• 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

Comey Needs to Take a LONG CLEAN SHOWER…and then be indicted!

Comey Should Be Indicted

by Daniel John Sobieski   at American Thinker:

Now we know that not only did Hillary Clinton show intent in her handling of classified materials routed through her private server, but that former FBI Director James Comey and his team showed intent in letting her get away with it, to the detriment of American national security.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, in a Thursday letter to current FBI Director Christopher Wray, reveals how edits to Comey’s exoneration memo went beyond changing “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” but edited out content that shows the FBI knew Hillary was intentionally in violation of the Espionage Act but that, since the decision to exonerate her had already been made, they had to submit to the annals of history a lie they agreed upon:

Newly released documents obtained by Fox News reveal that then-FBI Director James Comey’s draft statement on the Hillary Clinton email probe was edited numerous times before his public announcement, in ways that seemed to water down the bureau’s findings considerably.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, sent a letter to the FBI on Thursday that shows the multiple edits to Comey’s highly scrutinized statement.

In an early draft, Comey said it was “reasonably likely” that “hostile actors” gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account. That was changed later to say the scenario was merely “possible.”

Another edit showed language was changed to describe the actions of Clinton and her colleagues as “extremely careless” as opposed to “grossly negligent.” This is a key legal distinction.

Johnson, writing about his concerns in a letter Thursday to FBI Director Christopher Wray, said the original “could be read as a finding of criminality in Secretary Clinton’s handling of classified material.”

“This effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an ‘insurance policy’ against Mr. Trump’s election, raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation by President Trump,” Johnson said.

Indeed, this does raise profound questions. Coupled with the text messages of lead investigator, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who has become known as the Zelig of the FBI who mysteriously appeared at every controversial moment, expressing clear intent to prevent the election of Donald Trump, we have before us a criminal conspiracy in which the most powerful law enforcement agency on this planet conspired with one political party to defeat the candidate of the other:

The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey’s statement with senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Strzok’s direct supervisor, E.W. “Bill” Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) – in what was a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton’s conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information, and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.


Imagine what was at stake here. If the FBI had just followed the evidence where it led and drew the obvious conclusions, Hillary Clinton would have been indicted, the Democratic Party would have been irreparably shattered, with Donald Trump wining in a popular vote as well as electoral vote landslide. This, in the view of a corrupted and politicized FBI had to be prevented at all costs and the Comey memo had to be sanitized before its release:

In addition to Strzok’s “gross negligence” –> “extremely careless” edit, McCabe’s damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton’s actions to the standard of “gross negligence” — that being the “sheer volume” of classified material on Clinton’s server. In the original draft, the “sheer volume” of material “supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.” …

Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey’s statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton’s server was hacked by hostile actors, changing their language from “reasonably likely” to “possible” — an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase “Gross negligence.” To put it another way, “reasonably likely” means the probability of a hack due to Clinton’s negligence is above 50 percent, whereas the hack simply being “possible” is any probability above zero.

Strzok provided the motive for these activities to cover up the guilt of Hillary Clinton, activities which constitute obstruction of justice in text messages between him and his mistress and fellow FBI Agent Lisa Page: While everybody was predicting a Hillary victory, Strzok had his doubts and elevated himself to the status of savior of America, requiring that Trump be stopped at all costs, with this end justifying any and all means:

Out of all the damning, politically charged anti-Trump text messages released, one text from Strzok to Page on August 15, 2016, raised the most suspicion. It referred to a conversation and a meeting that had just taken place in “Andy’s” (widely believed to be Deputy FBI Dir. Andrew McCabe’s) office. According to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Strzok had texted this: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office [break]… that there’s no way he gets elected. I want to believe that… But I’m afraid we can’t take that risk… We have to do something about it.”

In another text, Page said: “maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” Strzok replied: “I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.”

“This goes to intent,” Jordan said. “We can’t take the risk that the people of this great country might elect Donald Trump. We can’t take this risk. This is Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI. This is Peter Strzok, who I think had a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the FISA court. He’s saying, ‘we can’t take the risk, we have to do something about it.'”

What they tried to do about it is called obstructing justice and using the powers of their offices to interfere in a presidential election to materially aid the candidate of their choice. As Rep. Jordan notes, we face the probable reality of a dossier concocted by Russians, paid for by Team Hillary and the DNC, being used to fraudulently trick the FISA court to order surveillance of one campaign to the benefit of the other campaign. The politically motivated unmasking of Michael Flynn dovetails with this criminal conspiracy and explains much about the true purpose of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, which ignores Hillary’s collusion with Russia in Uranium One but indicts a Trump adviser for misremembering a legal phone call.. Can anyone say collusion? Then we face the prospect of a weaponized FBI becoming a campaign arm of the Hillary campaign.

We see now the method in the madness of the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch, why the FBI issued immunity agreements to Clinton cronies such as Cheryl Mills, never empanelled a grand jury, started drafting an exoneration agreement before witnesses were interviewed, and failed to put Hillary under oath in an interview that James Comey did not attend. The fix was in

One can only hope that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is not asleep at the switch but rather just keeping a low profile as he methodically puts together a damning case of criminal conspiracy, obstruction of justice and, yes, gross negligence prior to an avalanche of indictments starting with Hillary Clinton and working its way down the food chain to include James Comey, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and many others.




    The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene on Capitol Hill this Christmas season.
    This isn’t for  any religious reason. They simply have not been able to find Three Wise Men in the Nation’s Capital.
     A search for a Virgin also continues.
   There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable.

Wikileak Fascists Review our Dennis Prager’s “Shortcomings”

Possible Correction Regarding the above  Title to this Gathering of Wikileak’s Leftist Propaganda Dictate Below!  Tune in to Dennis’s Radio Show or Follow His Prager University Courses.

Perhaps the Headline to the following Wikileak words should include the adverb, “Ignorantly”.   You, dear readers,  decide as you see fit….if  Wiki “leaks”only Fascist Leftism’s in it Vocabulary.


According to National Public Radio, Prager “often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people.”[7] According to violinist Michael Chwe, Prager’s inflammatory views and past statements about gays, liberals and others have stirred controversy.[8]


Prager in 2006 criticized Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, for announcing that he would use the Quran for the reenactment of his swearing in ceremony. Prager falsely asserted that an oath on any book other than the Bible would be unprecedented. In response, a former New York City MayorEd Koch, called for Prager to end his service on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Council.[9]

LGBT rights[edit]

Prager opposes same-sex marriage.[10] He has suggested that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and incest.[10][7] In 2014, he claimed that the “heterosexual AIDS” crisis was something “entirely manufactured by the Left.”[10]

Donald Trump[edit]

Prager endorsed Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.[11] Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic criticized Prager for this, saying “Trump is the quintessential embodiment of so much that Prager claims to abhor (so much that he alighted on Trump as an example of who shouldn’t be president in the past); and Trump is the antithesis of much Prager claims to value.”[11] Friedersdorf noted that Prager had in 2011 said that Trump’s profanity “render[ed] him unfit to be a presidential candidate, let alone president”; that he could not “trust the integrity or conscience of a man or woman who publicly humiliates his or her spouse” through adultery; that those who lie to besmirch the names of others cannot be trusted; and that “any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture”.[11]Prager said that endorsing Trump was in line with his principles because “We hold that defeating Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and the Left is also a principle. And that it is the greater principle.”[11][12]

Barack Obama[edit]

In 2015, Prager headlined the title of one of his columns about the Iran nuclear agreement, “1938 and 2015: Only the Names Are Different”, implying that Obama was the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain whose Munich Agreement with Hitler is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement toward Nazi Germany.[13]

News media[edit]

In July 2017, Prager said that “the news media in the West pose a far greater danger to Western civilization than Russia does.”[10]

Gestapo Mueller’s Got to Go!

Mueller And His Politically Biased Team Of Prosecutors Need To Go

by  Gregg Jarrett at HotAir:

As I will document below, Mueller deliberately assembled a team of partisans with a history of political bias who appear determined to undo the results of the 2016 presidential election and drive President Trump from office.

Because Mueller improperly stacked the deck of his special counsel staff with biased crusaders, he transformed what was supposed to be an impartial investigation into an illegitimate and seemingly corrupt one.

To restore integrity, Attorney General Jeff Sessions should un-recuse himself from the case for the limited purpose of cleaning up Mueller’s mess. There is no law that prevents the attorney general from doing this.


Special Counsel Robert Mueller has sabotaged his own investigation of Russian meddling into the 2016 election. He has only himself to blame for ruining what could have been a credible probe.

As I will document below, Mueller deliberately assembled a team of partisans with a history of political bias who appear determined to undo the results of the 2016 presidential election and drive President Trump from office.

Because Mueller improperly stacked the deck of his special counsel staff with biased crusaders, he transformed what was supposed to be an impartial investigation into an illegitimate and seemingly corrupt one.

To restore integrity, Attorney General Jeff Sessions should un-recuse himself from the case for the limited purpose of cleaning up Mueller’s mess. There is no law that prevents the attorney general from doing this.

Sessions should remove all of the partisans on the special counsel staff and replace Mueller with someone who can bring a measure of neutrality and objectivity to the matter. This is vital as a matter of justice and simple fairness, and would give Americans trust and confidence in the outcome of the investigation.

There are plenty of highly skilled and qualified lawyers across America who have no particular political ax to grind. Mueller could have – and should have – hired them for his special counsel team to gather and evaluate evidence in a neutral and objective manner. Had he done so, his investigation would be regarded as fair and honest.

Mueller chose to do just the opposite – a clear indication of his improper bias.

Mueller also selected from the ranks of the FBI an agent by the name of Peter Strzok to serve as his top investigator. Strzok has since been exposed for his numerous texts disparaging President Trump and supporting Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

While Strzok was removed from the special counsel case in July, Mueller, the FBI and the Department of Justice spent months covering up the true reason behind the agent’s departure.

But Peter Strzok is not the Lone Ranger.

Eight of the lawyers on the special counsel staff are Democratic donors. Five of them gave money to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Some have connections to Clinton’s associates and the Clinton Foundation. This cannot be a mere coincidence –it must have been by design.

It is no surprise that Mueller would be capable of unscrupulous maneuvers. After all, he maneuvered himself into the job of special counsel despite two disqualifying conflicts of interest, which he ignored with impunity.

Mueller’s Own Bias

First, Mueller had the audacity to accept his current position one day after being interviewed by President Trump for the job of replacing fired FBI Director James Comey. During the interview, Mueller never told Trump that he was considering investigating the very man who was sitting across from him posing questions. This was deceptive and dishonest.

How could Mueller take command of a special counsel probe that involves, in part, the president’s firing of Comey when Mueller was directly involved in the aftermath of that firing?

How could Mueller take command of a special counsel probe that involves, in part, the president’s firing of Comey when Mueller was directly involved in the aftermath of that firing?

This conflict was so obvious and acute that Mueller should have refused to accept the appointment as special counsel the next day when it was offered to him by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Unless Mueller had an ulterior motive.

Ask yourself: Is it fair or ethical for a person who was passed over for a job to suddenly reverse course to investigate the man who declined to give him the job? Or was this Mueller’s plan all along?  Did he devise a devious scheme to gather evidence from Trump that he could then use as special counsel, while pretending to be interviewing for the job of FBI director?  It certainly looks that way.

Second, Mueller’s longtime close relationship to Comey, who is obviously a pivotal witness in any potential obstruction of justice case, presents yet another blatant conflict of interest.

As I explained in previous columns, the special counsel statute requires Mueller to recuse himself if he has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.”

The statute then defines the term “personal relationship” as a “friendship … normally viewed as likely to induce partiality” (28 CFR 45.2).

The Mueller-Comey friendship is well-documented and indisputable. The two have long been friends, allies and partners in what has been described as a mentor-protégé relationship. Yet Mueller rejected the law and his ethical duty. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, even the appearance of a conflict of interest is forbidden.

One cannot help but wonder whether Mueller is determined to exact retribution for the firing of his friend. Did Mueller deliberately stack his staff with investigators who have corrupt motives and would be more than willing to manufacture a prosecutable crime – even though the president was empowered to remove Comey in the discharge of his constitutional duties?

Even more suspicious is Comey’s admission under oath that he leaked confidential memorandums to the media for the sole purpose of triggering the appointment of a special counsel who turns out to be his friend and mentor.

As former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell writes in a recent column, one can surmise that Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein (who previously worked for Mueller) “hatched this plan for Mueller to be special counsel – if not prior to Comey’s termination, then immediately after it”.

Once Mueller seized the reins of power, he summoned the equivalent of a “hit squad,” as Powell describes it.

Andrew Weissmann’s Bias

Andrew Weissmann – one of the top prosecutors working for Mueller on the Russia investigation – has clear anti-Trump sentiments. These were also revealed this week in the form of an email obtained by Judicial Watch.

After Acting Attorney General Sally Yates defied a direct order from President Trump to defend his newly issued travel ban, Weissmann sent her a message:  “I am so proud… and in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects.”

Weissmann is a notorious lawyer known for abusive tactics. He has a reputation for weaponizing the law in a ruthless and often unprincipled quest to convict. He has been accused of hiding evidence and threatening witnesses. Innocent people have been victimized by him. His biggest cases were reversed by higher courts.

As a federal prosecutor, Weissmann drove the accounting firm Arthur Anderson out of business, costing tens of thousands of people their jobs, only to have the convictions reversed unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court. The legal smack-down by the high court underscores what a wrongful prosecution he pursued.

But Weissmann was undeterred. He went after Merrill Lynch executives, putting them behind bars and destroying their lives, only to have that case also reversed – this time by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

All of this should have been enough for Weissmann to be banished forever from the Department of Justice. But Mueller came to the rescue by hiring him as general counsel at the FBI. Weissmann eventually made his way back to the Justice Department as head of the Criminal Fraud Division in the Obama administration.

When Mueller became special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation, he immediately turned to his old “pit bull” of a prosecutor, Weissmann, who joined the team.

It is hard to fathom that Mueller did not know of Weissmann political bias. A quick public search would have revealed that Weissmann contributed generously to both the Democratic National Committee and the Obama presidential campaign.

Any vetting by Mueller would also have revealed Weissmann’s close ties to Hui Chen, whom he hired at the Justice Department. As I pointed out in a recent column, her Twitter account is filled with hundreds of anti-Trump tweets. While working for the government, she proudly posted a photograph of herself outside the White House wearing an orange “Resist” jacket during a Trump protest.

The inspector general at the Justice Department must obtain and review all of Weissmann’s electronic messages while at the department to determine whether he exchanged anti-Trump emails and texts with Chen or others. Since Weissmann’s message to Yates has been uncovered, there are likely more.

Jeannie Rhee’s Bias

Mueller also brought to his team another partisan, Jeannie Rhee, who was a partner with Mueller at the law firm WilmerHale. Rhee’s job is to decide whether President Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey.

This hiring of Rhee is especially brazen, since she defended Hillary Clinton’s foundation in a civil racketeering case and donated $5,400 to Clinton’s campaign. Let’s consider the implications of this.

Rhee is now in a position to bring a prosecution against the person who defeated the candidate she supported and defended. It was a shamelessly bold hire by Mueller, given how obvious a conflict of interest Rhee has.

The Clinton connection doesn’t end there. Rhee worked for a time under FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife pocketed roughly $675,000 in campaign money from political groups aligned with Clinton – at the same time McCabe was investigating Clinton in her email scandal. McCabe is now under investigation.

There are others on the special counsel staff who likely harbor the same kinds of disqualifying conflicts of interest as Strzok, Weismann and Rhee.

For example, lawyer Aaron Zebley is on the Mueller team. He represented Justin Cooper, who worked for Hillary Clinton and set up her private email server, registering the domain in his own name. He did not have security clearance for any of the classified documents on Clinton’s server. Zebley’s involvement in the Clinton case creates yet another appearance of impropriety.

All of these well-documented cases show conflicts of interests and improper bias on the part of Mueller and key members of his prosecutorial team before they ever began looking at Russian meddling in the presidential race. This provides clear evidence that this is the wrong team for this important probe.

Attorney General Sessions has a responsibility to bring in a new special counsel and new team of prosecutors free of conflicts who will conduct a fair and unbiased investigation. Simple justice requires this.

Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).



Has the Gestapo Mueller Destroyed the FBI’s Honor?

Mueller’s FBI Will Never Recover Its Good Name

by James Lewis  at  American Thinker:

“Robert Mueller just fired a senior FBI agent for openly twittering against POTUS Trump. But if Mr. Mueller imagines that firing one guy will restore his shredded credibility to the public, fuggedaboudit. The unprecedented witch-hunt against a newly elected Donald Trump will remain green in the public memory for years to come. The FBI and DOJ will therefore have to live with a huge loss of public credibility. The IRS will never recover among Trump voters.

Elected governments only work as long as they enjoy basic public confidence, and when that is gone — as it is in Italy and Greece — it can take many years to restore. Even if most of our FBI people are honest patriots, a few rotten apples will ruin it for the rest. In Italy, every sane person is expected to run some kind of tax scam, and until recently, the IRS told us that it relied on self-reported income. But high-level corruption sets an example for the whole country, and the Clintons and Obamas have shown us nothing but high-level corruption. The perps may get out of jail free, but the political culture will feel the damage they have inflicted.

Mueller is a partisan hack to end all partisan hacks, and no sane observer believes otherwise. It was Mueller who got Bill Clinton out of trouble for selling missile launching secrets to China, secrets that may now be helping North Korea to aim nuclear-armed missiles at Washington DC and Paris.

That’s the trouble when the Democrats elect major corruptocrats like the Clintons and the Obamas. Half the voters have been profoundly angered by their corrupt shenanigans for years and years. The Clintons came out of the old Dixiecrat Machine in Little Rock, Ark, with ole Bill smokin’ dope and harassing women to the max, and then came Obama…

Obama was mentored by the Godfather of the Chicago Machine, Emil Jones, and Michelle’s dad was a ward boss in Chicago. Can you spell C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N?

Robert Mueller was set up as the DOJ’s choice for Special Prosecutor by James Comey, who just twittered his own delight when he heard that General Michael Flynn has been arm-twisted into revealing confidential communications with the Republican candidate for President of the United States. Trump voters are watching every move as the Swamp burps up another ugly bubble. Since Swamp monsters only read their own PR, they have no idea what you and I understand. That’s the trouble with closed cults: Pretty soon they start believing their own propaganda.

Now inevitably people will be reminded about Obama’s very close relationship with Walid bin Talal, the Saudi billionaire who is now under arrest in the Riyadh Ritz Carlton, accused of “corruption on earth” far beyond the ordinary level of Arabian baksheesh. Talal was named by Percy Sutton as the Saudi money man who got Barry Soetoro-Obama into Harvard Law School, the beginning of his political career. Talal may also be the mysterious billionaire behind the Jihad war. We don’t know for sure, but Talal always says that he will leave his fortune to “charity.” Muslims understand what that means: In Islam, a percentage of charitable giving has to go to jihad.

Obama and Valerie Jarrett were involved in obviously corrupt and highly dangerous communications with the Iranian mullahs, long before Obama got elected. Valerie Jarrett grew up in a Shi’ite (pro-Iranian) Muslim family, and Jarrett ran a back channel to the mullahs long before the first Obama election. When the United States “negotiated” a surrender on the nuclear issue with the mullahs, a planeload of Iranian negotiators landed in Cairo, and a photographer showed them coming off the plane looking drunk and laughing their heads off. Obama and Jarrett sold out the United States (and therefore also Iran’s enemy Saudi Arabia), because both of them are jihad-symps from way back. This is serious business, and a large number of American voters know about it. They are the same voters who didn’t answer the pollsters who called the election for Hillary. Their silence meant trouble for Hillary, who still can’t believe she lost.

In the last election the Communist Party of the USA openly backed Hillary Clinton, and Hillary never said a word against them. She wanted their support.

So Donald Trump, who has his finger on the real pulse of the American people, ran with tens of millions of Twitter followers, against Hillary, who was supported by the much-despised media. Trump is an international hotel owner who has to know the politics of every country where he builds a hotel. He also ran the Miss Universe beauty pageant and started reality shows like “The Apprentice.” He knows other big business people around the world, who are often also major politicians.

But Trump is obviously a country hick, according to the New York Times and the sophisticates. Using Twitter and Facebook he ran under the media radar in a classical campaign that caught the Swamp with its pants down.

Now Robert Mueller has hired more than a dozen partisan Democratic hacks, mostly Hillary contributors, who were hoping for big jobs in the Hillary regime that never was. They are fired up for revenge against Trump, and just because Mueller fired one FBI guy for speaking out of turn, he will not get a single brownie point from conservatives.

Harvey Weinstein might as well try to prove his virginity. Mueller will never, ever regain the kind of respect we used to feel for the Department of Justice and the FBI. The IRS cannot be trusted, as taxpayers around the country know very well. Our presidential candidates like the Clintons have sold favors for money, and the Obama White House sold our national security to the throwback mullahs of Iran.

The Three Stooges of the Swamp, Comey, Brennan, and Clapper, chose Robert Mueller in collusion with the Democrats in Congress to become Special Prosecutor against Trump. Mueller has been part of that in-crowd all his life. But now the Swamp has finally sprung a trap on itself, and regardless of the legal outcome, the real accused in the dock will be one Robert Mueller.



Are Feminists the Cause of the Rise of Leftist Fascism in America?

I am in my 80s.  The America I was born into was a JudeoChristian nation.   It was also stumbling through the Great Depression.   People whether urban or rural, Negro or white, rich or poor, Americans went to CHURCH on Sunday.

Its males went to work, usually the other  six days a week.  Their wives stayed home to take care of Motherhood.  In my neighborhood Jews refused to join neighborhood gatherings, although always invited.   I was seven years old when Pearl Harbor was attacked.   Throughout the war I was the neighborhood delivery postal boy  for all invitations to  of our twice a year neighborhood outdoor gatherings.    Many, if not most of the small delicatessen shops, the community’s  major drug store, the movie theater,  and a women’s clothing shop were all owned and managed by Jewish neighbors of a larger, wealthier section of our neighborhood, whose children went to the same elementary school, K-8, as I did.   They attended Hebrew School every Tuesday afternoon, and were the only minority group within the neighborhood.

As today, about 70% of Jews voted Democrat….always….no wavering and were usually quite public about their choices.   Christians in the community considered voting very private.  It would be impolite, apparently, to snoop into something so private in one’s life.

Neighbors in the suburb where I have lived for forty three years, and prefer living because of garden space and  love of landscaping,  are all private one from  another…..

Women were real mothers and women in the 1940s until the first  sexual and cultural rebellion and killings began  in the late 1960s, when Bill Ayers first became our country’s  famous anarchist-leftist   bomber, a professor at Illinois State University,  and a close neighbor and eventually good  friend and mentor of our notorious America hater, Barack Hussein Obama .

Generally  unmarried women vote and play leftist these days.  They tend to appear at college to learn the hates of  the Gloria Steinems and worse.     Fewer women now become mothers.   Lots of women are feminists….fanatic ones at that.   They lead the national demand that boys must be made less male, and girls more male in order to prove their is only a single sex.

The human female animal isn’t  born  a natural killer for the survival of the species, to defend and continue her  kind… The killer instinct is born in the human male to be civilized,  by  knowing  what to learn, to be driven to explore,  to understand his surroundings, to be  interested,    to be curious, build, to find and expand his space in life……to protect his off spring and his mate…..again, BY NATURE!

Normal Mothers, real Mothers of sons, who care for  and raise them, know exactly what I am describing.

Nearly no Mothers attend today’s American university from Harvard to Sinkhole Tech.   Today, feminists and feminazis  do!   At last they can become complete  feminists whose feelings and moods will ultimately define,  dominate and/or determine “Truth” and its consequences.

Be sure to learn all you can about the disappearance of learning knowledge at your local feminized schools, colleges, universities, throughout the nation’s Democrat Party and its control of newsprint and television news coverage  these days of  Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Roddham Clinton, her husband, and Elizabeth Warren residue.    Read further below…..”Sex and Solidarity”.



Mueller Investigation: Politics, Not Law Enforcement or Counterintelligence

by Andrew C. McCarthy  at National Review:

“The end game is the removal of Trump, either by impeachment or by publicly discrediting him and making his reelection politically impossible. Here’s what I’d be tempted to do if I were President Trump: I’d direct the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, including any Obama-administration collusion in that enterprise.

I would make sure to call it a “counterintelligence investigation,” putting no limitations on the special counsel — just as with the investigation that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been unleashed to conduct into Trump “collusion” with Russia. That is, I would not restrict the prosecutor and investigators to digging for specified criminal violations. Or, indeed, any criminal violations. I’d just tell the special counsel, “Have at it” — with unbound authority to scrutinize the negotiations surrounding the eventual Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). Would I really expect the special counsel to find that Obama officials conspired with the mullahs to obtain nukes for Tehran? No . . . but hey, as the “Trump collusion with Russia” crowd says, “You never know.”

Meantime, under the guise of investigating this highly unlikely “collusion,” I’d want the special counsel to scrutinize closely any variances between what Obama-administration officials were telling Congress and the public about the negotiations and what they were telling the Iranians; to probe any side deals the administration agreed to but failed to disclose to Congress; and to consider whether any laws or policies were violated in such matters as President Obama’s payment of a cash ransom in exchange for American hostages held by Iran. Why would I do this? Well, because I disagree with Obama-administration foreign policy, of course. Under the Mueller “collusion” precedent, it is evidently now American practice to criminalize foreign-policy disputes under the pretext of conducting a counterintelligence investigation.

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion based on the guilty plea that Mueller just pried out of Michael Flynn. Let’s think about what has happened here. The Justice Department did not, as the pertinent special-counsel regulations require, identify specific crimes it suspected had been committed by Trump-campaign officials. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein disclosed no factual predicate calling for a criminal investigation from which Trump’s Justice Department would be ethically required to recuse itself. Under the Mueller ‘collusion’ precedent, it is evidently now American practice to criminalize foreign-policy disputes under the pretext of conducting a counterintelligence investigation. Instead, Mueller’s investigation was rationalized by the need to conduct a counterintelligence inquiry into Russia’s “cyber-espionage” meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Though there was no probable cause to believe Trump-campaign officials had participated in Russia’s hacking (and remember: the FBI and Obama Justice Department had been investigating for months before the special counsel was appointed), Mueller was encouraged to focus on whether Trump-campaign officials somehow “coordinated” in Russia’s perfidy. Mueller’s investigation was not a criminal investigation. It started out as a fishing expedition, under the vaporous heading of “collusion,” into “contacts” between Russian officials and Trump associates — notwithstanding that collusion is not conspiracy and that it was perfectly legal for Trump associates to have contacts with Russia (just like Clinton associates did). It was to be expected that the Trump campaign and transition would have such contacts once it was apparent that Trump could well become — and did in fact become — the next president of the United States.

Only one conceivable crime could have arisen out of the “collusion” that was the pretext for Mueller’s probe: the knowing complicity of Trump associates in Russia’s hacking of Democratic email accounts. Of course, there was never evidence of such a scheme . . . but why should that matter? The point here was to have the theater of an investigation run by a prosecutor — the rest is just details. See, we’re not following the normal rules, in which a prosecutor is assigned only after evidence of an actual crime has emerged. We’re in the wooly realm of counterintelligence, where anything goes. And in the event our aggressive prosecutor can’t find any crimes — which would be no surprise, since the investigation was not triggered by a crime — no matter: The special counsel is encouraged to manufacture crimes through the investigative process.

Misleading assertions by non-suspects made to investigators probing non-crimes can be charged as felony false statements. The end game of the investigation is the removal of Donald Trump from the presidency, either by impeachment (which does not require proof of a court-prosecutable crime) or by publicly discrediting Trump to such a degree that his reelection becomes politically impossible. The latter can be accomplished by projecting the appearance of a critical investigation (notwithstanding that there is no underlying crime), turning administration officials into suspects, and hopefully generating the false-statement prosecutions that help depict the administration as dishonest and icky. While all that plays out, though, behold the frightening thing Mueller’s investigation has become: a criminalization of politics. In the new order of things, policy differences are the grist for investigation and prosecution.

There is no evidence that Flynn or any other Trump associate was involved in Russia’s election interference. Instead, after being elected on the promise of significant policy shifts from the Obama administration, President-elect Trump directed Flynn, his incoming national-security adviser, to make contact with foreign counterparts, including but not limited to officials from Russia. This is standard operating procedure when administrations change — that’s why they call it a transition. Nevertheless, Trump’s victory caused consternation in the Obama administration for two reasons. First, and most obviously, Obama did not want his policies reversed. Second, neither Obama nor his party could abide a judgment of history holding that the election of Trump, the bane of their existence, was a result of the American people’s rejection of the Obama agenda and of Hillary Clinton, the hapless candidate nominated by Democrats to carry that agenda forward.

Consequently, while projecting a public image of cooperation in the transition, the Obama administration used the weeks following the election to do two things: protect Obama’s priorities from Trump, and promote a political narrative that Mrs. Clinton’s defeat was the result of sinister collaboration between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin. One major Obama-administration priority was to solidify the policy of blaming Israel for the enduring Israeli–Palestinian conflict — specifically, downplaying the ideological roots of Palestinian terrorism and framing as the real culprit Israeli settlement-building in disputed territories that Obama, like Israel’s enemies, regarded as illegally “occupied.” Thus, in his administration’s coup de grace, Obama orchestrated a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity — a stark departure (as I wrote at the time) from America’s commitment to Israel’s security and policy of shielding Israel from such U.N. intrigues. Based on a statement of facts filed by Mueller in connection with Flynn’s guilty plea, we now know that, on December 22, right after this resolution was proposed, a “very senior member” of Trump’s transition team — who has been identified as Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, in a Bloomberg report by Eli Lake — directed Flynn to contact officials from the various foreign governments on the Security Council, including Russia.

Pursuant to these directions, Flynn informed his counterparts that Trump opposed the resolution — which opposition, by the way, Trump was quite clear about publicly. Flynn encouraged them to vote against the resolution, or at least delay it until Trump would assume office in January. The Obama administration used the weeks following the election to protect Obama’s priorities from Trump and to promote a narrative that Clinton’s defeat was the result of collaboration between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin. The following day, December 23, Flynn again contacted the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak. As we have noted, Kislyak was the subject of monitoring under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), so we should assume the FBI was recording all his conversations with Flynn. Kislyak told Flynn that, despite Trump’s opposition, Russia would not vote against the resolution if it came down to a vote. Some collusion! As discussed in my column yesterday, Obama imposed sanctions the following week — promoting the “Russia hacked the election” storyline. Kislyak contacted Flynn on December 28, the day Obama signed the relevant executive order. Afterwards, Flynn sought guidance about what to tell the Russian ambassador from “a senior official” on Trump’s transition team — headquartered during the holiday season at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach. Flynn and this official (who, as this is written, has not been identified) discussed how the sanctions might affect Trump foreign-policy goals. The official told Flynn that the transition team did not want Russia to escalate the situation — meaning, to respond too aggressively to Obama’s move.

Flynn immediately called Kislyak, asking that Russia not escalate — that it restrict itself to a measured, reciprocal response (which, we note, is what any American should have wanted). On December 30, Putin announced that Russia would not take retaliatory measures at that time, and the next day Kislyak explained to Flynn that this was done in deference to Flynn’s request. Flynn had made no promises to Russia about the sanctions, but Putin rationally concluded his best shot at getting relief was to refrain from taking retaliatory measures that would make it more difficult for Trump to accommodate him. Because of surveillance coverage on Kislyak, the Obama administration knew the substance of Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador. The FBI knew there was no suggestion, in any of the activities just described, that Flynn or Trump had anything to do with Russian espionage. There was no evidence that Flynn had committed a crime.

There was every indication that the incoming national-security adviser was engaging in transition activities to be expected in preparation for an administration that had foreign-policy priorities very different from Obama’s So . . . why did the Obama administration decide to investigate Flynn, resulting in the FBI interview? I believe the explanation is threefold: (1) to punish Flynn, and derivatively the incoming Trump administration, for opposing Obama’s anti-Israel legerdemain in the Security Council; (2) to promote the political narrative that Russia–Trump collusion had cheated Clinton out of her rightful election victory; and (3) to tie this collusion narrative to sanctions relief, thereby making it politically impossible for Trump to roll back Obama’s sanctions once he was sworn in — a boon for the Democrats’ collusion narrative since the sanctions stand as a reminder of Russia’s election meddling. The ongoing Mueller probe is not a good-faith investigation of suspected espionage or other crime. It is the exploitation of the executive’s intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement powers in order to (a) criminalize Trump political policies with which the Obama administration disagreed and (b) frame Clinton’s electoral defeat as the product of a traitorous scheme rather than a rejection of Democratic-party priorities. We can stipulate that General Flynn is a very foolish man. He was not required to speak to the FBI when agents came to interview him on January 24. He is, moreover, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency: He had every reason to know that the FBI must have been monitoring Kislyak (and perhaps other foreign officials with whom Flynn was in contact). He had every reason to know that the Bureau must have had recordings of the conversations the agents wanted to ask him about. Astonishingly, he chose to submit to the interview anyway, and to lie. It is fair enough to say that he has no one to blame but himself, and that a person of such poor judgment should not be the president’s principal adviser on national-security matters.

We can also stipulate that the Trump administration will be badly bruised by its deceptive performance, in which ignorance was feigned about whether Flynn discussed the sanctions with Kislyak. Trump could easily have signaled his disagreements with Obama’s actions. It is not illegal for the incoming administration to undermine the incumbent administration — the Logan Act, which purports to criminalize foreign-affairs freelancing by unauthorized citizens, is unconstitutional and absurd. If it weren’t, Mueller would have charged Flynn with violating it.

It is rightly observed that we have only one president at a time.

Thus, it remains unseemly for an incoming administration to undermine the incumbent administration in such an active way — negotiating with foreign powers against the policy of a president who is still lawfully governing. Clumsily doing so ratchets up political heat on transition officials to deny their contacts with foreign officials. In matters of foreign affairs and intelligence, U.S. officials often find it expedient to say one thing in private communications with foreign diplomats and something quite different in public appearances. Just ask Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. All that said, what is going on here is politics, not law. No sensible person thinks the Trump campaign colluded in Russian espionage. If there were such evidence, I’d be first on line demanding the president’s impeachment and removal. Nor did Trump obstruct the investigation of this non-crime by firing the FBI director — what he did was exhibit incompetence and boorishness. Rather, Mueller’s investigation is a semblance of law-enforcement disguising the brute reality that Trump is being punished for winning the election and defying Obama policy. If that is the way the game is going to be played, if the purpose of a special-counsel “collusion” investigation is to humiliate the opposition party by exposing its wayward foreign-policy objectives and unsavory horse-trading, then let’s investigate Obama and Iran. READ MORE: What the Flynn Plea Means There Is No Evidence of ‘Collusion’ in Flynn’s Offense Statement