mr. Trump has yet to win confirmation — or in many cases even to nominate — people for 18 key posts, including the head of the civil rights division and the chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration, leaving many of those jobs performed by senior career officials who may, or may not be, on the same page as the Trump White House.

“If you don’t have confirmed political appointees in these positions, it’s tough for the president’s priorities to get accomplished,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official who is now a legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “There are some very good interim guys in there, but they don’t have the final stamp of approval that a confirmed individual does, and they may hesitate to take some of the steps necessary because it may cause problems for a nominee waiting to be confirmed.”

The Justice Department has 15 positions that require confirmation but for which nobody has been nominated, and another three with nominees waiting for action on Capitol Hill, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. The Justice Department lags behind only the State Department, which has 130 openings, and Defense and Treasury, with 22 apiece.

Analysts say vacancies can hinder a president’s agenda at any time, leaving agencies and divisions without clear direction.

But the Justice Department vacancies could be a particular problem for Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly complained about left-leaning employees at the department — though he is also upset about the performance of his attorney general, Mr. Sessions.

Should the president fire Mr. Sessions — which the White House has signaled wouldn’t happen until after the November elections — he likely also would oust Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

That normally would leave the department in the hands of the associate attorney general — but that position has been empty since Rachel Brand, a conservative superstar, resigned in February.

“The Trump White House has seen more turnover in top jobs than any other administration we’ve seen,” said Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. “That turnover is problematic because it’s hard enough to fill the job once, and they are not doing a great job at that, but to fill it twice is a real problem.”

As it stands, the next in line would be Solicitor General Noel Francisco, another conservative star. But his serving as acting attorney general would bring its own problems, analysts said.

Mr. Francisco, a Trump appointee, has been mum about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, but he has been skeptical about political corruption investigations, suggesting they have overreached. He also accused former FBI Director James B. Comey of using “kid gloves” in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a secret email server while secretary of state.

Those statements could create the appearance of bias if he is suddenly put in charge of Mr. Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 presidential election.

“If Sessions is gone and the deputy attorney general is gone and no one is in the third spot, it’s going to be a mess,” said Rory Little, a former Justice Department lawyer who is now a professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law.

Under more normal circumstances, the president could have names ready to fill empty slots.

But Mr. Trump’s antipathy toward the Mueller investigation, stacked up against senators’ insistence that the probe be allowed to run its course, makes the situation anything but normal.

“A replacement is going to be put in the position of being ordered by the president to end the Mueller investigation, which will be terrible for their reputation, or refusing to do it and being removed as a result,” said Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “That’s not an attractive position to be in — especially if you are the kind of person whose career has been aimed at a high-ranking legal role in a Republican administration.”

Even if someone accepts the nomination, the confirmation process could be even more bitter than the one for Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

“The combination of getting rid of Sessions, who many of the folks in the Senate have a great deal of respect for, for a replacement who is willing to do what Trump wants on the Russia inquiry is not the kind of person who would sail through,” Mr. Sanchez said.

The administration gave up on trying to fill the associate attorney general’s position after several potential candidates said they weren’t interested, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. von Spakovsky said the White House needs to start filling some of the other agency and division head positions, and that means gearing up for a series of confirmation battles.

“The Democrats have been preventing some of these appointments because they know the vast majority of career people in the Justice Department divisions are big liberals and big Democrat supporters,” he said. “I worked there in the [George W.] Bush administration, and we were constantly having internal battles with senior career people who wanted to threaten everything Bush wanted to do. Trump has the same problem.”

It has taken 89 days on average for Mr. Trump’s Justice Department candidates to receive confirmation. That compares with 83 days for President Obama, 53 days for President George W. Bush and 65 days for President Clinton.

Lawmakers aren’t the only source of delay.

Of the 18 vacant confirmable positions in the Justice Department, the administration hasn’t named picks for 15.

“We are over 18 months into this administration, and the reality is that getting people confirmed between now and after the midterms when Congress has a lot of other things they are working on and won’t be much longer is going to be near impossible,” Mr. Stier said. “If you don’t go quickly at the start of your administration, it just becomes harder and harder.”

Others say Mr. Sessions needs to push harder to get the positions filled. But as the relationship between Mr. Trump and his attorney general becomes more frayed, it is not clear whether the White House would listen to him.

When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, he made it a priority to have all open Justice Department positions filled by June 1981, said former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who held the title during Reagan’s second term.

“I didn’t want any of those positions vacant for any period of time at all,” he said. “When I came in, there were several vacancies because it was when the administration had moved from the first to the second term. We worked to fill those very quickly.”

Mr. Meese said it helps to have a person within the Justice Department champion nominees. For example, John R. Bolton, who was the department’s assistant attorney general for legislative affairs under Mr. Meese and is now Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, filled that role in the Reagan administration. In other administrations, the deputy attorney general handled that job, Mr. Little said.

But no one is available to take the reins in the Trump administration because of the fractured relationship between the president and the top two positions at Justice.

“We’ve never had a situation where you did not have at least a reasonable agreement between the president and the attorney general and the deputy attorney general,” Mr. Meese said.

Mr. von Spakovsky said the number of vacancies is likely to rise given that presidential appointees usually serve for only a year and a half or so.

“We are going to start to see turnover in the confirmed slots, and the patience is going to run out for the people who have been nominated for a year and a half but haven’t been confirmed. We could need a whole new slate, and who knows how long it will take to get those folks confirmed?” he said.

See (“Trump’s dilemma: Leave Justice Department control to Sessions and Rosenstein — or ‘deep state'”) (emphasis added); see also (“Naïveté And Treason In The Trump White House“)

Truly, it is a dilemma. Who can our President trust to clean house at the DOJ, FBI and the rest of the “Deep State”? Certainly not Sessions, Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

See, e.g., (“Vicious Un-American Efforts To Bring About Regime Change In The United States, And A Civil War“)

The DOJ’s Inspector General is supposed to issue at least one more report, which under the best of circumstances may highlight additional wrongdoing in that department and require more firings.

See, e.g., (“The Department Of Injustice’s Inspector General Is Complicit In The Deep-State Cover-Up!“)


17 09 2018
mary peklar

Unfortunately, for Pres Trump he trusted Sessions for the AG position and as we all know, Sessions recused himself immediately after he was confirmed from any Russia allegations. (Not an honorable move.) Later came the rightful firing of Comey, Rosenstein as AAG, the appointment of Mueller, and the rest is history. To make matters worse for Trump is McConnell has proven to be an ineffective leader (SCOTUS has been handled nicely) in the Senate because he is allowing for these delays in the confirmation process by the Obstructionist Dems in the Senate and in particular, Schumer and Senate archaic, unconstitutional rules. I am hoping that the Republicans maintain their majorities in the HOR and Senate with more Conservatives in order to avoid Impeachment proceedings against Pres Trump. Both Chambers of Congress need strong Conservative leaders who support the Trump Agenda. The good news is Ryan is leaving and there will be a new Speaker, hopefully Jordan from Ohio. . . . . Sessions’ inaction about the Mueller Witch Hunt, No indictments for known crimes such as Comey’s leaking, Hill/DNC paid for fake dossier with Russian input to obtain an illegal FISA Warrant, and so much more, makes Sessions an accomplice to the fraud that is foisted on the American public and our values. Yes, this is a dilemma, but Sessions could be honorable and fire Rosenstein and then resign (Unlikely) and/or we get strong Conservatives leaders in the HOR and Senate. The latter depends on the outcome of the Midterms. At least there is hope in November for Conservatives. Congress can Impeach or present Contempt of Congress charges for both Sessions and Rosenstein since they are slow walking requested information for various Congressional investigation Hearings. (FBI Director Wray could also be impeached since he is guilty of the same obstruction tactics.) Pres Trump can fire these people and with justification as in Comey’s case and/or redact the requested material while protecting National Security. However, this will probably lead to another Mueller type appointment and the country will go through this misery again. It’s also Trump’s misfortune that he will Own this at some point if Justice is not served against the miscreants of the OB/Clinton Administration. This is Trump’s FBI/DOJ and Not Obama’s!!


17 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Mary, for your thoughtful comments as always. I agree completely.

It is essential that Ryan leave, and that he is replaced by someone who is loyal to the President, such as Jim Jordan.


1 11 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


Black racist Maxine Waters

If the Democrats take the U.S. House of Representatives—and yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again—lunatics like the despicable black racist Maxine Waters will be running the “asylum” on Capitol Hill.

Kyle Olson has written for the American Mirror:

If Democrats take over the House in the midterm elections, Maxine Waters has some scores to settle.

The California congresswoman told a group of constituents what’s in store for her enemies, should she gain the chairmanship of the Financial Services Committee.

“We have an election November 6th,” Waters said. “This is big. This may be the most important one that you’ve ever had to experience.

“This is the midterm election and often times people only vote in the presidential election because they don’t think this is important enough. But this is absolutely important,” she lectured.

“First of all, if we take back the House, most of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus will be chairs of the committees of the Congress of the United States of America,” Waters said, waving her fingers as the audience applauded.

“I will be the first African-American, the first woman to chair the powerful Financial Services Committee.

“That’s all of Wall Street. That’s all the insurance companies, that’s all the banks. And so, of course, the CEOs of the banks now are saying, ‘What can we do to stop Maxine Waters because if she gets in she’s going to give us a bad time?’” she said.

“I have not forgotten you foreclosed on our houses,” she warned.

“I have not forgotten that you undermined our communities,” she continued with the tone of a preacher.

“I have not forgotten that you sold us those exotic products, had us sign on the dotted line for junk,” she yelled, “and for mess that we could not afford.”

“I have people who are homeless who have never gotten back into a home. What am I going to do to you?

“What I am going to do to you is fair. I’m going to do to you what you did to us,” she vowed.

Governance by retribution. What could go wrong?

Maxine’s mob loved it, bursting into cheers.

See (“MAXINE WATERS: Committee chairmanship will be time for paybacks“) (emphasis added); see also (“What If Maxine Waters Takes the Gavel and Wall Street Loves It?“) and (“[Adam] Schiff: Russia probe will ramp up if Dems take House“) and (“Leadership upheaval in House awaits Trump after election“); but see (“Is Another Silent Red Wave Coming?“)

Americans need to realize that overt black racism became acceptable when Barack Obama was elected president. If anyone has doubts, please read his book, “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his core beliefs in his own words. It was and is shocking.

The book is summarized in the following article, with direct quotes and page cites. Read it yourself.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“); see also (“CNN’s [Don] Lemon doubles down: ‘Evidence is overwhelming’ that white men are ‘biggest terror threat'”)

Maxine Waters: poverty pimp


7 12 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Good Riddance To The Weekly Standard

Bill Kristol

Martin Longman, the web editor for the Washington Monthly, has written:

Billionaire Philip Anschutz’s D.C. Media is a parent to both the Trump-critical Weekly Standard and the pro-Trump Washington Examiner. It’s not surprising that they’re looking to expand the Examiner and shutter the Standard.

As Jim Antle, editor of The American Conservative, told Politico’s Jason Schwartz, “I think, in general, people don’t visit conservative websites and read conservative magazines to read that the president is terrible. So what do you do when your writers and editors have concluded the president is terrible?”

It’s a little different on the left. I can tell you from experience that it’s easier to get traffic on the left by trashing the Democratic Party and its leaders than it is to praise or defend them. But it’s still generally true that partisans are looking for some kind of orthodoxy from publications before they consider them allies or worthy of recommendation. The Weekly Standard has evidently run afoul of this principle, although there is some dispute over the exact cause of their demise. For me, it would be related to the fact that its founder Bill Kristol may be the most famously and reliably wrong person in America.

But that’s not it.

And despite the Standard’s dwindling circulation, unnamed staffers told Vox’s Jane Coaston last night that the magazine’s closure would reflect corporate infighting more than untenable financial pressure (MediaDC, in any case, has deep pockets: its parent company is owned by the billionaire Philip Anschutz). As one source told Coaston, “This isn’t a natural death.”

Maybe there is an editorial reason for killing off the Standard. It could be that Mr. Anschutz has decided that displeasing the president isn’t a good investment. Someone should look into the possibility he has business interests with the administration.

I won’t miss the Weekly Standard even a little bit, as I have never considered it an honest enterprise. I do understand the longing some leftists have for interlocutors on the right. But God help them if they ever thought Stephen Hayes and Bill Kristol fit the bill.

It’d be nice if someone would pay right-leaning journalists to do honest work, but I’ve seen no evidence that this ever occurs. Since it doesn’t, there is no such thing as an honest debate on the issues between the left and right. If the Standard dies, nothing of real value will be lost. We could actually be grateful that they won’t be able to use their opposition to Trump as cover to advocate the things that neo-conservatives really care about, like permawar in the Middle East.

See (emphasis added)

Good riddance to Bill Kristol and the Standard. You are out of tune with America today, and have been for a very long time now.

However, Fred Barnes is a fine writer and thinker.


7 12 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Who Lost the World Bush 41 Left Behind?

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush

This is the title of an article by Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—which echoes what I wrote in the article and comments above:

George H.W. Bush was America’s closer.

Called in to pitch the final innings of the Cold War, Bush 41 presided masterfully over the fall of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, the liberation of 100 million Eastern Europeans and the dissolution of the Soviet Union into 15 independent nations.

History’s assignment complete, Bush 41 was retired.

And what happened to the world he left behind?

What became of that world where America was the lone superpower, which 41 believed should lead in creation of the New World Order?

The Russia that back then was led by Boris Yeltsin, a man desperate to be our friend and ally, is now ruled by an autocratic nationalist.

Was not Vladimir Putin an inevitable reaction to our treating Russia like an untrustworthy and dangerous recidivist, by our expansion of NATO into the Balkans, the eastern Baltic and the Black Sea — the entire front porch of Mother Russia?

Did the America that in her early decades declared the Monroe Doctrine believe a great nation like Russia would forever indulge the presence of a hostile alliance on her doorstep led by a distant superpower?

In this same quarter century that we treated Russia like a criminal suspect, we welcomed China as the prodigal son. We threw open our markets to Chinese goods, escorted her into the WTO, smiled approvingly as U.S. companies shifted production there.

Beijing reciprocated — by manipulating her currency, running up hundreds of billions of dollars in trade surpluses with us, and thieving our technology when she could not extort it from our industries in China. Beijing even sent student spies into American universities.

Now the mask has fallen. China is claiming all the waters around her, building island bases in the South China Sea and deploying weapons to counter U.S. aircraft carriers. Creating ports and bases in Asia and Africa, confronting Taiwan — China clearly sees America as a potentially hostile rival power and is reaching for hegemony in the Western Pacific and East Asia.

And who produced the policies that led to the “unipolar power” of 1992 being challenged by these two great powers now collaborating against us? Was it not the three presidents who sat so uncomfortably beside President Donald Trump at the state funeral of 41?

Late in the 20th century, Osama bin Laden declared war on us for our having planted military bases on the sacred soil of Mecca and Medina; and, on Sept. 11, 2001, he made good on his declaration.

America recoiled, invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban, and set out to build an Afghan regime on American principles. Bush 43, declaring that we were besieged by “an axis of evil,” attacked and occupied Iraq.

We then helped ignite a civil war in Syria that became, with hundreds of thousands dead and millions uprooted, the greatest humanitarian disaster of the century.

Then followed our attack on Libya and support for Saudi Arabia’s war to crush the Houthi rebels in Yemen, a war that many believe has surpassed Syria as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

Where are the fruits of our forever war in the Middle East that justify the 7,000 U.S. dead, 60,000 wounded and untold trillions of dollars lost?

Since George H.W. Bush left the White House, the U.S. has incurred 12 trillion dollars in trade deficits, lost scores of thousands of manufacturing plants and 5 million manufacturing jobs. Our economic independence is ancient history.

After 41 left, the Republican Party supported an immigration policy that brought tens of millions, mostly unskilled and poor, half of them illegal, into the country. Result: The Nixon-Reagan coalition that delivered two 49-state landslides in the ’70s and ’80s is history, and the Republican nominee has lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections.

From 1992 to 2016, the American establishment contemptuously dismissed as “isolationists” those who opposed their wars for democracy in the Middle East, and as “protectionists” those who warned that by running up these massive trade deficits we were exporting America’s future.

The establishment airily dismissed those who said that pushing NATO right up to Russia’s borders would enrage and permanently antagonize a mighty military power. They ridiculed skeptics of our embrace of the Chinese rulers who defended the Tiananmen massacre.

The establishment won the great political battles before 2016. But how did the democracy crusaders, globalists, open borders progressives and interventionists do by their country in these decades?

Did the former presidents who sat beside Trump at National Cathedral, and the establishment seated in the pews behind them, realize that it was their policies, their failures, that gave birth to the new America that rose up to throw them out, and put in Donald Trump?

See (emphasis added)

As I have written in comments above:

First, Donald Trump is NOT George W. Bush. By comparison, GWB was a pathetic wimp—who brought us the tragic Iraq War in which 5,000 Americans died, and many more were maimed, while trillions of dollars were wasted, for nothing.

Second, GWB never had an army of fervent, dedicated supporters with him. Trump does, and they are more determined than ever.

Third, the Democrats have veered farther to the Left than ever; and those in America’s Center—Republicans, Independents, and what used to be described as “Reagan Democrats”—do not relate to them.

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

What Americans need to realize is that Donald Trump is fighting our enemies, foreign and domestic; in the “Deep State,” what is left of the pathetic Paul Ryans in the Congress, among the Leftist media that is every bit as evil as it was during Watergate, and on the despicable Left.

May God grant President Trump the courage and stamina to continue his fight on our behalf at least through January of 2025 when his second presidential term will end. He occupies a position in U.S. history that is very similar to that of Abraham Lincoln.


11 12 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


Civil War II

Some of us lived through Watergate, which was the despicable American Left’s effort to destroy a U.S. President and his presidency. They tried to destroy Ronald Reagan too, but failed. Now they are Hell-bent on destroying the Trump presidency, after they failed to destroy his candidacy.

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

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

If Donald Trump told Michael Cohen to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels about a one-night stand a decade ago, that, says Jerome Nadler, incoming chair of House Judiciary, would be an “impeachable offense.”

This tells you what social media, cable TV and the great herd of talking heads will be consumed with for the next two years — the peccadillos and misdeeds of Trump, almost all of which occurred before being chosen as president of the United States.

“Everywhere President Trump looks,” writes The Washington Times’ Rowan Scarborough, “there are Democrats targeting him from New York to Washington to Maryland… lawmakers, state attorneys general, opposition researchers, bureaucrats and activist defense lawyers.

“They are aiming at Russia collusion, the Trump Organization, the Trump Foundation, a Trump hotel, Trump tax returns, Trump campaign finances and supposed money laundering.”

The full-court press is on. Day and night we will be hearing debate on the great question: Will the elites that loathe him succeed in bringing Trump down, driving him from office, and prosecuting and putting him in jail?

Says Adam Schiff, the incoming chair of the House intelligence committee: “Donald Trump may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.”

And what will a watching world be thinking when it sees the once-great republic preoccupied with breaking yet another president?

Will that world think: Why can’t we be more like America?

Does the world still envy us our free press, which it sees tirelessly digging up dirt on political figures and flaying them with abandon?

Among the reasons democracy is in discredit and retreat worldwide is that its exemplar and champion, the USA, is beginning to resemble France’s Third Republic in its last days before World War II.

Also, democracy no longer has the field largely to itself as to how to create a prosperous and powerful nation-state.

This century, China has shown aspiring rulers how a single-party regime can create a world power, and how democracy is not a necessary precondition for extraordinary economic progress.

Vladimir Putin, an autocratic nationalist, has shown how a ruined nation can be restored to a great power in the eyes of its people and the world, commanding a new deference and respect.

Democracy is a bus you get off when it reaches your stop, says Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan. After the attempted coup in the summer of 2017, Erdogan purged his government and military of tens of thousands of enemies and jailed more journalists than any other nation.

Yet he is welcomed in the capitals of the world.

What does American democracy now offer the world as its foremost attribute, its claim to greatness?

“Our diversity is our strength!” proclaims this generation.

We have become a unique nation composed of peoples from every continent and country, every race, ethnicity, culture and creed on earth.

But is not diversity what Europe is openly fleeing from?

Is there any country of the Old Continent clamoring for more migrants from the Maghreb, sub-Sahara or Middle East?

Broadly, it seems more true to say that the world is turning away from transnationalism toward tribalism, and away from diversity and back to the ethno-nationalism whence the nations came.

The diversity our democracy has on offer is not selling.

Ethnic, racial and religious minorities, such as the Uighurs and Tibetans in China, the Rohingya in Myanmar, minority black tribes in sub-Sahara Africa and white farmers in South Africa, can testify that popular majority rule often means mandated restrictions or even an end to minority rights.

In the Middle East, free elections produced a Muslim Brotherhood president in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon. After this, a disillusioned Bush 43 White House called off the democracy crusade.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, relates how one minority is treated in much of the Muslim world:

“Christians face daily the threat of violence, murder, intimidation, prejudice and poverty…”

“In the last few years, they have been slaughtered by so-called Islamic State. … Hundreds of thousands have been forced from their homes. Many have been killed, enslaved and persecuted or forcibly converted. Even those who remain ask the question, ‘Why stay?’

“Christian communities that were the foundation of the universal Church now face the threat of imminent extinction.”

And all the while this horror is going on, Ronald Reagan’s treaty that banned all U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles with a range between 310 and 3,400 miles faces collapse. And President Trump’s initiative to bring about a nuclear-free North Korea appears in peril.

Yet, for the next two years, we will be preoccupied with whether paying hush money to Stormy Daniels justifies removing a president, and exactly when Michael Cohen stopped talking to the Russians about his boss building a Trump Tower in Moscow.

We are an unserious nation, engaged in trivial pursuits, in a deadly serious world.

See (“How Democracy Is Losing the World“) (emphasis added)

Our enemies, foreign and domestic (e.g., China, Russia, FAKE NEWS, the “Deep State”) will be contributing mightily to this effort.

The same traitorous faces that emerged during Watergate—such as John Dean, Woodward and Bernstein—are raising their ugly heads again. And they are joined by the racist Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff and others.

The Trump faithful must rise up and destroy them. Nothing less will suffice.


19 12 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Paul Ryan: The GOP’s Devil Incarnate

Paul Ryan

Anna Edgerton has written for Bloomberg Quint:

When Paul Ryan became speaker of the House in 2015, the federal budget deficit was $438 billion. He blamed the “failed policies of President Obama” for budget deficits that had exploded to $1.4 trillion in 2009, the year after the Great Recession, though shortfalls began shrinking in the following years and were continuing to fall as Ryan took the gavel.

Today, with Ryan preparing to retire from Congress, the annual federal budget deficit is again approaching $1 trillion. Over his two decades in Congress, the total national debt increased from less than $6 trillion to nearly $22 trillion. Yet the years of his speakership saw no new foreign conflict or recession that forced the government to live beyond its means. The problem was a Republican-led Congress that pushed a small-government agenda only in part. When President Trump took office, he embraced tax cuts but rejected structural spending overhauls. But even he complained about the spending bill Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brought him last year, which met Democrats’ demands for more domestic spending to keep up with the $716 billion Republicans pledged for defense in 2019 without imposing discipline in other areas to compensate.

The GOP’s departure from Ryan’s professed brand of conservatism is all but complete, with Republicans often accepting, while occasionally bemoaning, Trump’s withdrawal from fiscal restraint, free trade, and public civility. The increasing rancor of American politics makes it almost impossible to conjure the political courage necessary to make the tough compromises that would reverse these spending trends, which get more complicated to address the longer they continue. “It’s a great irony that not just Paul Ryan but Republicans who claim they care so much about the deficit have now presided over huge increases in the budget deficit,” says Chris Van Hollen, now a Maryland senator, who was the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee in 2013, when Ryan was chairman. “It’s going to take, unfortunately, a long time to get back on a path to fiscal sustainability, because they just blew another $2 trillion hole in our debt.”

Legislation passed in fiscal year 2018 accounts for almost half the $973 billion projected budget deficit for 2019, says the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group. The U.S. gross domestic product is projected to increase 2.9 percent this year, according to Bloomberg data, thanks in part to this debt-financed fiscal stimulus. A growing economy does bring in more tax revenue, but not nearly enough to offset the cost of the tax cuts and additional spending. The world’s other developed countries are using this period of expansion to get their debt under control, says Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and policy director for the CRFB: “The growth of the economy is great—the problem is we’re not taking advantage of the growth to put our fiscal house in order.”

The U.S. financial system can digest a higher debt-to-GDP ratio, because global investors have faith in the Treasury’s assets, Goldwein adds. But markets move fast, and just a slight slip in confidence could become even more dangerous with a heavier debt load. “The best-case scenario is that current deficits are really eating up domestic investment—which they are—and will continue to slow our economic growth. Worst-case scenario or scariest scenario, we’re heading for a debt-driven financial crisis,” he says.

This is the opposite of where Ryan has said he wanted to leave the country after his two decades in Congress. At a December event sponsored by the Washington Post, he stated that his goal in rolling back regulation and rewriting the tax code was to “build up the country’s resilience, its antibodies, its health, its strength.”

Yet even some of Ryan’s own party members warn that the country’s balance sheet is in no shape to cushion a financial crisis, or even a cyclical downturn. Mark Sanford, a Republican representative from South Carolina, grudgingly voted for last year’s tax cuts but has taken the administration to task for abandoning conservative fiscal discipline. Sanford is a cautionary tale for Republicans who question the new GOP orthodoxy of loyalty to Trump: He lost his primary after Trump tweeted his support for challenger Katie Arrington, who’d pledged total commitment to the president’s agenda. (Arrington, however, went on to lose in the general election to Joe Cunningham, a moderate Democrat and ocean engineer.)

“I think it’s the three monkeys in Washington—I hear no evil, I speak no evil, I see no evil—about the reality of $1 trillion deficits that will frankly explode in the economic downturn,” Sanford now says. “The only thing that pulls us back is financial necessity, and I don’t think financial necessity is that far away.”

David Hoppe, Ryan’s first chief of staff as speaker, says Trump doesn’t reason like a typical politician and has no interest in fiscal discipline. Republicans did what they had to do to score wins on tax cuts, rolling back regulation, and confirming conservative judges. Ryan “made a decision, as did Senator McConnell,” he says. “They sacrificed trying to control Trump for trying to do some big things, and I think that’s a balance that one has to look at when one reviews this Congress.”

Not all who placed their hopes in Ryan are willing to be so charitable. “He was dealt a weak hand, and I think he played it mediocrely,” says Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “I’m so conflicted between disappointment and sympathy, and I’m not sure how history is going to judge him, because it’s going to be whiplash between those two poles.”

Ryan has been coy about his post-Congress plans, but he’s pledged to stay engaged on issues such as making entitlement programs more efficient and effective, even if he no longer holds elected office. Lanhee Chen, who was policy director for Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign when Ryan was on the ticket as the candidate for vice president, says Ryan tried to stay true to his “core values” in a political environment that wasn’t conducive to civility and fiscal discipline. “I think in an ideal world he would have wanted more,” Chen says. “But we don’t live in an ideal world.”

See (“Paul Ryan Leaves Washington With A $22 Trillion Legacy Of Debt“) (emphasis added; diagram omitted); see also (“Are Paul Ryan And The Neanderthals In the GOP Leading The Party To Crushing Defeats In November?“)

Ryan is a Republican monster, who must be driven from the GOP, and left with no basis to lobby in Washington or anywhere else. Along with the despicable Democrats—and yes, lots of us began as Democrats but will never vote for one again—Ryan must become persona non grata in American politics.

See, e.g., (“Paul Ryan shoots down Trump’s birthright citizenship plans“)

Instead of retiring gracefully when he announced his intention to do so, he stayed on and never spent all of the campaign money that he raised on GOP races.

He did nothing to prevent GOP Members of Congress from retiring, which shifted control of the House to the despicable Democrats, who will spend at least the next two years trying to destroy Donald Trump, his presidency, and his agenda for the nation—further dividing and tearing down the United States to the benefit of our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

And Ryan couldn’t even win his own home town for the Romney-Ryan presidential ticket!


20 12 2018

I think Trump is failing.. He’s blinked yet again on the wall, and I just don’t think it will ever be built… Nor do I think Trump will be re-elected if he breaks his word.. I fear the country will become a country of illegal immigrants, run by Kamala Harris…


20 12 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, for your comments.

You are not alone in such beliefs. Clearly, many Americans remember George H.W. Bush’s pledge—”Read my lips: no new taxes”—and voted him out of office for failing to keep it.

See, e.g., (“Read my lips: no new taxes”) and (“Build The Wall, Mr. President!”) and (“Least-Educated State: California No. 1 in Percentage of Residents 25 and Older Who Never Finished 9th Grade; No. 50 in High School Graduates”)

However, I believe President Trump will be reelected in 2020; the “wall” will be built, similar to Israel’s wall and border security; and San Francisco Willie Brown’s former “punch,” Kamala Harris, is going nowhere fast.

Americans do not want another version of Barack Obama again, or anything remotely close. 🙂


22 01 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Willie Brown’s Mistress Runs For America’s Presidency [UPDATED]

Kamala Harris

Jim Geraghty has written for the National Review:

A trip through the life and career of the California senator as she gears up for a probable presidential run

1. As both a district attorney and state attorney general, Harris pushed for a new statewide law that lets prosecutors charge parents with misdemeanors if their children are chronically truant. “We are putting parents on notice,” she declared. “If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.”

2. Harris strongly supports “familial DNA searching,ˮ in which police take DNA samples from crime scenes and compare them to existing databases to look for not just any direct matches in criminal databases, but any familial matches. Police have gradually expanded the practice’s reach, from checking DNA collected against existing samples of convicted criminals to checking them against samples in the databases of genealogy web sites and genetic-testing companies like 23andMe and California allows the collection and preservation of DNA samples from anyone who is arrested, even if they’re not charged with a crime.

3. Harris also has been a strong advocate of civil asset forfeiture. She supported a bill in California that would have allowed prosecutors to seize assets before initiating criminal proceedings — a power now available only at the federal level — if there were a “substantial probability” they would eventually initiate such proceedings. Besides cases involving violent crimes, the legislation allowed seizures in cases involving such crimes as bribery, gambling, and trafficking endangered species. Harris endorsed the bill after then-attorney general Eric Holder sharply limited civil asset forfeiture among federal prosecutors. She argued that the practice gave local and state law-enforcement officials “more tools to target the illicit profits [of transnational criminal groups] and dismantle these dangerous organizations.”

4. As San Francisco district attorney, Harris created “Back on Track,” an anti-recidivism program that she expanded as state attorney general. The program received $750,000 in federal funding and quite a bit of praise from crime-policy experts. But it faced criticism early in its history, when illegal immigrant Alexander Izaguirre, who had pleaded guilty to selling drugs, was selected and graduated, only to later grab a woman’s purse and run her down in an SUV, severely injuring her.

As the Los Angeles Times put it, “Harris’ office had been allowing Izaguirre and other illegal immigrants to stay out of prison by training them for jobs they cannot legally hold.” Harris said she had been unaware that Back on Track had been training illegal immigrants and that they would no longer be eligible for the program.

5. In 2012, she submitted a brief supporting an illegal immigrant’s application for a law license. In 2014, the California Supreme Court ruled in the immigrant’s favor, even though the California State Bar’s rules state that it is disqualifying professional misconduct to commit a criminal act.

6. In her first speech on the Senate floor, Harris declared, “An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” She later avowed the belief that illegal immigration is “a civil violation, not a crime.”

This classification applies to only a portion of those in the country without permission. First, entering the country illegally has criminal penalties. Overstaying a visa is considered a civil violation, not a criminal one, with deportation as the appropriate penalty. But reentry without permission after deportation is a crime, as is, in most cases, working in the United States without legal residency, since it almost always involves some falsification of documents or lying on work forms under penalty of perjury.

7. Harris’s reputation as a tough prosecutor has played a key part in her political rise, and she continues to tout the high rate of felony convictions on her watch. But in 2010, SF Weekly reviewed the work of her office and concluded that “felony convictions for cases that actually go to trial and reach a jury verdict — a comparatively small group that nevertheless includes some of a district attorney’s most violent and emotionally charged cases — have declined significantly over the past two years.” The review found that in 2009, San Francisco prosecutors “won a lower percentage of their felony jury trials than their counterparts at district attorneys’ offices covering the 10 largest cities in California,” and San Francisco’s rate dropped further in the first quarter of 2010. Harris’s 71 percent conviction rate on felony cases had been boosted by a significant increase in pre-trial plea agreements.

8. In October 2017, Harris declared that she would rather shut down the government than vote for a spending bill that did not address the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and ensure those covered by the program would not be deported. “I will not vote for an end-of-year spending bill until we are clear about what we are going to do to protect and take care of our DACA young people in this country,” she said. And she has kept her word, at least so far.

9. In April 2018, Harris urged the Senate Appropriations Committee to “reduce funding for beds in the federal immigration system,” reject calls to hire more Border Patrol personnel, and “reduce funding for the administration’s reckless immigration enforcement operations.”

10. In 2010, a California Superior Court judge declared that as San Francisco district attorney, Harris had violated defendants’ rights by hiding damaging information about a police drug-lab technician and was indifferent to demands that that the lab account for its failings. The crime-lab technician had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in 2008; district attorneys are obligated to hand over to the defense information about prosecution witnesses that could be used to challenge their credibility. Prosecutors’ failure to disclose the information about the technician led to the dismissal of more than 600 drug cases.

11. Some have asked tough questions about whether Harris, as San Francisco district attorney, did everything she could to root out abuse in the local Catholic churches. Prosecutors had obtained personnel files from the Archdiocese of San Francisco dealing with sexual abuse going back decades. But her office did not prosecute any priests, and she argued that those records were not subject to public-records laws:

In 2005, while she was San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris rebuffed a public-records request by SF Weekly to release personnel files from the Archdiocese of San Francisco. (Her predecessor had planned to make them public after prosecuting criminal priests, but the California Supreme Court stopped those cases when it declared unconstitutional a 2002 law that lifted the criminal statute of limitations.) Similar archives in Boston had exposed the scope of the scandal there. “We’re not interested in selling out our victims to look good in the paper,” Harris told SF Weekly in a statement — this, even though many of those victims pleaded with her to release the documents.

12. In 2004, San Francisco Police officer Isaac Espinoza was shot and killed by David Hill, a young gang member with an AK-47. Hill also shot another officer in the leg. Days after Hill’s arrest, then-district attorney Harris announced that her office would not seek the death penalty. This prompted Senator Dianne Feinstein to declare, while speaking at Espinoza’s funeral, “This is not only the definition of tragedy, it’s the special circumstance called for by the death-penalty law.” The comment drew a standing ovation from the crowd of mostly police. Hill was ultimately sentenced to life without parole. Feinstein later told reporters that if she’d known Harris was against the death penalty, she probably wouldn’t have endorsed her for D.A. in the first place.

In 2009, Harris again received criticism for refusing to pursue the death penalty against Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant and member of MS-13 who gunned down a father and two sons. As a teenager, Ramos twice served probation for violent crimes but was not deported. Ramos was sentenced to 183-years-to-life without parole.

13. Harris’s most financially significant decision as state attorney general came in 2012, when she negotiated a $25 billion settlement deal with the nation’s five largest mortgage companies (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, CitiFinancial, GMAC/Ally Financial, and Wells Fargo) after the companies were accused of improper foreclosure practices.

By 2013, the state reported that California homeowners had received $18.4 billion in mortgage relief from the deal. When all was said and done, roughly 33,000 homeowners received an average reduction of $137,280 on their first mortgage. That sounds like a lot until one looks at the scale of the problem: More than 600,000 Californians received a foreclosure notice in 2009, and in 2012, when the agreement was struck, more than 30 percent of California homeowners with mortgages owed more than their houses were worth.

14. One bank that was not part of Harris’s settlement was California-based OneWest. A 2013 internal memo from the California attorney general’s office, first published by The Intercept, alleged that OneWest and its CEO, Steven Mnuchin, violated state foreclosure laws and recommended filing charges against him. Prosecutors claimed they had “uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct” and “identified over a thousand legal violations.”

But Harris, the state attorney general, did not pursue charges. She later told The Hill, “We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made. We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.”

In 2016, Mnuchin — who would soon be President Trump’s nominee to be secretary of the treasury — donated $2,000 to Harris’s Senate campaign. She voted against his confirmation anyway.

15. For nearly ninety years, California state law prohibited images of handguns from being used in signs for gun stores. In 2014, after Harris’s office cited several gun shops, they sued, arguing that the law violated the First Amendment. Harris’s office argued that the law was needed to prevent handgun-related crime and suicide. Last year a federal judge ruled “the government has provided no evidence directly linking [the law] to reduced handgun suicide or crime,” concluded that the law was a “highly paternalistic approach to limiting speech,” and declared it “unconstitutional on its face.”

16. Starting in 1993, Harris began dating Willie Brown, then the speaker of the California Assembly and later a candidate for mayor of San Francisco — a relationship that brought her in contact with many of the city’s political and financial movers and shakers. Early in 1994, Brown named her as his appointee to the state’s Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, a job that paid $97,088 a year. Six months later, he named her to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a post which paid $72,000 a year.

Into 1994, press accounts described Harris as Brown’s girlfriend. He was still married, and in his early 60s; she had just turned 30. The relationship had a surprising and tumultuous end, as James Richardson describes in Willie Brown: A Biography:

Columnist Herb Caen all but predicted two days after the election that Brown would wed Kamala Harris, his constant companion throughout the campaign. “Keep an eye on these two,” Caen wrote. No mention was made of what Brown would do about Blanche, to whom he was still married. But the day after Christmas, Brown stunned his friends by announcing that he was breaking up with Kamala. Brown invited Blanche to appear with him on stage for his swearing-in and to hold the Bible. A television reporter from KPIX caught up to Blanche, who had kept a low profile throughout the campaign, and asked her what it was like to live with the future mayor.

“Difficult,” was her one-word answer.

17. Late last year, Los Angeles city officials asked why “armed, plain-clothes LAPD officers were dispatched to California cities outside of Los Angeles at least a dozen times to provide security for U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris at public events.” LAPD officers traveled with Harris to San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, and San Diego. Los Angeles taxpayers covered about $28,000 of the cost for airline tickets, hotel stays, car rentals, and meals in an arrangement that retired law-enforcement officers called “unprecedented.”

18. In 2009 and 2010, Harris contributed to the liberal blog Daily Kos, where she characterized the opposition to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as “bigotry and narrow-mindedness,” warned that Texas oil companies were “invading” California by funding efforts to repeal an initiative requiring reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, and opposed Arizona’s since-struck-down immigration law, declaring that we “can’t afford to divert scarce local law-enforcement resources to enforcing federal immigration laws.”

19. Harris has proposed a sweeping tax reform that would create a refundable tax credit for all workers, peaking at $3,000 for single adults and $6,000 for married couples — meaning that taxpayers could collect cash even if they don’t actually owe any taxes. The worth of the credit would decline the higher a taxpayer’s income, eventually reaching zero for childless single adults making more than $50,000 a year, single adults with children making more than $80,000 a year, and married couples with children making more than $100,000 a year. The plan would repeal all of the 2017 tax cuts for earners making more than $100,000, would cost roughly $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion over ten years, would constitute a serious marriage penalty, according to experts.

20. In April, Harris made an appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, where the hostess asked, “If you had to be stuck in an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence, or Jeff Sessions, who would it be?” Harris replied, “Does one of us have to come out alive?”

See (“Kamala Harris: 20 Things You Didn’t Know about California Senator“) (emphasis added); see also (“Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris Says She Is Running for President in 2020“)

Harris was former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown’s mistress. How she made it into the U.S. Senate is beyond all reason.

See, e.g., (“YUP, Willie Brown inserted his Willie in Kamala Harris“) and (“Kamala Harris’ Start Came From Her Affair With Willie Brown“) and and (“KAVANAUGH: A DRESS REHEARSAL FOR IMPEACHMENT?“)

She is going nowhere fast. Indeed, as Willie Brown’s ho, it is not surprising that she would advocate the legalization of prostitution.

See (“Kamala Harris gains momentum among Democrats with proposal to legalize prostitution“)

Also, Americans do not want another version of Barack Obama again, or far far worse.

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

The “face” of the Democrats today—and I began as a Democrat, but will never vote for one again—consists of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi (who may suffer from the onset of dementia), Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, Maxine Waters, DNC deputy chairman Keith Ellison, Elijah Cummings, Al Sharpton, Kamala Harris, Frederica Wilson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Rachel Maddow and others of their ilk. For most Americans, and certainly those in the “Flyover States” who love Donald Trump, these Leftist misfits are like lepers.

This and other factors may determine the 2020 elections.

See also (“Angel Mom: Kamala Harris’ Staff Threatened to Call Capitol Police When Angel Families Visited Her Office“) and (“Harris’ Errors Caused Release Of 1100 Criminals“)


15 05 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

America’s Psychotic Drug Culture


Political pundit and lawyer Ann Coulter has written at Townhall:

Contrary to the image of potheads as peaceful stoners, “cannabis-dependent psychotic patients were four times as likely to be violent,” Alex Berenson writes in his magnificent new book, Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence. “No other factor was nearly as important. Alcohol use, which was common among the patients, made no difference.”

So where are all the marijuana-induced murders?

As Berenson says, they’re hiding in plain sight. But until you’re told about the cannabis-psychosis link, you don’t even notice. Crime reporters don’t want to look uncool by asking about the perp’s marijuana use, and, inasmuch as being high isn’t a legal defense, neither prosecutors nor defense lawyers have an incentive to request that suspects be tested for pot.

At the end of his book, Berenson runs through a slew of depraved murders, inexplicably gruesome — until you find out the perpetrators were high on marijuana. None of these were reported as cannabis-induced homicides.

In 2016, 35-year-old comic book artist and screenwriter Blake Leibel scalped his girlfriend, stripping her skull to the bone, drained her body of blood, then hid out in their West Hollywood condo with her desiccated corpse for more than a week. Only after the girlfriend’s mother tricked the police into knocking down the door did they discover the grisly scene.

The girlfriend had complained to her mother that Blake smoked “huge” amounts of marijuana.

In 2017, Dean Lowe, a 32-year-old cannabis dealer in Cornwall, England, beat his girlfriend to death, chopped her body into tiny pieces and made a necklace of her teeth. Like Leibel, Lowe lived with her remains in their apartment for eight days, disposing of her body parts, bit by bit, by flushing them down the toilet and leaving the rest for the garbage collector.

The murder was discovered months later, after Lowe texted a cousin, saying, “Either I’m getting set up or I’ve murdered (my girlfriend). I had a blackout, hazy memory and woke up with a body on the floor. I am scared so I just got rid.”

Lowe had long boasted that he was “the biggest stoner in the world.”

In December 2017, William T. Jones Jr. walked up to a complete stranger, 21-year-old Jared Plesec, a Salvation Army volunteer in Cleveland, and shot him in the head. Jones then hysterically raged for a solid four minutes — captured on Facebook Live by a passerby — screaming “F*ck Trump!” and “They’re going to kill us all!”

Over the next hour, he rampaged through Cleveland, shooting at people and committing several carjackings before finally being captured by the police.

Jones had never been diagnosed with any mental illness. Blood samples taken after his arrest showed the presence of only one drug: marijuana.

After reading Berenson’s book, you’ll suddenly start noticing pot-induced murders all over.

Just last week in Ventura County, California, a preliminary hearing was held in the case of Bryn Spejcher, an employed, well-educated 28-year-old with no criminal record or history of mental illness. She stands accused of stabbing her boyfriend to death — after smoking pot for the first time.

On May 28, 2018, police arrived at Chad O’Melia’s apartment around 1 a.m. to find Bryn kneeling over his lifeless body. As soon as Bryn saw the deputies, she took the 8-inch serrated knife she was holding and stabbed herself in the neck.

The coroner testified that Chad had been stabbed 108 times, from his head to his knees, cutting his trachea, jugular vein and carotid artery and perforating his heart twice. Bryn’s Siberian husky had also been stabbed.

Bryn told police she’d never smoked pot before and wanted to try it, but when she felt nothing, Chad said he’d give her something more “intense.” After one puff from the bong, she said she felt like she was dying, ran to the bathroom, then back to Chad and began frantically stabbing him because voices were telling her to keep fighting to stay alive.

A forensic scientist from the crime lab confirmed that no drug other than THC was present in Bryn’s blood and no drug other than THC was found in the bong.

The Los Angeles Times has yet to mention this case.

Last Sunday’s New York Times magazine featured a story by Wil Hylton about how his cousin tried to murder him for absolutely no reason a few years ago. Hylton blamed toxic masculinity: “the conventions of male identity were toxic … Masculinity is a religion.”

There was a rather more obvious explanation screaming out from his story:

— Hylton’s repeated mentions of his cousin’s pot smoking, e.g.: “He always wanted to smoke a bowl”;

— The cousin was apparently thrown out of the military for selling hashish; and

— The reason his cousin beat Hylton to a bloody pulp in the middle of a child’s birthday party was that … he was hearing voices no one else could hear.

Times readers filled the “Comments” page with indignation at toxic masculinity, but one, a Toronto psychiatrist, wrote: “The article doesn’t mention that his cousin’s regular marijuana use could be one possible cause of his paranoid hallucinations.”

Finally, you may have seen the story about a quintuple-homicide near Baton Rouge, Louisiana, earlier this year. Around 8 a.m. on a Saturday in January, 21-year-old Dakota Theriot is accused of fatally shooting his girlfriend, his girlfriend’s father and brother, then driving to his parents’ house, where he killed them, too. (His father lived long enough to identify his son as the killer.)

Perhaps Theriot is just a run-of-the-mill schizophrenic. But I happened to notice that his only prior arrests were for: possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana.

See—p–n2546414 (“These Are Real ‘High Crimes’“) (emphasis added)

Liked by 1 person

4 12 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Down And Out: Willie Brown’s Ho Is Gone [UPDATED]

Christopher Cadelago and Caitlin Oprysko have written for the ultra-Leftist Politico:

Kamala Harris is ending her presidential campaign after months of failing to lift her candidacy from the bottom of the field — a premature departure for a California senator once heralded as a top-tier contender for the nomination.

Harris told aides of her intentions in an all-staff call on Tuesday, and a person familiar with the conversation said she sounded distraught. While Harris had qualified for the December debate in her home state later this month, she was running dangerously low on cash — lacking the resources to air TV ads in Iowa — and her staff was gripped by long-running internal turmoil.

Still, the news came as a shock to some of her biggest supporters. Just as Harris was announcing the news internally, a super PAC had cleared more than $1 million in TV ads in Iowa to boost her struggling campaign. The ad, which argued she was the best-equipped candidate to take on President Donald Trump, was canceled.

“Eleven months ago at the launch of our campaign in Oakland I told you all: ‘I am not perfect.’ But I will always speak with decency and moral clarity and treat all people with dignity and respect. I will lead with integrity. I will speak the truth. And that’s what I have tried to do every day of this campaign. So here’s the truth today,” Harris wrote in a note to supporters.

“I’ve taken stock and looked at this from every angle, and over the last few days have come to one of the hardest decisions of my life. My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue.”

Harris, who spent Thanksgiving in Iowa with family, took a deep look at the campaign’s resources over the holiday and decided she did not have a path to the nomination. A Harris campaign aide said the expected impeachment trial in January further complicated the situation.

She made the decision Monday after discussions with her family and senior aides. Harris will travel to the early states this week to thank staff and supporters for their dedication to the campaign.

The senator did not bow out without taking a parting shot at her billionaire and self-funding rivals who made late entrances into the race this summer and fall.

“I’m not a billionaire. I can’t fund my own campaign,” Harris said in a video explaining her decision to drop out. “And as the campaign has gone on, it has become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete. In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do.”

Once dubbed the “female Obama” by [the disgraced] former Today Show anchor Matt Lauer, Harris’ campaign began on a promising note: Her kickoff rally in her hometown of Oakland drew more than 20,000 supporters who cheered wildly as she cast herself as the kind of fighter fit to take on a president like Trump.

Her candidacy got one of its first major breaks in the first Democratic debate in June, when Harris pulled off a blistering ambush of former Vice President Joe Biden over his previous stance on busing, which prompted another review of his record on race issues. Harris’ performance sent her soaring in the polls, and the campaign raised $2 million in the 24 hours following the debate.

But the attack ultimately blew back on Harris when her own stance on busing came under scrutiny in the days after. Her sharp rise in the polls did not last long, with Harris skidding into fifth place and registering in the single digits by September. When she dropped out Tuesday, her RealClearPolitics national polling average was hovering just above 3 percent.

Throughout the campaign, Harris had never been steady on health care, many voters’ stated key issue. Harris spent months backtracking following an ill-fated moment in a CNN town hall in which she said, “let’s eliminate all that,” when asked whether she supported a health care plan that got rid of private insurance.

Her stumbles on the issue continued into the fall, as Harris waffled on whether she backed the kind of single-payer, “Medicare for All” plan championed by Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, or more incremental change, an opening her opponents seized on.

In addition to health care, voters complained that they were unable to pin Harris down on a host of other issues. And Harris shied away some from what could have been one of her greatest strengths — her time spent as a prosecutor and attorney general in California — as her prosecutorial record became a liability with a Democratic base that has turned sharply left on issues of criminal justice.

Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a low-polling Democratic wildcard, weaponized Harris’ prosecutorial record against her in a later debate, lambasting Harris with a set of somewhat misleading and out-of-context accusations. But Harris did not mount a full-throated defense in the moment, only reiterating that she was proud of her time as a prosecutor.

The campaign also struggled to bring in small-dollar donations, creating a greater reliance on the kind of big-money fundraisers some of Harris’ rivals have sworn off, and resulting in less-than-savory headlines about small controversies like her initial plan to skip a climate change town hall in favor of a fundraiser. (Harris later said she was unaware of the scheduling conflict, and attended the town hall.)

Harris further struggled with the question of electability — concerns that have also gripped other competitors in the historically diverse field — as she addressed voters afraid the country might not be ready for a female president of color. From the earliest days of the campaign, Harris was subject to conspiracy theories that ricocheted around social media, even giving way to a reprisal of the same birtherism smears that plagued former President Barack Obama.

Aides and supporters, meanwhile, have argued Harris has been treated more unfairly, especially in the media, than her fellow competitors, some of whom echoed that message themselves upon hearing the news she’d dropped out.

In the spring, prior to Harris’ debate stage spat with Biden, she was forced to deftly maneuver suggestions from fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus that her becoming Biden’s running mate would make for a “dream ticket.” After the debate, Harris allies ripped the Biden campaign for suggesting that she let her ambition get the best of her in leveling the busing broadside.

Still, she was unable to make significant inroads with black voters, a key Democratic voting bloc, in the same way that Biden has, despite running neck and neck with the former vice president in endorsements from members of the CBC.

Recent weeks have carried numerous warning signs of a derailed campaign, with Harris abruptly shuttering much of the campaign’s New Hampshire operation as the senator focused squarely on Iowa. She laid off staff rather than recalibrating her resources and hoped a top-three finish in Iowa could propel her to a win in South Carolina.

Pre-drop-out campaign obituaries also started cropping up in a number of media outlets, as long-simmering dysfunction within the campaign spilled out into open in the form of aides both in California and the campaign’s Baltimore headquarters pointing fingers at one another.

Harris’ financial struggles likely would have been compounded by the possibility of an impeachment trial in the beginning of the year, which will keep her and her fellow rivals in the Senate in Washington and off the campaign trail in the crucial weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses and potentially even the New Hampshire primary.

But in her video message Tuesday, Harris pledged to stay in the fight against Trump.

“I want to be clear,” she said. “Although I am no longer running for president, I will do everything in my power to defeat Donald Trump and fight for the future of our country and the best of who we are. I know you will too. So let’s do that together.”

See (“‘One of the hardest decisions of my life’: Kamala Harris ends once-promising campaign”) (emphasis added); see also (“Kamala Harris Spent Over $25 Million on Failed Campaign“) and (“Willie Brown’s Mistress Runs For America’s Presidency“)

Her campaign was never promising. She was finished before she started.

Having learned the nuances of politics on her back, as Willie Brown’s ho, Harris’ presidential ambitions have come to naught. It is ludicrous to say that she has ever acted with “moral clarity.”

Lastly, to her credit, the lovely Tulsi Gabbard helped “bury” this …itch politically.

See, e.g., (“Tulsi Is Far Too Kind“)

Liked by 1 person

8 03 2020
Timothy D. Naegele

Willie Brown’s Ho Is A Total Hypocrite

Emily Goodin, Senior U.S. Political Reporter for the UK’s Daily Mail, has written:

Kamala Harris endorsed Joe Biden on Sunday, becoming the 9th former presidential candidate to give him the nod of approval in his race against Bernie Sanders.

‘I believe in Joe. I really believe in him and I have known him for a long time. One of the things that we need right now is we need a leader who really does care about the people and who can therefore unify the people. And I believe Joe can do that,’ the California senator said in a video announcing her endorsement.

She also noted she’ll be in Detroit Monday night to campaign for Biden ahead of Michigan’s primary on Tuesday.

Harris delivered a near knock-out punch to Biden in the first Democratic primary debate in June of last year, after she told the story of a little girl who benefited from a federal school program and ended it by dramatically declaring: ‘That girl was me.’

Her campaign jumped in the polls and brought in millions but she wasn’t able to sustain that moment and dropped out in December.

Despite the battle with Biden in that debate, the former vice president spoke favorably of her and even said he’d consider her as his running mate.

Harris’ endorsement came after Elizabeth Warren, the last viable female candidate, exited the presidential race.

She addressed her disappointment there would not be a female nominee but noted the party needed to rally behind a candidate who could defeat President Donald Trump.

‘Like many women, I watched with sadness as women exited the race one by one. Four years after our nominee, the first woman to win the nomination of a major party, received 3 million more votes than Donald Trump but still lost, we find ourselves without any woman on a path to be the Democratic nominee for president,’ she said in a statement.

‘This is something we must reckon with and it is something I will have more to say about in the future. But we must rise to unite the party and country behind a candidate who reflects the decency and dignity of the American people and who can ultimately defeat Donald Trump,’ she added.

Biden has raked in the endorsements from his former rivals. Warren is notable exception. The Massachusetts senator has not said who she’ll support for president.

Warren could play a kingmaker role in the primary – her support of Biden could bring some of the liberal left to his side, which would hurt Sanders. But if she endorses Sanders, it could lock up the left wing of the party in a battle against the more moderate wing that favors Biden.

‘Not today. I need some space around this, and I want to take a little time to think a little more,’ Warren said on Wednesday of last week, when she dropped out of the race and was asked who’d she endorse.

‘We don’t have to decide that this minute,’ she noted.

And, in a cameo appearance on ‘Saturday Night Live,’ Warren joked she may do what The New York Times did and endorse two candidates. The paper endorsed her and Amy Klobuchar.

‘Maybe I’ll just pull a New York Times and endorse them both,’ Warren said.

Klobuchar has endorsed Biden, as have Mike Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke.

The Minnesota senator – along with Buttigieg – exited the race before the Super Tuesday contests and endorsed the former vice president, a move which boosted him in those contests. Biden won the most states although Sanders took the biggest prize of the night – the state of California.

Klobuchar denied she was pressured to exit the Democratic primary to endorse Biden and said there is no conspiracy among moderate Democrats to stop Sanders’ from becoming the nominee.

The Minnesota senator told NBC’s ‘Today Show’ last week she left the contest because it was ‘the right thing to do.’

‘There literally was no push from anyone. It was a decision I made,’ she said.


Former Presidential Candidates’ Endorsements


Kamala Harris

Amy Klobuchar

Pete Buttigieg

Michael Bloomberg

Beto O’Rourke

Deval Patrick

John Delaney

Tim Ryan

Seth Moulton


Bill de Blasio

Marianne Williamson

See (“Kamala Harris endorses Joe Biden for president despite her dramatic call out to him for his stance on school busing in first Democratic primary debate“) (emphasis in original; videos omitted); see also (“Down And Out: Willie Brown’s Ho Is Gone“) and (“The Millennials May Never Forgive Biden And The Democrats“) and (“‘We all see what’s going on here’: Dem strategist says ‘deteriorating’ Biden will lead to disaster for party”)

Liked by 1 person

10 02 2023
Timothy D. Naegele

Since This Article Was Written . . .

. . . Kipling’s words have become truer with each day that passes. Lots of us who began as Democrats rejected the party and the so-called “Progressives” first. Then, as we saw them destroy the first Trump presidency, our hatred of them escalated. Now it has reached a fever pitch.

Like the Nazis before them, Joe Biden and Hunter Biden — and AG Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith and their vicious co-conspirators — need to be put down like rabid animals. At the very least, they must be consigned to Guantanamo Bay for the rest of their lives. Nothing less will suffice.

See, e.g., (“Pence subpoenaed by special counsel investigating Trump”)


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: