The Democrats Are Evil But Smart, While The Republicans Are Neanderthals And Dumb

29 04 2019

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

The title of this article is the conclusion that I reached when I was leaving the U.S. Senate, after having worked with both American political parties for years.[2]  As I wrote several months after this blog began in December of 2009:

Politically, I am an Independent, and have been for several decades, since leaving the U.S. Senate where I witnessed firsthand the shortcomings of both major political parties. I was a member of the National Democratic Club and the National Republican Club of Capitol Hill, simultaneously. I felt it was good business to entertain our clients and others at whichever club they preferred, and I felt comfortable at both of them. In fact, when I worked in the Senate, there was a spirit of bipartisanship and congeniality in both the Senate and House, which I believed was healthy and beneficial for the country.[3]

Many in the GOP are pathetically weak and spineless today.  Some are “RINOS,” or “Republicans In Name Only,”[4] like the despicable Paul Ryan and his running mate, the carpetbagger Mitt Romney.[5]  Lots of us voted for them, inter alia, because the alternative was the racist, anti-Semite Barack Obama.[6]  Many more of us have been Trump supporters from the beginning; and we have watched the treasonous pattern of misconduct unfolding, perpetrated by Obama and others—like peeling skins off an onion, one by one.[7]

Our great nation is at a critical juncture in its history, and seems poised on the edge of its second Civil War.[8]  And there are threats from adversaries globally, who may seek to destroy our great nation and kill most Americans.  No, these are not radical or crazy statements or fantasies:

Launched from a barge off the U.S. coast, an EMP attack consisting of one nuclear warhead attached to a single missile might shut down much of the country and kill all except 30 million Americans. Such an attack has been described as “a ‘giant continental time machine’ that would move us back more than a century in technology to the late 1800s”—and effectively destroy our great nation.[9]

I never realized fully how much President Donald Trump is hated until I attended a college reunion recently, where the lovely wife of a dear college friend shared her feelings with me.  It was like the mood changed from cordial to “icy” within the blink of an eye, when I told her that I was a Trump supporter—and that I began as a Democrat, but would never vote for one again.

In a very real sense, Donald Trump is America’s first Independent President. Thus, he garners detractors from both ends of the political spectrum (e.g., “Trump derangement syndrome”).[10]  Also, people in other countries have hated American “brashness” for decades, and are repulsed by it; and then there are our adversaries and enemies.  Some detractors and their countries have been living off the United States’ financial and military largesse—or the “dole”—and do not want to have it end.

Perhaps an editorial of The New York Sun puts the future American political climate in stark relief:

The showdown that is brewing between Attorney General William Barr and the House Judiciary Committee poses enormous dangers for President Trump. It might not look that way at first blush. The feud, after all, is ostensibly over the terms under which Mr. Barr is to testify before the House about the report from the special prosecutor, Robert Mueller. It has yet to ripen into a formal impeachment proceeding.

Mr. Barr might be able to win this fight. He is merely resisting the idea that he is to be questioned not only by the honorable congresspersons but also by lawyers for the committee. It looks to us like he should never have agreed to share the Mueller report with the Congress in the first place. It’s an internal executive branch document. Even so he might be able to prevail against the House.

Particularly because of the Holder precedent. Mr. Holder is the only attorney general in history to have defied a congressional subpoena and to be found in contempt. Not just any nickel-plated civil contempt but criminal contempt of Congress. President Obama’s Justice Department balked at prosecution, and Mr. Holder walked. He claims to have been embarrassed, but he’s a free man.

Mssrs. Trump and Barr might be able to get away with that. We’re not inclined to draw a lot of distinctions between the goose and the gander. If what’s going on in the House ripens into an impeachment investigation, though, all bets are off. That’s because of distinctions that have been drawn in our republic all the way back to Presidents George Washington and James Polk.

Both Washington and Polk acknowledged that once an impeachment process is started, the House becomes essentially irresistible. A study in 2001 by the Congressional Research Service recalls the fight over the Jay Treaty that President Washington struck with Britain. Washington denied the House access to his papers, saying they could be legitimately requested only in a case of impeachment.

President Polk, CRS reported, went further. He said that in an impeachment, “the power of the House” would “penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Department. It could command the attendance of any and every agent of the Government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial, and to testify on oath to all facts within their knowledge.”

Plus, too, mark this: Refusal to comply with a subpoena is charge that was laid against President Nixon in the third of the articles of impeachment voted out by the Judiciary Committee in 1974. Article Three charged that Nixon had “failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary.”

In the case of Nixon, the House never sent articles of impeachment to the Senate. Instead, Republicans in the Senate panicked and sent a delegation to the White House to tell Nixon they were going to vote against him. It was a shocking default by weak senators. It would be as if jurors, acting before charges were handed up, told the suspect to plead guilty. It did, though, precipitate Nixon’s resignation.

We’re not suggesting Mr. Trump should be impeached. He has been cleared of the underlying charge of colluding with the Russ camarilla. The obstruction being investigated is, at best, ambiguous. That doesn’t mean, though, that the president is out of danger. Once the House moves to a formal impeachment proceeding, the constitutional afterburners kick in and Mr. Trump could easily be bound over to a trial in the Senate.[11]

Regardless of exactly how future events unfold, having lived through Watergate—beginning just before, and culminating after I left the U.S. Senate—the human toll and national tragedy that might befall Americans and our great nation again cannot be minimized, underestimated or appreciated fully.  And yes, our enemies globally are salivating.

This was all unleashed by Barack Obama, Robert Mueller and others, who must pay the ultimate price for their treasonous conduct.  Unless and until this happens, no American should believe in our legal system—or that justice exists in the United States—ever again.[12]


Ban Robert Mueller copy


© 2019, 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 Timothy D. Naegele Resume-19-4-29). 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 Real Scandal Of The Trump Presidency Unravels”) and (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?“)

[3]  See (“What Is This Blog All About?”)

[4]  See (“Republican In Name Only”)

[5]  Romney was Massachusetts’ governor.  Then he switched, and became Utah’s U.S. Senator.

See, e.g., (“Republican Neanderthals”) and (“Paul Ryan: The GOP’s Devil Incarnate”)

[6]  See, e.g., (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?”) and (“DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-SEMITES”)

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

[8]  See, e.g., (“The Second American Civil War”)

[9]  See (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive”) (footnote omitted); see also (“Media Madness Is Crippling America”) and (“White House Warns of Nation-Ending EMP Attacks On USA”) and (“While The Democrats Seek To Destroy President Trump, He Tries To End The Threat To Americans Of A North Korean Nuclear Holocaust”) and (“Will The United States And Israel Cease To Exist?”) and (“Military Warns EMP Attack Could Wipe Out America, Democracy, World Order”) and (“America’s Politicians Fret Over Russia And Our Elections, Instead Of Real Threats To Our Power Grid”) and (“North Korea Won The Battle Against America’s EMP Commission”) and (“We Must Move NOW To Protect America’s Power Grid From A Nation-Ending EMP Attack!”) and (“South Korean Banks Brace For EMP Attack”)

[10]  See, e.g., (“Trump derangement syndrome”)

[11]  See (“Trump Is Entering the Danger Zone”)

[12]  See, e.g., (“The Mueller Report: A Monumental Travesty”)



12 responses

30 04 2019

A good book to read to know how full-on criminal Donald Trump is is “Commander in Cheat” by sports journalist and long time golfer Rick Reilly. The book is overflowing with examples of Trump’s psychopathy, sociopathy, and pathological lying in action. Trump has a regular habit of stiffing or not paying vendors; probably hundreds or a thousand plus cases of this in his lifetime. Poor kids go to jail for stealing a hub cap. Trump hires scores of lawyers so he can bully the little man time and time again.



30 04 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments.


1 05 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

The Freaks Are Running The Circus’ Asylum [UPDATED]

Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon
[Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon]

The article above states:

I never realized fully how much President Donald Trump is hated until I attended a college reunion recently, where the lovely wife of a dear college friend shared her feelings with me. It was like the mood changed from cordial to “icy” within the blink of an eye, when I told her that I was a Trump supporter—and that I began as a Democrat, but would never vote for one again.

I was stunned and remain stunned by the woman’s visceral reaction.

I described what happened to an old and dear Jewish friend and fellow Trump supporter, who believes that there are many Jews and non-Jews who hate our President more than they hate Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson.

He added that the media has contributed to this hatred; and that one day it may be studied as a special psychosis. In my experiences, it is similar to the hatred of former President Richard Nixon, which I encountered before and after I left the U.S. Senate, just as Watergate was breaking.

Nixon had won reelection in a landslide, but the “long knives” of his haters were out to get him; and eventually he succumbed. In retrospect, that was a tragedy for our great nation too, brought to us by political forces that are the same or similar to those attacking President Trump today.

Also, it is worth repeating that my old friend’s wife hesitated when I said that Trump haters want him dead. On some level, she may have been grappling—however briefly—with a true irrational response, and then thought better of the alternative.

And yes, the media has fanned this, and keeps on doing so. Gay, black Don Lemon and gay Rachel Maddow are today’s Woodward and Bernstein, fanning the flames of hatred—and running the Circus’ asylum.

See also, (“CNN sees ratings swoon in April“)


2 05 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

CNN Poll: Overwhelming Majority Want Investigation Into Obama DOJ Spying On Trump [UPDATED]

Eric Holder, Obama, Loretta Lynch
[Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch: the faces of un-American traitors and pure evil]

Matt Margolis has written for PJ Media:

A new poll from CNN is bad news for Obama and the Democratic Party. With the Mueller report complete and the Russian collusion narrative collapsed, Americans seem ready to move on.

“The American public increasingly feels that Democrats in Congress are going too far in investigating the President,” CNN reports. “44% say Democrats are doing too much on that score, up from 38% saying so in March. That shift stems largely from independents, 46% of whom now say congressional Democrats are going too far.” And that was before Democrats wasted a whole day moaning and groaning about Attorney General William Barr’s memo about the Mueller report, which Robert Mueller told Barr was accurate.

But the most interesting part of the is that “69% think Congress ought to investigate the origins of the Justice Department’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including 76% of Democrats, 69% of independents and 62% of Republicans.” In other words, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the Obama Justice Department’s actions in 2016 should be investigated. The American people want answers about the Steele dossier, the FISA court approval of the wiretap, everything. What did Obama know, and when did he know it? Why did the Obama administration not do more to prevent or stop Russian cyber attacks?

As John Nolte at Breitbart explains, this was a poll of random adults and such polls tend to skew left, but they are “useful in looking at trends, and this poll shows that the trends are almost all moving in Trump’s direction.” He continues:

That 69 percent number, though, that is the real news here. What we have, even during these polarized times, is the unified belief the Department of Justice needs to be investigated, which is exactly what Attorney general Bill Barr and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have promised to do, which is why the media are already working overtime to smear Bill Barr.
We saw how Bill Clinton’s impeachment actually improved his poll numbers, so it is easy to infer from the polling trends we’re seeing now that even if Democrats don’t pursue impeachment, endless investigations are likely to work in President’s Trump favor. If Senate Republicans do their jobs and thoroughly investigate Obama-era abuses of power that led to the illegal spying on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, we could see the tide turn even more in Trump’s favor in 2020.

See (emphasis added)

The only question with respect to Barack Obama is whether he should be executed for his treasonous conduct.

My sense is that he should be, or lawlessness will continue in the United States; and Americans will know that those at the highest levels will go free, or at most spend a little time in prison.

They will know that “American justice” is a fantasy and does not exist; and that at best, we have a two-tier justice system. There will be strong reasons never to believe in the United States ever again.

Obviously this cannot be allowed to happen, which is why Barack Obama and his fellow traitors must pay the ultimate price, with their lives. And no, Obama’s hatred for America did not just begin. Please read his book, “Dreams from My Father,” which is summarized in the following article, with direct quotes and page cites.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”); see also (“The Real Scandal Of The Trump Presidency Unravels”) and (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?“) and (“‘This stings!’ How Obama saw Trump’s victory as a ‘personal insult,’ watched the movie Dr. Strange to distract himself from election results and blamed Hillary for the loss because of her ‘scripted, soulless campaign'”)

If anyone ever thought that the Democrats could not be any more evil—and yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again—Alabama Representative John Rogers proves it wrong. He has said that Donald Trump Jr.’s mother should have aborted him.

See (“‘That’s the best defense I got for abortion – Donald Trump’s son, he’s evidently retarded’: Alabama lawmaker doubles down on controversial abortion comments by saying Don Jr’s mother should have aborted him”)

Alabama Rep. John Rogers
[Alabama Rep. John Rogers]


6 05 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

The Insidious Left Is The Enemy Of Free Speech, And Eats One Of Its Own

Ultra-Leftist Joe Patrice has written for Above the Law:

As we track the 2019 law school graduation speakers from around the nation, one institution that’s conspicuously missing is USC’s Gould School of Law. That wasn’t always the case, with former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson penciled into the commencement role long ago. But yesterday, Secretary Johnson, presently a partner at Paul Weiss, withdrew from the festivities in light of complaints raised by USC Law professors and mounting pressure from students.

A letter to the USC community from Dean Andrew Guzman announced the scheduling change:

I am writing to inform you that our invited keynote speaker, Jeh Johnson, former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama, has withdrawn from this year’s USC Gould JD commencement ceremony.

I informed Secretary Johnson that some faculty and students have raised concerns about the immigration policies of the Obama Administration and, therefore, about having him as our commencement speaker. Secretary Johnson shared with me that he believes that graduations should be free of tension and political controversy and for this reason has decided not to speak.

Let’s take a second to applaud the former Secretary here. All too often, these protests over graduation speakers are met with the speaker and administration indignantly digging in their heels or walking away amid a veritable vineyard of sour grapes. Johnson’s response was entirely sensitive and appropriate — hearing from a legal luminary does not need to become a political clash and it’s the respectful move not just toward those protesting, but toward the other students and families who want to celebrate graduation without conflict.

The controversy arose after two professors, Daria Roithmayr and David Cruz, penned a letter to Dean Guzman noting that Johnson’s career in government service was marked by numerous troubling calls — some of which the courts have consistently rejected as illegal extensions of government power.

While the Trump administration’s commitment to family separation took America’s asylum policy to a new low, it was the Obama administration — and specifically Johnson’s DHS — that pursued detention in the first place, floating the canard repeated by the current administration that harsher treatment “deterred” asylum seekers. It’s a claim bereft of any empirical support, and yet here we are. From the professors’ letter:

Detainee families were held behind bars for months, sleeping eight to a unit, in violation of their legal rights, with little exercise or stimulation for the children. Some detained mothers reportedly attempted suicide. Others tried to stage a ​hunger strike​ in protest of their detention. Parents reported that their children were losing a significant amount of weight while in ​detention​ . . . . Federal courts curtailed the practice of family detention, ​finding that the government had offered absolutely no competent evidence whatsoever to prove Secretary Johnson’s deterrence claim, and that using family detention for purposes of deterrence was wholly ​impermissible​.​ ​Courts also found that the practice ​violated a legal agreement​ that had set the standard for the detention and treatment of immigrant children in the U.S. since 1997. ​

The concerns raised by the professors were echoed by others around USC in the form of a letter campaign to make Dean Guzman aware of the concerns. This campaign bore fruit this week with Johnson’s withdrawal.

No doubt there will be renewed hand-wringing from the Tucker Carlsons of the world that campus “political correctness” is striking again. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions tried to get the entire Justice Department to harass​ colleges where students and faculty raise issues with troubling speakers. Seeing the “libs” shut down “one of their own” will no doubt generate a good deal of giddy faux controversy from the true campus free speech warriors at Fox News. Though, as the following thread points out, it’s actually the snowflakes on the right who consistently try to shut down speakers through the backdoor.

And there’s not necessarily anything wrong with that. Let them raise their concerns as they will. But don’t fall for this sanctimonious “leftist assault on free speech” nonsense. People protest speakers. Sometimes for good reasons . . . sometimes for bad reasons. The important thing to remember is that these protests aren’t “shutting down” dialogue — they are, in fact, dialogue.

The professors and students at USC did their research and spoke their minds. They made a statement. Frankly, that’s a better rite of passage to set them off on their future careers than any hokey speech.

See (“Law School Professors Protest Graduation Speaker — Prepare For Fauxtroversy Over Free Speech“) (emphasis added)

Where are these same sanctimonious law school professors with respect to the admissions scandals that have been rocking USC (e.g., Lori Loughlin and her daughters), and sullying its reputation even more? AWOL?

Their goal seems to have America run by misfits—and “freaks”—and fellow Leftists. It was described years ago by George Orwell in his prescient Animal Farm, where all the animals were equal until the Pigs reigned supreme and subjugated the other animals.

Their goal—the Pigs of the Left—is power; and they have been rising from the ashes of their political defeats in the 2016 elections, which fuels their viciousness.

And yes, there are American laws against illegal immigration, which need to be enforced as harshly as possible, if necessary.

See (“Animal Farm“) and (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

Lori Loughlin and her daughters
[Lori Loughlin and her daughters]


6 05 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Where Are The Despicable Democrats On Foreign Policy?

Democrats are losers

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

Ira Stoll has written for The New York Sun:

Where’s the Democratic critique of President Trump’s foreign policy? You’d think that with more than 20 Democrats running for President, at least one of them would try to differentiate herself, or himself, from the rest of the field by focusing on the president’s role in diplomacy and national security.

It’s still early in the campaign. Yet none of the major Democratic candidates has made foreign policy a focus. Instead the politicians are out there talking mostly about climate change, health care, income inequality, student loan forgiveness, national service, drug rehabilitation, racism — anything, it seems, except for geopolitics or grand strategy.

Part of the reason is that the foreign policy threats seem distant. The Soviet Union is gone, and the Cold War is over. The 18-year-olds who will be voting for the first time in the 2020 presidential election were not even alive during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

When it comes to handling China, the Democratic leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, has been cheering the president on. “Hang tough on China, President @realDonaldTrump. Don’t back down. Strength is the only way to win with China,” Mr. Schumer tweeted Sunday.

Mr. Trump hasn’t started any wars, so the Democrats can’t really fault him for that. It’s not a Vietnam or Iraq War type situation where headlines of American combat deaths dominate politics.

Democrats might be critical of Mr. Trump’s handling of North Korea, but previous Democratic administrations have also tried to negotiate nuclear issues with Pyongyang.

Occasionally you hear Democrats fault Mr. Trump for alienating America’s allies. Perhaps Mr. Trump wouldn’t win the election if the foreign ministries of Germany, France, Canada, or Mexico were the ones voting. It’s not up to them, though.

Democrats also do complain sporadically about Mr. Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal or the Paris climate accord. Pressing those complaints, though, risks relitigating the merits of those agreements.

Russia does get invoked on the campaign trail, but as part of a narrative of Trump corruption or the theft of the 2016 election. It’s not as part of any substantive claim that a Democratic administration would be meaningfully tougher on Moscow in terms of political pressure or economic sanctions.

I’ve heard Democratic candidates fault Mr. Trump for leaving key diplomatic posts, including ambassadorships, unfilled. Without a crisis, though, it’s hard to see precise evidence that the lack of representation has damaged American interests.

A Democrat might fault Mr. Trump for mismanaging the situation in Latin America to the point where it puts pressure on our southern border. That, though, requires critics to cede the point that refugee flows approaching the American border are a potential threat rather than an opportunity to welcome new talent. In other words, it’s not a line of argument that Democrats are particularly eager to open up.

Mr. Trump’s dealings with Saudi Arabia, whose agents apparently killed and dismembered a Washington Post columnist, are another possible line of attack. There’s not much downside for a Democratic primary candidate in Saudi-bashing. If Mr. Trump can make the case, though, that friendly relations with the Saudis have contributed to low retail gas prices for American drivers, this too may be a futile theme for the Democrats.

It’s not that Mr. Trump has been a surpassingly brilliant foreign policy president. It is true, though, that he’s been cautious about committing American troops. He’s kept his promises to withdraw from the Iran deal, move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and try to renegotiate better trade deals with Canada, Mexico, and China.

Mr. Trump’s harshest critics on the right suggest that the reason he’s not attracting a lot of foreign policy criticism from Democrats is that his threats of trade tariffs, combined with hesitance to use military force, mean that the President has been governing with a Democrat-style foreign policy. Yet the presence of experienced Republican policy hands like national security adviser John Bolton has reassured conservatives, as has the increased economic pressure on Iran.

All it would take is one or two large-scale terrorist attacks against American targets, or a trade-war-related stock market slide, for Mr. Trump’s critics to begin arguing that the president’s policies have made America less safe. So far, though, it hasn’t happened.

Perhaps the biggest compliment to Mr. Trump’s foreign policy is that in an economy with the lowest unemployment in 50 years, 3.2% GDP growth, and stable prices, his political opponents largely want to make the 2020 election about domestic issues. If the Democrats can’t find some way between now and Election Day to make Mr. Trump seem vulnerable on national security, it will make retaking the White House that much tougher for them.

See (emphasis added)

The Democrats are conspicuously Missing In Action (MIA)!

As Ira Stoll writes: “Mr. Trump hasn’t started any wars” . . . yet.

However, if the warmonger and shill for Israel John Bolton has his way, the United States will be plunged into another tragic war in the Middle East.

Stoll writes about “experienced Republican policy hands like national security adviser John Bolton.” He and his neo-con buddies are among the many reasons why lots of us left the GOP too.

See (“Is The United States Being Pushed Into Its Next Tragic Middle East War?“)


24 05 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

This Is War And Payback! [UPDATED]

President Trump and AG William Barr
[President Trump and AG William Barr]

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

After a stroke felled Woodrow Wilson during his national tour to save his League of Nations, an old rival, Sen. Albert Fall, went to the White House to tell the president, “I have been praying for you, Sir.”

To which Wilson is said to have replied, “Which way, Senator?”

Historians are in dispute as to whether Wilson actually said it.

But the acid retort came to mind on hearing that Nancy Pelosi, hours after accusing President Donald Trump of “engaging in a cover-up,” a felony, piously volunteered, “I pray for the president of the United States.”

For, by now, the hostile investigations of Trump by Pelosi’s House are becoming too numerous to list.

Subpoenas have been issued to the IRS demanding Trump’s tax returns. New York has enacted a law to gain access to Trump’s state tax returns, to pass them on to the comrades on Capitol Hill. Democrats are not seeking these records for guidance on how to reform the tax code.

House committees want the files of his accountants. Subpoenas have been issued to lending institutions where Trump borrowed, such as Deutsche Bank, going back to the last century.

The Mueller investigation found that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians in 2016. Yet that exoneration is insufficient for the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler. He wants public hearings with present and past White House aides under oath to put on a show trial for a national TV audience.

The euphemism for this swarm attack is “Congressional oversight of the executive.” And Trump is not wrong to see in it a conspiracy to bring down his presidency and impeach and remove him.

And if Trump believes, not without reason, that Pelosi’s caucus is out to kill his presidency, should he cooperate with the co-conspirators or use all of the actual and latent powers of his office to repel them?

These are the alternatives the president faces.

Out in the Rose Garden, Trump declared there would be no further cooperation on a legislative agenda with Democrats until a halt is called to their investigations:

“I told Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi, ‘I want to do infrastructure. I want to do it more than you want to do it. … But you can’t do it under these circumstances. So get these phony investigations over with.'”

Where, then, are we headed?

To gridlock first, then almost surely down the impeachment road.

For if Trump continues to defy subpoenas and denounce those who issue them, and Pelosi cannot deliver on the Democrats’ agenda, the louder will be the clamor of the Democratic base to remove Trump. At some point, Pelosi will have to go along or lose control of her rebellious caucus.

Consider Trump’s immigration plan, which was introduced to no great enthusiasm among his supporters.

In April in Las Vegas, after 75,000 asylum seekers had crossed the U.S. border in February and 100,000 in March — an average of a million crossers a year — Trump declared:

“There is an emergency on our southern border. … It’s a colossal surge and it’s overwhelming our immigration system, and we can’t let that happen. … We can’t take you anymore. … Our country is full.”

But if the country is “full,” and we cannot stop the illegal crossings swamping the southern border, how can we take in and hand out green cards to another million legal immigrants every year?

What is the carrying capacity of a country whose debt is larger than its economy and whose social welfare system is overflowing with applicants?

Given the lukewarm reception among Republicans, the refusal of Democrats to back an immigration bill that does not put millions of undocumented migrants on a path to citizenship, and the animosity that has arisen between Trump and Pelosi, the bill seems stillborn.

Pelosi and her leadership in the House, it is said, do not want impeachment. They see it as a dead end. And understandably so.

For if the House holds hearings and fails to impeach, Democrats would be seen as impotent. And if they did impeach the president and the Senate swiftly acquitted him, House Democrats would be seen a having wasted their two years, only to make Trump a political martyr.

Still, as Emerson wrote, things are in the saddle and ride mankind.

The left and its media allies are demanding more subpoenas, and Trump is growing more defiant. And if Pelosi continues to argue that impeachment is not justified now, the anti-Trump sentiment in her party could turn against her.

The left’s ultimatum: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Impeachment is how a democratic republic does regicide, the dethroning and beheading of a sovereign like England’s Charles I.

For the left, Trump’s fate is decided. The only lingering question is whether proceeding with impeachment now is premature for the progressives’ cause in 2020.

See (“Are We on the Ramp to Impeachment Road?“) (emphasis added)

Juxtaposed against Pat Buchanan’s views is the following article in the UK’s Daily Mail:

U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered the intelligence community to cooperate with Attorney General William Barr’s review of the events surrounding the 2016 Presidential campaign.

In a memo released by the White House, Trump demands that the heads of the intelligence community and the heads of each department that includes an element of the intelligence community ‘shall promptly provide such assistance and information as the Attorney General may request in connection with that review.’

The order also allows Barr to declassify any information he sees fit during his review.

‘Before exercising this authority, the Attorney General should, to the extent he deems it practicable, consult with the head of the originating intelligence community element or department,’ the memo states.

‘Today, at the request and recommendation of the attorney general of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the attorney general’s investigation into surveillance activities during the 2016 presidential election,’ White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said after Trump issued the directive.

Included in the memo were the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the CIA.

Last month, Barr said at a Senate hearing that ‘spying’ on Trump’s campaign was carried out by U.S. intelligence agencies, though he later referred to his concerns as focused on ‘unauthorized surveillance.’

Barr has assigned a top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to probe the origins of the Russia investigation in what is the third known inquiry into the opening of the FBI probe.

Trump harbors suspicions that the Democratic Obama administration ordered him investigated during the 2016 campaign to try to undermine his candidacy, and he wants payback against those he believes were responsible.

Of specific interest to Trump are the warrants that emanated from a secretive court that authorizes surveillance on foreign powers and their agents. Trump supporters believe the warrants will identify those responsible for the Russia probe that is still roiling Washington.

See (“Trump’s payback begins: President tells Bill Barr to declassify ALL documents related to ‘spying’ on his 2016 campaign and orders intelligence chiefs to help the AG with his investigation“); see also–510382851.html (“House Judiciary Chairman Nadler Falls Ill at Mayor de Blasio Event in Manhattan“)

In fighting forest fires, often countervailing fires are set to stop them. A controlled burn of a strip of forest will create a barrier to an oncoming forest fire inasmuch as it will use up all the available fuel.

This is what our President is doing, and rightly so. The Democrats are sick. And yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.

President Trump in Oval Office


10 06 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Take Down The Rainbow Flag [UPDATED]

Gay flag at U.S. embassy
[A rainbow flag hangs on the U.S. Embassy in Seoul]

Carol Morello has written in The Washington Post:

Since the State Department began rejecting all embassy requests to hoist rainbow flags outside the mission buildings during LGBTQ Pride Month this year, some U.S. diplomats have been finding ways to defy, or at least get around, the new policy.

The facades of the U.S. missions in Seoul and Chennai, India, are partially hidden behind large rainbow flags, while the embassy in New Delhi is aglow in rainbow colored lights. The website for the embassy in Santiago, Chile, shows a video of the chief diplomat raising a rainbow flag last month for the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia.

The Vienna embassy’s website features a photo of a rainbow flag flying below Old Glory on a mast jutting from the building, a statement by Diplomats for Equality and a story about a professor lecturing on the visibility and growth of LGBT rights.

U.S. diplomats in Jerusalem joined a March for Pride and Tolerance, and several ambassadors have tweeted photos of themselves in local Pride parades or standing outside the embassies surrounded by employees holding up letters spelling PRIDE.

“This is a category one insurrection,” said one diplomat, who like others interviewed about the sentiment over the rejections, which were not made in writing, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of being fired.

A practice routinely approved for most of the decade at many embassies now requires top-level approval from the State Department. But this year, as first reported by NBC News, all requests were nixed.

The flap over the flags started when the State Department did not send out an official cable this year with guidelines for marking Pride Month, as it has in years past. In 2011, the Obama administration directed agencies involved with foreign policy to promote LGBT rights, a striking policy for an agency that, up to the early 1990s, considered homosexuality a security risk and cause for termination.

The Obama administration’s Pride Month guidelines included rules for flying rainbow flags from poles outside embassies — they had to be smaller than the American flag and fly beneath it. But permission was granted with no fuss. By 2016, approvals were left up to each ambassador or chief of mission.

That process changed last year, after Mike Pompeo became secretary of state. An evangelical Christian who believes marriage should be defined as between a man and woman, Pompeo has said gay employees will be respected and treated like everyone else. But he has downplayed some symbols of LGBT rights, while introducing several new panels and envoys specializing in religious freedom issues.

The advisory cable that came out last year said diplomats are required to obtain top-level approval from the State Department’s Office of Management to fly a rainbow flag.

The State Department declined to answer questions about the Pride Month advisory and rainbow flag ban. But two diplomats familiar with the events said all requests last year were approved.

This year, there was a shift. Embassies in Israel, Germany, Brazil and Latvia, plus a handful of other posts, asked to fly rainbow flags. All were denied, said a person at the State Department who was familiar with what happened.

Although most embassies seem to be toeing the line, the policy shift appears to have sparked something of a revolt among diplomats.

Foreign Service officers have complained on a private Facebook page that nobody should have asked for permission anyway.

Some embassies that have flown the flag in previous years opted this year to commemorate the month by posting on their websites President Trump’s statement affirming LGBT rights and inviting nations to join a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality. The initiative was the idea of Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany, who is gay.

Some embassies got playful with the display of Trump’s statement. In Brasilia, for example, the statement is topped by a photo of two hands holding five Play-Doh letters in rainbow colors: LGBTQ. But some did not mention Trump’s statement at all, an absence made more glaring by the juxtaposition with statements by ambassadors and secretaries of states left over from previous years.

Some gay employees in the foreign and civil service say the ban on flying the rainbow flag is just the tip of an iceberg of slights.

Pompeo has not issued a statement for Pride Month, as he did last year. He did not attend the State Department’s annual Pride Day event for two years running as his predecessors usually did, though he was traveling in Europe this year. Instead, he dispatched Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan, a veteran diplomat who promised that the State Department will advocate for gay diplomats and their families.

“Day by day, a death by a thousand cuts, our rights as lgbt+ Americans are being eroded with the removal of a guidance here, the rewriting of a policy there, or just the quiet disappearance of a web site,” Robyn McCutcheon, a transgender woman who has served in several posts abroad, wrote in her blog “Transgender at State,” lamenting what she has observed throughout the government in the past two years. “It should come as no surprise that this erosion would happen also at the U.S. Department of State.”

Some acknowledge that their worst fears have not been borne out.

The administration has appointed several gay ambassadors. Trump became the first Republican president to make a statement celebrating Pride Month. No one has been fired for sexual orientation, but some said they have felt more vulnerable after Trump tried to ban transgender people from the military.

Better, they said, to not even discuss LGBT issues publicly and risk the consequences of drawing attention to themselves.

“We fly below the radar,” one employee said. “We survive because they don’t realize we’re here.”

See (“Some U.S. embassies still hoisting rainbow flags, despite advisory from Washington“) (emphasis added); see also (“The Freaks Are Running The Circus’ Asylum“)

Barack Obama was and is racist, treasonous, anti-Semite, so it is hardly surprising that he would embrace and identify with others of his ilk.

See, e.g., (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?”) and (“DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-SEMITES”) and (“The Democrats Are Evil But Smart, While The Republicans Are Neanderthals And Dumb”)

It is time for “Straights” to stand up and assert their rights—which is most Americans!

See (“Backlash Over Proposed ‘Straight Pride’ Parade In Boston“)


28 06 2019
Timothy D. Naegele


As I have written:

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

The hole they have dug, and keep on digging, is too deep for any of them to climb out of.

See (“The Democrats Are Freaks And Societal Misfits: Who Will Vote For Them?“)

There may be one exception, although I would not vote for her because I am a strong supporter of President Trump: Tulsi Gabbard.

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

“For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end.”

Donald Trump, circa 2016?

Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii during Wednesday night’s Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on stage.

Gabbard proceeded to rip both the “president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us to the brink of war with Iran.”

In a fiery exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that America cannot disengage from Afghanistan: “When we weren’t in there they started flying planes into our buildings.”

“The Taliban didn’t attack us on 9/11,” Gabbard replied, “Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That’s why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the Taliban.”

When Ryan insisted we must stay engaged, Gabbard shot back:

“Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? ‘Well, we just have to be engaged.’ As a solider, I will tell you, that answer is unacceptable. … We are no better off in Afghanistan that we were when this war began.”

By debate’s end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google.

Though given less than seven minutes of speaking time in a two-hour debate, she could not have used that time more effectively. And her performance may shake up the Democratic race.

If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates.

If she is, moderators will now go to her with questions of foreign policy issues that would not have been raised without her presence, and these questions will expose the hidden divisions in the Democratic Party.

Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S. policy should be — not only toward Afghanistan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner’s “Deal of the Century,” and Trump’s seeming rejection of the two-state solution.

If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump’s victory at the Cleveland convention and in November.

The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that, as was shown in the joust with Ryan, she takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich.

Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver.

We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to negotiate to avoid a war.

Jared Kushner is talking up a U.S.-led consortium to raise $50 billion for the Palestinians in return for their forfeiture of sovereignty and an end to their dream of a nation-state on the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.

John Bolton is talking of regime change in Caracas and confronting the “troika of tyranny” in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War

U.S. policy has managed to push our great adversaries, Russia and China, together as they have not been since the first Stalin-Mao decade of the Cold War.

This June, Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing where he and Xi Jinping met in the Great Hall of the People to warn that in this time of “growing global instability and uncertainty,” Russia and China will “deepen their consultations on strategic stability issues.”

Xi presented Putin with China’s new Friendship Medal. Putin responded: “Cooperation with China is one of Russia’s top priorities and it has reached an unprecedented level.”

At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this Cold War II?

Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?

See (“Memo to Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi“) (emphasis added)

Gabbard has an impressive background.

Following her election in 2012, she became the first Samoan American and the first Hindu member of the Congress. She “served in a field medical unit of the Hawaii Army National Guard in a combat zone in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009.” She is a Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard; and she is a surfer, an accomplished athlete, and she was a martial arts instructor.

Her father Mike has an extensive and impressive background too.

See, e.g., (“Tulsi Gabbard“) and (“Mike Gabbard“) and (“Tulsi Gabbard for President | TULSI 2020“)

. . .

By way of stark contrast, John Bolton is pure scum, and an un-American shill for Israel.

See, e.g., (“Another Warmonger, Tom Cotton Of Arkansas, Advocates Attack On Iran“) and (“Does This Sicko Speak For President Trump And Americans?“)

John Bolton enemy


28 06 2019

John Bolton is a warmongering nut job and a Zionist shill.


18 10 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Tulsi Is Far Too Kind [UPDATED]

Josh Feldman has written for MEDIAite:

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard fired back this afternoon at Hillary Clinton over comments she made suggesting the Hawaii congresswoman and 2020 candidate is being groomed by the Russians.

Clinton said in a recent interview, of the Russians, “I think they’ve got their eye [on] somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s a favorite of the Russians.”

When asked by NBC News if this was a reference to Gabbard, a Clinton spokesperson responded, “If the nesting doll fits…”

Gabbard responded this afternoon, calling Clinton, “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.”

She dared Clinton to get in the race directly instead of “cowardly hid[ing]” behind proxies.

See (“Tulsi Gabbard Fires Back at ‘Queen of Warmongers’ Hillary Clinton For Suggesting She’s a Russian Asset“) (emphasis added; tweets omitted); see also (“Tulsi Gabbard says Hillary Clinton has ‘blood on her hands’ and brands her the ’embodiment of corruption’ after the former Secretary of State claimed she was a ‘favorite of the Russians’ as fellow Democratic candidates flock to the veteran’s defense”—The despicable Cory Booker mocks Tulsi Gabbard) and (“Tulsi Gabbard rips ’embodiment of corruption’ Hillary Clinton in response to Russian ‘favorite’ jab”) and (“Tulsi“)

Hillary Clinton is probably the most corrupt American politician today, aside from the racist, anti-Semite Barack Obama who is personally responsible for the treasonous efforts to destroy the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump, which is sedition. Both Clinton and Obama should spend the rest of their lives in prison, at the very least.

See, e.g., (“Clinton Fatigue“) and (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?“)


21 01 2020
Timothy D. Naegele

Tulsi Has Lost It Completely

Tulsi Gabbard has come out and stated publicly that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday today “is, in many ways, the most important of our nation’s cherished holidays.”

See, e.g., (“Reflecting on MLK’s legacy“) and

How outrageous. King was a serial philanderer like JFK, RFK, LBJ and Bill Clinton. Indeed, where is the #MeToo movement when we really need it to expose this slimeball? His holiday is a national disgrace and should be removed.

See, e.g., (“Martin Luther King, Jr. Was A Fraud And Disgrace: Will His Honors Be Removed?“) and (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“) (see also the extensive comments beneath this article) and (“Clinton Fatigue“)

As I have written:

All of King’s statues must be taken down, and his name must be removed from his holiday, streets and everything else. He was a total fraud.

Otherwise, the #MeToo movement is a fraud itself, and toothless.


I have liked and praised Tulsi, but this pandering is disgusting and disgraceful. It is tantamount to praising the serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Having failed to make much traction in her party, she must be angling for the Vice Presidency.

See, e.g., (“Tulsi Is Far Too Kind“)

MLK statue


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: