• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Obama’s John Brennan + “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”

The DNC limps towards a laughable midterms slogan

The Democrats are officially “For the People.” Reagan would have advised we run screaming.

by Roger Kimball    at  The Spectator

Meanwhile, back at the DNC…

With the world mesmerized by the insane ravings of John Brennan, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Barack Obama, our inner heartstrings are tugged with compassion with the obvious suffering of another human being.

In the case of Brennan, one’s mind turns not to Hamlet (“O, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown!”) but rather “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.” There may be a dollop of animal cunning behind Brennan’s humiliating anti-Trump outbursts. He may be hoping against hope that his own role in the effort to delegitimize and reverse the results of a free, open, and democratic presidential election will be swept under the rug and he will emerge unscathed. I’d say the odds were about 50-50.

But the strain has been terrific, and there is no doubt that the man is barking. So he deserves our compassion. He also deserves our vigilance. Give him a sweet and wipe his brow as you walk by, but make sure that the straps on the straight jacket are secure.

It was President Trump’s summit meeting and subsequent press conference with President Putin in Helsinki that sent poor John Brennan and his faithful anti-Trump cultists into orbit. I don’t think we’ve seen anything quite like it since the melee at Charlottesville, when Trump had the temerity to suggest that there was plenty of blame on both sides of the protest.

That was supposed to be a “moral disgrace” just as his efforts to patch things up with Russia was supposed to be “treasonous.”

You may think, as I do, that Trump is doing the right thing by reaching out a hand to Vladimir Putin, odious though he is.  Or you might believe, as many thoughtful people do, that Putin is just too odious to do business with. People can disagree about that, though I would note that I cannot see that Putin is any more odious than Joseph Stalin, with whom FDR consorted, or his successors, which every US President since have had to deal with. Mao Tse-Tung was one of the greatest monsters in history. That didn’t stop Richard Nixon from making overtures to him. Was that “treasonous”?

But I digress. The happy news I want to bring you now is that the Democratic Party has, at last, come up with an official slogan for the mid-term election.

Yes, that’s right. After the burning of much midnight non-fossil fuel, the DNC has hit upon a sure winner. The considered and rejected “Better Deal.” That one, Politico reports, “failed to break through with voters” and besides, it has  has been “openly mocked by some Democratic lawmakers.”

They know in their heart of hearts that what they have on offer—higher taxes, lax border enforcement, more business-killing regulation, and more governmental bureaucracy—they know that they cannot, practiced liars though they be, tout that with as straight face as a “better deal.”

So what’s the alternative? Wait for it. Drum roll please! It’s “For the People.”

Yep, the party that has spent a decade and more coddling Washington elites and ignoring the heartland as a bastion of “irredeemable deplorables,” the party that has destroyed black inner cities across the country by a making their inhabitants wards of the state: here they are with “for the people.”  “House Democrats,” Politico says, “plan to begin working ‘For the People’ into their statements and press conferences.”

Please stop giggling.

Who knew that “for” could be a transitive verb?  Ronald Reagan famously quipped that the nine scariest words in the English language were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” When the Dems (and, let’s be fair, when many Republicans) talk about doing things “for the people”, they really mean doing things to them.

The great hurdle that the Democrats face in November is the astonishing success of Trump’s initiatives. On one front after the next, he has moved with unprecedented dispatch to keep the promises he made during his campaign. Some are symbolic, like his moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Some are systemic, like his scores of judicial appointments. Some are flashy, like his tax cuts, his roll-back of burdensome regulation, his increased military spending, and his bold, globe-trotting diplomacy. The proof of his success, like the proof in the pudding, is in the tasting: unemployment at its lowest in a generation; black unemployment the lowest on record; consumer confidence soaring; ditto the stock market; and this just in, second quarter growth is estimated to be well in excess of 4 percent.

Against that, what do the Democrats have?  The senile maunderings of Nancy Pelosi. Kathy Griffin. John Brennan. Morning Joe. Chuck Schumer. A silly socialist in New York.

It almost makes me feel sorry for them. I stress the adverb.


(Please view the photo below:)


Smell the FBI’s Carter Page FISA File Release!


by Scott Johnson  at  PowerLine:

The Trump administration has just released a heavily redacted version of the FISA application on Carter Page to the New York Times and other news organization that sought it under the Freedom of Information Act. The Times reports on the release in this breaking news article by Charlie Savage. I have embedded the file as posted by the Times below via Scribd.

“This application targets Carter Page,” the application states. “The F.B.I. believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government.” Savage reports:

Visible portions showed that the F.B.I. in stark terms had told the intelligence court that Mr. Page “has established relationships with Russian government officials, including Russian intelligence officers”; that the bureau believed “the Russian government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with” Mr. Trump’s campaign; and that Mr. Page “has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government.”

* * * * *

The fight over the surveillance of Mr. Page centered on the fact that the F.B.I., in making the case to judges that he might be a Russian agent, had used some claims drawn from a notorious Democratic-funded dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent. The application cited claims from the dossier about a meeting Mr. Page purportedly attended with a person close to the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, while Mr. Page was on a trip to Moscow in July 2016, two months before leaving the Trump campaign.

Republicans portrayed the Steele dossier — which also contained salacious claims about Mr. Trump not included in the wiretap application — as dubious, and blasted the F.B.I. for using material from it while not telling the court that the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign had funded the research.

But Democrats noted that the application also contained evidence against Mr. Page unrelated to the dossier, and that it did tell the court that the research’s sponsor had the political motive of wanting to discredit Mr. Trump’s campaign. They argued that it was normal not to specifically name Americans and American organizations in such materials.

The application shows that the F.B.I. told the court it believed that the person who hired Mr. Steele was looking for dirt to discredit Mr. Trump. But it added that based on his previous reporting history with the F.B.I., in which he had “provided reliable information,” the bureau believed his information cited in the application “to be credible.” It did not use their names.

Critical parts of the FISA application have been redacted. On first pass, however, the Times story seems to me an unintentionally damning account of a damning document whose use of the Steele Dossier on the quoted terms cannot pass muster. I will just add at this point that the Times offers no explanation for the Saturday afternoon timing of the document dump.

CarterPageFISAfile by Scott Johnson on Scribd




Slithering Mueller’s Witch Hunt Is Becoming Ghoulish!

Mueller’s witch hunt a growing disaster for national security

by  Monica Showalter

Is it time to shut the Mueller investigation down?

The evidence is mounting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s open-ended investigation into whether President Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton (which has turned up nothing on that specific front) is becoming more than just a political burr under the saddle of President Trump.  It may be a growing national security problem.

Here are four points that demonstrate the extent of this problem.

First, the law of two can play that game is coming into play, changing the nature of diplomacy – for the worse.

Mueller’s team indicted 12 GRU-linked Russians for hacking, which they probably did, as his means of showing that something is there on the hacking front and can be brought to court.  In the past, this was never done.  Cold Warriors stayed in the shadows and played their rough law-of-the-jungle games, unknown to civilians, but now Mueller wants it brought out into the open on new terms, through courts and lawyers and jail terms.  The Russians can see this, and that has prompted them to issue tit-for-tat retaliation.  Russia’s investigators are calling for questioning of former U.S. ambassador Michael McFaul, who they know is one of the loudest and most obnoxious anti-Trump Obama officials, and President Trump has apparently left that door open.

While McFaul’s Twitter behavior has been abominable, it’s not a good thing.  Either everyone’s officials are going to get indicted by the other side now, or no one’s officials will, and don’t think this kind of stuff can’t spread to everything.  Who’d want to be an American or Russian ambassador with this sort of risk from political stunts?  Two-can-play-that-game is the understandable Russian response that Mueller should have foreseen and didn’t care if it did come.  Mueller had a mission to justify, and to heck with how it plays out in national security.

Here’s problem two: Mueller has been exposed by investigative reporter Paul Sperry as someone who has exclusively pursued just one side in the whole picture of Russian spying: that of their activities against Democrats.  But Russians themselves have been equal-opportunity disruptors, going after Republican servers as vigorously as they have gone after Democratic ones.  And as Thomas Lifson notes in this piece here, Daniel Greenfield suspects that, based on their activities, they seem to have a soft spot for Bernie Sanders, not Donald Trump.  One thing I can add is that I know RT News people (whose mission, according to vaunted U.S. intelligence, has been to disrupt).  Virtually all of them are Bernie Sanders-supporters, so I think Greenfield is onto something.  Mueller’s one-sided prosecutions and indictments smack of politicization: one set of laws for Republicans and their tormentors, another standard for Democrats and theirs.  That’s on the domestic side.  On the national security side, what we get from this are bad intelligence assessments based on lopsided information.

Problem three: We now go to this superb must-read recent piece by Gary Gindler, who knows Russia and how Russians behave very well.  (Always click when you see a Gindler byline, because he’s really good.)  Gindler points out that Mueller’s unprecedented indictments of Russians pretty well ensure that U.S. intelligence can never profit from them.  That’s a national security problem right there.

Gindler writes:

The enormity of the situation is that Mueller violated the unwritten rules of counter-espionage, which were forged through many trials and errors over thousands of years.  One of these unwritten rules says the detected spy no longer poses a threat.  It is not necessary to arrest, or indict, or imprison him.  You can try to convert him into a double agent, but the probability of success cannot be predicted.

A much more effective method of working with an unmasked spy is to use the spy as a channel for disinformation.  Keep him in the dark.  Use the spy so he does not even know about it, and that his reputation among his colleagues and his leadership remained untainted.

Mueller’s indictment publicly disclosed the names of a dozen GRU officers engaged in computer espionage.  What will the GRU leadership do?  Of course, they will begin to treat their work with a certain degree of disbelief, knowing that they are all potential targets.  In other words, Mueller slammed the door in front of the FBI counterintelligence officers.  The FBI will not be able to flip these Russians, nor provide them with disinformation.

Politics über alles, never mind national security, right?  Thanxalot, Bob.

Problem four, and again, we go to Gindler: the Russians can easily turn Mueller’s legal maneuver against us like a captured weapon, using the court shenanigans to shake out U.S. secrets.

Mueller’s action may trigger an unusual response from the Russians.  They can send one of the indicted officers to America on a crucial provocative mission.  GRU may choose, for example, the prettiest guy with excellent English; hire an expensive and prestigious American law firm; provide money; and put him on a plane.  He is facing just a few years in comfortable federal prison.  Per Russian espionage tradition, one year in jail will be counted as five, and he will return to his homeland a hero.

To put him in prison, Mueller will have to present evidence to the court.  In this lies the problem.

Intentionally or unintentionally, Mueller revealed in the indictment information no one should ever have known.  Mueller made it clear that the counterintelligence of the United States had obtained access to the GRU computer network, from which practically all the data for the indictment were taken.  Lawyers for an impudently smiling Russian officer will demand (on legal grounds) all the details of how information about their client was obtained.

So now we give the Russians open access to American sources and methods, as well as secrets, in exchange for putting one guy in jail, who’s probably only going to be a chit for exchange when the Russians toss one of ours into their own can in retaliation.  As Thomas Lifson has noted, Mueller seems to have sidelined the first batch of Russians he indicted, so there could be national security reasons already.  But one of them could get through, get his discovery done, and expose oodles of American secrets in return for a short jail terms.  The return on investment of that for Russia would be immense.

Is it time to shut down the Mueller investigation on the grounds that it’s chipping away at national security?  I think so.  The unintended consequences of this witch hunt are hitting national security and U.S. intelligence capabilities particularly hard.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/muellers_witch_hunt_a_growing_disaster_for_national_security.html#ixzz5LrJ2Pfs7
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook




OK Murders in the Evil Chicago Corral

A Tale of Two Killings

Chicago erupts in violence over a police shooting, but no outrage attends the far more typical killing of a bystander by a murderous felon.

by Heather MacDonald   at City Journal 

 Last Sunday, a 59-year-old woman on the West Side of Chicago was killed by a would-be carjacker. The felon walked up to the driver’s side of the car, which was being driven by a 71-year-old man, and pulled his gun. The senior citizen refused to surrender the vehicle and kept driving. The would-be carjacker opened fire at the car, striking the woman in the head and killing her.

The night before, on the South Side, a Chicago officer killed a 37-year-old man whom the officer’s patrol partners had observed behaving in a manner suggesting that he was carrying a gun. The officers tried to question Harith Augustus, and he appeared to pull something from his wallet, according to police body-camera footage, possibly his firearms owner-identification card. One officer tried to grab Augustus (the police report said that he became combative), but he pulled away and ran into the street, where he appeared to reach for the gun holstered on his right hip. One of the officers opened fire and killed him. Augustus’s gun was recovered at the scene.

True to script, the officer-involved shooting sparked violent street anarchy on Saturday night, instigated by Black Lives Matter, the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, and other anti-cop activist groups. Protesters threw rocks and bottles, some filled with urine, at officers. Four officers were injured. Chants included “How do you spell racist? CPD [Chicago Police Department],” and “Murderers.” Protests have continued, drawing intense local media and political attention. “This department is racist . . . and we’re tired of it,” said one of the organizers.

There were no protests against the taking of the carjacking victim’s life. Carjackings have nearly tripled in Chicago since 2015, averaging two per day in 2017 and close to that in 2018. In August 2016, officers tried to pull over a car involved in an earlier carjacking; someone inside the car opened fire and hit one of the officers in the face. The shooter was on parole for attempted armed robbery. In January 2017, a teen carjacker ambushed a 34-year-old mother in an alleyway where she had been parking her car. His initial blow to her head with his gun was so severe that it temporarily blinded her. “Quit trying to kick back, you white bitch,” the assailant said as he pistol-whipped her. Before the attack, the mother had noticed a van suspiciously idling in the alleyway, but decided to continue about her business, likely second-guessing herself about “racial profiling.” In March 2017, a man with a gun forced a 24-year-old woman into the trunk of her car and raced it around the South Side until crashing into a tree. In August 2017, a 28-year-old entrepreneur and student was fatally shot in his car when he refused to hand it over to the carjacker. In November 2017, a pair of thugs accosted an 88-year-old man and stole his Lincoln at gunpoint. They almost immediately crashed into a semitrailer truck and retaining wall; one of the two felons died in the crash.

In the first six months of 2018, more than 60 children under 15 have been shot in Chicago. In June alone, an 11-year-old boy was shot in the head; a 12-year-old girl was killed as she was carrying her baby cousin; and a 14-year-old boy was gunned down by a passing car. Black Lives Matter activists have nothing to say about this violence because it does not involve police officers. Officer-involved shootings are a minute fraction of Chicago’s ongoing carnage—in 2016, they made up 0.5 percent of all shootings in the city. The foot patrol that accosted Augustus was in the neighborhood—the CPD’s Third District—because the local alderman, residents, and business owners had requested greater police protection. The area had seen an increase in open-air drug deals. So far this year, there have been 69 shootings in the Third District, a little under a dozen a month, 15 of them fatal. A witness reported to the Chicago Sun-Times that Augustus was selling “loosies”—single untaxed cigarettes—a practice that shop owners loathe for its contribution to an atmosphere of street lawlessness.

Black Lives Matter has thankfully lost its sounding board in the White House. But at the local level, away from the Resistance-obsessed national media radar screen, its anti-cop poison continues to distort policing and police-community relations. It is a tragedy for Augustus’s family and acquaintances that he lost his life; the shooting must be thoroughly investigated. If any tactical changes are needed to lessen the risk that a police encounter escalates into the use of lethal force, they should be implemented through rigorous hands-on training. But the officers were right to approach an apparently armed man, especially given the area’s record of shootings. Such proactive policing has dropped precipitously in Chicago, resulting in a sharp rise in violent crime since 2014. (Law professors Paul Cassell and Richard Fowles empirically connect the drop in stops to rising crime in this 2018 paper.)

The anti-cop violence against the CPD for a shooting that, though deeply unfortunate, appears to be justified will further lessen officers’ willingness to intervene in suspicious behavior. A Chicago detective told me, in the wake of Saturday’s violence: “Those who care about law enforcement and a civil society cannot win against willful blindness and straight-up lies. This is an open civil war that goes quite beyond Chicago.” The demoralization of law enforcement continues, and it is the law-abiding residents of high-crime areas who will continue paying the price.



Con Artist Mueller to Offer Immunity to Another “Hillaryite”, Tony Podesta?

Tucker Carlson: Mueller’s Giving Immunity To Tony Podesta

According to Tucker Carlson, the special counsel investigation of nefarious Russian meddling in the 2016 election has just flipped a key witness in the biggest trial on their docket. And the person who got the immunity deal is … a member of the Trump campaign? A family insider? Don Jr’s personal aide’s cousin’s sister on her mother’s side? Nope — it’s longtime Clintonista Tony Podesta, whose brother John was both a victim of hacking in 2016 and Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager.

If true, this isn’t going to do much to instill confidence in the non-political nature of Robert Mueller’s probe. But is it true?

Tucker Carlson announced that Robert Mueller offered Tony Podesta immunity to testify against Paul Manafort.

Tony Podesta, founder of the now-shuttered Podesta Group and brother to former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, has been offered immunity by special counsel Robert Mueller to testify against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, according to a report.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson announced on his show Thursday evening that two separate sources confirmed the offer.

“In other words, for a near identical crime, Bill and Hillary’s friend could escape and emerge completely unscathed while Paul Manafort may rot in jail. Only one of them made the mistake of chairing Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” Carlson said.

So far, this is the only reporting on an immunity deal for Podesta. It’s hardly the only reporting on Podesta’s connection to the Manafort case, however. He had to step down from his firm last October after it became apparent that Mueller had taken a keen interest in his work with Manafort. Podesta’s legal team threatened Carlson with legal action for discussing it, but that went nowhere as other media outlets picked up the story.

One can understand the interest Mueller might have in Podesta, and therefore the interest Podesta would have in saving his own skin:

Manafort had organized a public relations campaign for a non-profit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). Podesta’s company was one of many firms that worked on the campaign, which promoted Ukraine’s image in the West.

The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort’s role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA. …

The ECMU was reportedly backed by the Party of Regions, the pro-Russian and oligarch-funded Ukrainian political party for which Manafort worked as a consultant, and which paid his firm millions. Viktor Yanukovych of the Party of Regions, a Manafort client, was president of Ukraine during the ECMU campaign, which ran from 2012 to 2014. He fled the country in 2014.

Neither firm registered under FARA for this work until far afterward, as the FARA law was widely ignored until Mueller saw it as a lever to press forward on his investigation. That came as a shock to the Beltway, enough so that Podesta’s firm disbanded after his resignation, and a flurry of updates ensued from K Street firms.

It’s entirely possible that Mueller could have offered Podesta immunity in order to nail Manafort. Prosecutors make those kinds of deals all the time. However, one cannot ignore the politics of this investigation, either. If Mueller’s cutting deals to let Clintonistas off the hook in order to get to Trump — the clear intent of prosecuting Manafort and Rick Gates — then Trump’s supporters will have a field day with this immunity offer. Mueller has to know this too, and so perhaps it could mean that there’s really nothing coming down the pike for Trump and other campaign figures.

That’s if Carlson got this one right. We’ll see.

Addendum: One point to note here on Carlson’s commentary. The case against Manafort was already well developed long before Manafort briefly served as Trump’s campaign chair. The DoJ for some reason never pressed the case, but they had it pretty well ready to go as early as 2014. Whatever “mistake” Manafort made, it wasn’t chairing Trump’s campaign.


Our President Trump’s Battle Against the Obama Fascistic Left

Walk a Mile in Trump’s Shoes

by Brian C. Joondeph  at American Thinker:

President Donald Trump is not a figure many feel empathetic toward.  Nearly half the country hates him.  Hate may be too mild a word.  They despise him and equate him with the worst of human history, Hitler and the Nazis.  They want him destroyed, literally and politically, along with his family.  This includes Democrats, the media, and many Republicans.

His resignation or impeachment wouldn’t be enough.  He needs to face treason charges and punishment at the end of a rope or in front of a firing squad, along with his family.  His supporters are guilty by association and must face similar justice.

But in To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch told Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”  This is the essence of empathy.  You can’t understand someone until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.

Let’s for a moment climb inside Donald Trump’s skin and walk around in it.

Trump was a successful businessman, a billionaire with properties, resorts, golf courses, and hotels around the world.  He owned a huge private jet, only a half-step down from the one he currently uses.  He has a beautiful wife and family; his children are smart and following in his business footsteps.  He hosted a wildly successful television show, was a household name and a darling of the media before he decided to run for president.

Yet he gave that up.  Why would he do that?  As a septuagenarian, did his ego demand one more even bigger prize?  Or, as some have speculated, was he approached by a group of patriots several years ago and told in no uncertain terms about the Deep State and America’s trajectory into the abyss?  Perhaps he was told that he was the only one who could run for president, have a chance of winning, then slow or stop America’s decline.

Did he, as a consummate patriot, take up the challenge?  Someday we may learn why he gave up a comfortable and successful life in exchange for years of scorn and derision.

In Hillary Clinton, he fought a political opponent who was challenging, not personally, but for what and whom she represented: the establishments of both parties, the donor classes, the media, Hollywood, academia, and the Clinton machine that has been active since her husband’s presidency two decades earlier.

He worked his butt off, campaigning around the clock.  From his tweets at 4 A.M. to his campaign rallies in multiple states in a single day, he worked harder than any candidate in recent memory.  His opponent did the opposite.  Sipping chardonnay and napping, she listened to her cheerleaders in the media, fawning over her every utterance, telling her repeatedly that she would win the election easily, and doing most of the campaigning for her.

Media coverage of Trump was and still is over 90 percent negative.  His own party worked against his election, the party he represented and brought victory to.  The big names in the GOP tried to undermine him – McCain, Romney, Bush, Ryan – all past presidents or candidates, the heavy hitters in the GOP, not to mention the Republican NeverTrump whiners.

Then there was the Deep State, the unelected and unaccountable three-letter agencies, conspiring and working against Donald Trump, not only as a candidate, but also as president.  They spied on his campaign, creating fictional dossiers used to justify FBI surveillance of Trump, his entire campaign staff, and his family.  It was a concerted effort by the leadership of these agencies to prevent his election, then “an insurance policy” to destroy his presidency as a Plan B.

Phony accusations or Russian collusion tainted his presidency, providing a cloud over his election, much like a successful athlete winning a medal or championship fair and square and against all odds, then having his victory tainted with the accusation of rigging or cheating.  How would such a winner react to claims that he didn’t really win?  Especially when he had worked so hard for victory and had so little help in the process.

The Russian collusion story taints Trump’s successful campaign and election.  The Mueller investigation and drumbeat from the media share the common refrain that Trump is an illegitimate president, that he cheated to win, conspiring with an enemy country.  This is the same country, ironically, that so many of Trump’s critics were in love with only a few years ago.

Trump has been working hard as president, accomplishing more in his first 500 days than any of his predecessors – tax cuts, a roaring economy, record unemployment, a reversal of 50 years of failed policy toward North Korea, strong judicial picks, and so on.  Does he get any credit from the media or his own party?  Hardly.  Instead, scorn and insults continue to rain down on his head.  Wouldn’t you be frustrated and bitter standing in his shoes?

Last is the Mueller indictment of 12 phantom Russians over supposedly hacking the DNC computers – computers the FBI did not even examine.  Indictments are simply accusations, not verdicts in a court of law, and were announced the last business day before Trump’s Russia summit.  What a coincidence of timing, painting Trump in a box where he has to either validate the Russian collusion narrative or question the veracity of the U.S. intelligence community.  Always the contrarian, he chose the latter option during his press conference with Putin.

Does Trump fully trust the intelligence services, the same ones that conspired to spy on his campaign and undermine his election, then tried to overturn his presidency?  All this is based on the nonsensical assertion that Russia hacked the election, an absurd concept that even the media’s savior Barack Obama said was impossible: “There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections.”

This is the same Intelligence Community that exonerated Hillary Clinton for crimes proven but never investigated and indicted Donald Trump for crimes investigated ad nauseam but never proven.  The same Intelligence Community that told the world that Saddam had WMDs, dragging the U.S. and other countries into a costly and counterproductive war.

Put yourself in Trump’s shoes: a highly successful businessman, in the latter years of his life, taking on the Herculean task of running for and winning the U.S. presidency.  In victory he finds nothing but abuse, scorn, and betrayal, by friend and foe alike.  He is surrounded by landmines, his intelligence community plotting a path to make sure he steps on one landmine after another.  This is a journey few mortals would undertake or survive.

Is it any wonder he is pushing back against those trying to destroy him and his presidency, including the FBI, DOJ, and CIA, all in the thick of seditious activity against the duly elected president?  He has few friends in Washington, D.C.; many who should have his back are eager to bury a knife in it instead.

The simplest explanations are often the best.  Walk a mile in Trump’s shoes, and his actions make all the sense in the world.  A guy chosen by ordinary people, trying to make America great again despite so much of America trying to stop and destroy him.  How would any rational person behave when standing in Trump’s shoes?

Is SRN “News” a Hate-Trump Center?

SRN is the headquaters for the distribution of a wide variety of American Conservative consciences and accomplishments….and errors.  Its greatest star of fame and influence in American world is our Dennis Prager…..according to my experience and belief.

Nearly every week since Donald Trump became America’s 45th President, SRN during its homeroom “news” broadcasts between Dennis world hours it announces and advertises “dirt” news to smear the President…….you know, the darker rooms of life which often overcome male politicians and Presidents of any ilk and/or talent.  SRN, however, is consistent in its weekly news segments from Washington ever since President Trump entered office.

Dennis Prager, SRN or no, by every measure is my favorite vocal American about good things American of anyone I have ever known during my 80 plus years of life.

Over 70% of today’s eligible and participating  Christian voters in 2016 voted Donald J. Trump for President…..May God forever bless every one  of them!!

SRN news seems excited, even  thrilled reporting these weekly negatives about President Trump.  It is advertised as a “Christian” outfit…..one perhaps unaware of any possibilities of human forgiveness in life.   “Shame!” is my response even if  the smears might be true.

“Handsome is as Handsome does!” was thrown at me by my Mother throughout the first fifteen years of my human aware life….:handsome” meaning good deeds rather than good haircuts.   My Lutheran background folks encouraged practicing forgiveness.

Despite my Church background, I cannot yet forgive SRN for its bigotry and/or poison  against the President, so I confine  my listening   hours to Dennis ONLY!

As much as I do respect the wonderful messages and persuasions of Our Dennis, Our Donald’s Presidency to save the USA from leftist CNN, MSNBC, PBS, New York Times, Soviet Brennan etc- type Marxist savagery,  is a greater cause  in the short run to restore Dennis’ democratic civility teachings to our world.