• 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

Dems Are Becoming Lefty Schiff Fascists….What’s the Anti-Trump GOP Wing Becoming?

What is the Purpose of the GOP?

By Richard Moss at American Thinker:


A year ago I was locked in a political race for the Republican nomination for Congress from Indiana’s 8th district.  I was running against then four-term incumbent, Larry Bucshon.  I had also run in the prior election cycle in 2016.  And I had run in 2014 against Mike Braun (now U.S. Senator for Indiana) for state representative (HR 63).

Among issues popular among conservatives, I also had what I thought was a compelling platform regarding the incumbent: Bucshon and his family had moved to Washington D.C.  I had hoped that this factor combined with his generally weak voting record could propel me to an upset victory, which is never easy against an incumbent.  I started early and ran hard.  I had raised money and traveled extensively throughout the 18 counties of Indiana’s 8th district, meeting and interacting with voters.

Despite a vigorous, hard-hitting campaign, we came up short –- actually worse than the prior election.  I had dropped from 35% to 26%.  I also observed that many in the 8th district county level GOP establishment were upset over my criticism of Bucshon for moving to D.C.  I contended, however, that a representative and his family must live, work, and attend schools in the area he represented.  In this era of an increasingly centralized federal government, far removed from its constituents, Bucshon’s decision to move to Washington exemplified a D.C.-centric mentality that defined perfectly what was wrong with our political system — and why I had run.

Having lost in three political campaigns, I can report that it is wonderful not to run for office.  The reasons for running in three separate campaigns, however, have not disappeared.  Our “one party” system in Washington remains profoundly corrupt and self-serving.  It consists of career politicians from both parties, special interests, donors, and lobbyists, all of whom agree on one thing: growing the size of government.

The Republican Party, in its budgeting and voting, is a left-of-center party; it is, as I often referred to it as, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.  With an increasingly Marxist Democratic Party, and no serious conservative opposition from “soft-progressive” Republicans, the trajectory of the nation is all to the left: more spending, more programs, more socialism, and ultimately more tyranny.

Rather than promote a constitutional, limited government agenda that would actually expand liberty and shrink the power of the federal government, the GOP, in effect, embraces the tenets and policies of the Democrats (other than occasional, meaningless rhetorical flourishes to the contrary).  Thus, there is no active force to thwart the mortgaging of the nation and future generations by politicians seeking short-term political gain.

Thanks to our federal government, for example, we have annual trillion-dollar deficits, a national debt approaching $22 trillion (larger than our GDP), and $200 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.  The actuaries of Medicare and Social Security indicate both programs will be bankrupt in 2026 and 2035 respectively.  The Republican Party, allegedly a stronghold of fiscal prudence, is, in fact, handmaiden to profligacy and insolvency.

The GOP remains hapless on the issue of immigration.  It has done nothing to curtail and reform legal immigration to reflect the national interest (i.e. to make it meritocratic, limited, and diverse; to end chain migration, the “diversity” visa, birthright citizenship, and lawless “sanctuary cities,” among many critical issues); it has not secured the southern border nor prevented the influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, virtually all of whom are impoverished, uneducated, and unskilled, and who will burden our schools, hospitals, courts, and public systems.  Many of them are disease carriers, drug dealers, criminals, and terrorists.  Thanks to feckless Republicans, our immigration system has become a giant welfare magnet for the world, a threat to our sovereignty, the rule of law, and national security.

Utterly feeble on the cultural front, the Republican Party has meekly accepted the cultural Marxism of the left rather than push back against the nihilism and degradation of our popular and politically correct culture.  It has failed to promulgate a conservative “narrative” to confront the anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-American narrative foisted upon us by our cultural overlords.

Today’s Democrat Party, overtaken by the radical French Revolutionary Left, is not the Democratic party of your grandfather or father, of Truman or Kennedy.  This bunch, should they come to power, is preparing the ground for future gulags not unlike their Marxist predecessors of the 20th century.

In effect, the conservative movement lacks a political vehicle with which to enact its agenda, policies, and narrative, hence the nation is at the mercy of liberaldom.  Absent effective and principled resistance from a fighting Republican Party, the leftward tilt of the nation, its decline into socialism and bankruptcy, its fragmentation into tribalized, warring identity groups, and the continued breakdown of its culture, is unavoidable.  The Trump years, like the Reagan era, will represent temporary but minor respites in the downward spiral of the country.

We live in treacherous times and the fault lines dividing us may be insurmountable.  But conservatives must continue to uphold our priorities that the nation may return to its foundational principles and beliefs.  We must reassert the religious and cultural underpinnings of the country, the central role of the two-parent family, faith, and the Judeo-Christian tradition; we should foster an appreciation of our unique history and heritage, of liberty, individual rights, the rule of law, free markets, and the principles of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  We, the believers, must remain the vanguard defending Western and American civilization — with or without the Republican Party.

Dr. Moss is a practicing Ear Nose and Throat Surgeon, author, and columnist, residing in Jasper, IN.  He has written A Surgeon’s Odyssey and Matilda’s Triumph available on amazon.com.  Find more of his essays at richardmossmd.com.  Visit Richard Moss, M.D. on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.


The Moeller, Comey, Rosenstein, and Hillary Stench…..THE CRIMINAL PLOT THICKENS

Well now………
Image may contain: 5 people, text
Tom Tancredo Post – MUST READ
…..(Article sent by California friend and  conservative, Lisa Rich.)
I am passing this on from someone who’s
connecting some dots with input from sources he
cannot reveal.
Here’s what it looks like when all the pieces are
sewn together
It smells like conspiracy and treason. Everyone
needs to read this. Slowly, and patiently, because
it’s very important……
From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing
investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
A Grand Jury had been impaneled.
Governments from around the world had donated to
the “Charity”.
Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those “Donations”
to the Clinton Foundation were declared. Now you
would think that an honest investigator would be able
to figure this out.
Look who took over this investigation in 2005:
None other than James Comey; Coincidence? Guess who
was transferred into the Internal Revenue Service to
run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? None other
than, Lois “Be on The Look Out” (BOLO) Lerner. Isn’t
that interesting?
But this is all just a series of strange
coincidences, right?
Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the
Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005?
No other than the Assistant Attorney General of
the United States, Rod Rosenstein.
Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation during this time frame?
Another coincidence (just an anomaly in
statistics and chances), but it was Robert Mueller.
What do all four casting characters have in common?
They all were briefed and/or were front-line
investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation.
Another coincidence, right?
Fast forward to 2009….
James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go
and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.
Hillary Clinton is running the State Department,
official government business, on her own personal
email server.
The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of
the Hillary.
Like all good public servants do, supposedly
looking out for America’s best interest, she decides
to support the decision and approve the sale of 20%
of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.
Now you would think that this is a fairly
straight up deal, except it wasn’t, America got
absolutely nothing out of it.
However, prior to the sales approval, no other
than Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for
a one hour speech; then meets with Vladimir Putin at
his home for a few hours.
Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI
had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery
Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during this
time frame? Yep, He even delivered a Uranium Sample
to Moscow in 2009.
Who was handling that case within the Justice
Department out of the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland?
None other than, Rod Rosenstein. And what
happened to the informant?
The Department of Justice placed a GAG order on
him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out
about it.
How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the
United States of America end up in Russian hands when
the FBI has an informant, a mole providing inside
information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?
Very soon after; the sale was approved!~145
million dollars in “donations” made their way into
the Clinton Foundation from entities directly
connected to the Uranium One deal.
Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue
Service working the Charitable Division? None other
than, – Lois Lerner.
Ok, that’s all just another series of
coincidences, nothing to see here, right?
Let’s fast forward to 2015.
Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and
after the 9 “investigations” the House, Senate and at
State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th
investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on
Benghazi discovers that the Hillary ran the State
Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw
personal email server.He also discovered that none of
those emails had been turned over when she departed
her “Public Service” as Secretary of State which was
required by law. He also discovered that there was
Top Secret information contained within her
personally archived email.
Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the
nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were
employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth
from the necks of the Kerry State Department, we
shall leave it with this…… they did everything
humanly possible to cover for Hillary.
Now this is amazing, guess who became FBI
Director in 2013? None other than James Comey; who
secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer
(Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was
rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present
when he departed his employer? Amazing how all those
no-bids just went right through at State, huh?
Now he is the FBI Director in charge of the
“Clinton Email Investigation” after of course his FBI
Investigates the Lois Lerner “Matter” at the Internal
Revenue Service and he exonerates her. Nope….
couldn’t find any crimes there.
In April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration
letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ
is handing out immunity deals like candy.They didn’t
even convene a Grand Jury!
Like a lightning bolt of statistical
impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like
the true “Gangsta” Comey is, James steps out into the
cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the
5th of 2016, and exonerates the Hillary from any
Do you see the pattern?
It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst.
Attorney General,Comey gets fired based upon a letter
by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to
the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian
Investigation sham by Rosenstein to provide cover for
decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the
story continues.
FISA Abuse, political espionage….. pick a
crime, any crime, chances are…… this group and a
few others did it:
All the same players.
All compromised and conflicted.
All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves
All connected in one way or another to the Clinton’s.
They are like battery acid; they corrode and
corrupt everything they touch.How many lives have
these two destroyed?
As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in
its 20+ years of operation of being the largest
International Charity Fraud in the history of
mankind, has never been audited by the Internal
Revenue Service.
Let us not forget that Comey’s brother works for
DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton
Foundation’s taxes.
The person that is the common denominator to all
the crimes above and still doing her evil escape
legal maneuvers at the top of the 3 Letter USA Agencies?
Yep, that would be Hillary R. Clinton.
Now who is LISA BARSOOMIAN? Let’s learn a little
about Mrs. Lisa H. Barsoomian’s background.
Lisa H. Barsoomian, an Attorney that graduated
from Georgetown Law, is a protégé of James Comey and
Robert Mueller.
Barsoomian, with her boss R. Craig Lawrence,
represented Bill Clinton in 1998.
Lawrence also represented:
Robert Mueller three times;
James Comey five times;
Barack Obama 45 times;
Kathleen Sebelius 56 times;
Bill Clinton 40 times; and
Hillary Clinton 17 times.
Between 1998 and 2017, Barsoomian herself
represented the FBI at least five times.
You may be saying to yourself, OK, who cares? Who
cares about the work history of this Barsoomian woman?
Apparently, someone does, because someone out
there cares so much that they’ve “purged” all
Barsoomian court documents for her Clinton
representation in Hamburg vs. Clinton in 1998 and its
appeal in 1999 from the DC District and Appeals Court
dockets (?). Someone out there cares so much that
even the internet has been “purged” of all
information pertaining to Barsoomian.
Historically, this indicates that the individual
is a protected CIA operative. Additionally, Lisa
Barsoomian has specialized in opposing Freedom of
Information Act requests on behalf of the
intelligence community. Although Barsoomian has been
involved in hundreds of cases representing the DC
Office of the US Attorney, her email address is Lisa
Barsoomian@NIH.gov. The NIH stands for National
Institutes of Health. This is a tactic routinely used
by the CIA to protect an operative by using another
government organization to shield their activities.
It’s a cover, so big deal right? What does one
more attorney with ties to the US intelligence
community really matter?
It deals with Trump and his recent tariffs on
Chinese steel and aluminum imports, the border wall,
DACA, everything coming out of California, the
Uni-party unrelenting opposition to President Trump,
the Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General
Jeff Sessions recusal and subsequent 14 month nap
with occasional forays into the marijuana
legalization mix …. and last but not least Mueller’s
never-ending investigation into collusion between the
Trump team and the Russians.
Why does Barsoomian, CIA operative, merit any
She is Assistant Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein’s WIFE!

The Collusion Business Enters an End

WSJ Columnist: This Is What’s Being Glossed Over In The Mueller Report On Russian Collusion

by Matt Vespa  at Townhall:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his report. The two-year long investigation is over. Over 2,000 subpoenas were issued, 500 witnesses interviewed, and after all that, there is no evidence President Trump, his campaign staff, or the Kremlin colluded to tilt the 2016 election. Half the country knew that, while the other half chose to remain drooling vegetables on this issue. There was no collusion. On obstruction of justice, another moronic Democratic obsession, Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein didn’t see enough evidence to suggest this took place. Maybe…that’s because if this did happen—and I think it didn’t—then Trump did a bad job. He allowed over 2,000 subpoenas and hundreds of witnesses be interviewed by partisan Democratic staffers on Mueller’s staff. Yet, this gives even more weight and credibility to the report, which is why I never liked the bashing of the Mueller probe based on that point. If you were confident that the Russian collusion hysterics were a wild goose chase, then you would want the most anti-Trump people on Mueller’s staff because when that report drops confirming what you had a hunch on, then there’s no ‘well, he or she used to work for Republicans’ talking point bubbling up.


I never thought I’d see the day where Democrats are visibly upset that the President of The United States DIDN’T collude with the Russians.

Yet, while we all pop champagne over this tremendous political win for the Trump White House and the country, Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel noted that what’s being glossed over with the no collusion reports from the news media is how the Mueller report totally trashes the FBI

“If you are going to investigate a presidential campaign, and on a charge as grave as collusion, and with the heavy-handed tactics the FBI employed–you’d better have a highly convincing reason to act,” tweeted Strassel. “The Mueller report is a judgment that never was any real evidence.”


1) On the findings of Mueller’s report. It’s worth recognizing that this is more than an exoneration. It’s a searing indictment of the FBI.

2) If you are going to investigate a presidential campaign, and on a charge as grave as collusion, and with the heavy-handed tactics the FBI employed–you’d better have a highly convincing reason to act. The Mueller report is a judgment that never was any real evidence.

3) The Papadopoulos conversation was always thin gruel. And the Mueller findings now prove the dossier was a fabrication. The country now deserves a full accounting of how the FBI blew this so badly–so that it doesn’t happen again.

4) If Mueller has done his job, he will address some of this. But the real accounting needs to come from a full declassification of FBI/DOJ probe docs. Mueller report is only half the story. Time to go back to the beginning, to how we got a special counsel in first place.



McCabe’s FBI Conspired Coup to Remove The President from Office!

Jason Chaffetz: FBI’s Andrew McCabe should be on trial, not a book tour

by  Jason Chaffetz  at  Fox News:

Andrew McCabe lied multiple times to federal investigators.

That was the official finding in February 2018 of a scathing 39-page report by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General.  They found McCabe, then Deputy Director of Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) “lacked candor” in answering questions about his authorization of disclosures in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. The referral for further action went to the DOJ.


One year later he is publishing a book, being highlighted on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” and walking free after lying at least four times, three of them under oath, to federal authorities investigating his conduct.  Trading on the notoriety he gained from his partisan loyalty, he will now have the opportunity to monetize the duplicity that shielded Hillary Clinton from justice.

For a time, McCabe was the acting director of the FBI.  He of all people knew the rules, the law, and had a duty and responsiblity to tell the truth.

In stark contrast, the subjects of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigations have been shown no such favor.  Several are being prosecuted for lying to federal authorities.  Much to my surprise, Mueller actually managed to get the DOJ to prosecute someone for lying to Congress – former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.  That is a promising development.

People who lie to Congress should be prosecuted.  But not selectively. We seem to live in a world with two sets of rules – one for loyal Democrat partisans, and a strict one for everyone else, especially those who supported Donald Trump.

If ever there was a case that demands prosecution, McCabe’s is that case.  For an FBI employee, integrity and credibility are the most important tools of the trade.  How can one testify credibly if they have been shown to “lack candor” – in FBI parlance – in other cases?

The Inspector General in its February 2018 report provided the DOJ with mounds of evidence, including audio recordings, detailing how McCabe lacked candor “in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership.”

For a time, McCabe was the acting director of the FBI.  He of all people knew the rules, the law, and had a duty and responsiblity to tell the truth.  And yet his own colleagues found he lied.  In fact, he accomplished something federal employees rarely accomplish – he was ultimately fired for his offenses.

Now he’s on a book tour. He should be under prosecution.





Editor’s Note: Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI, was named acting director of the bureau after President Donald Trump fired his boss, Director James Comey, on May 9, 2017. McCabe would himself be fired less than a year later. In an exclusive adaptation from his book, The Threat, to be published next week by St. Martin’s Press, McCabe describes his encounters with President Trump and the steps taken to protect the FBI’s investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections—and into the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russian actors.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017, my first full day on the job as acting director of the FBI, I sat down with senior staff involved in the Russia case—the investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. As the meeting began, my secretary relayed a message that the White House was calling. The president himself was on the line. I had spoken with him the night before, in the Oval Office, when he told me he had fired James Comey.

A call like this was highly unusual. Presidents do not, typically, call FBI directors. There should be no direct contact between the president and the director, except for national-security purposes. The reason is simple. Investigations and prosecutions need to be pursued without a hint of suspicion that someone who wields power has put a thumb on the scale.The Russia team was in my office. I took the call on an unclassified line. That was another strange thing—the president was calling on a phone that was not secure. The voice on the other end said, It’s Don Trump calling. I said, Hello, Mr. President, how are you? Apart from my surprise that he was calling at all, I was surprised that he referred to himself as “Don.”The president said, I’m good. You know—boy, it’s incredible, it’s such a great thing, people are really happy about the fact that the director’s gone, and it’s just remarkable what people are saying. Have you seen that? Are you seeing that, too?

He went on: I received hundreds of messages from FBI people—how happy they are that I fired him. There are people saying things on the media, have you seen that? What’s it like there in the building.This is what it was like: You could go to any floor and you would see small groups gathering in hallways, some people even crying. The overwhelming majority liked and admired Director Comey—his personal style, the integrity of his conduct. Now we were laboring under the same dank, gray shadow that had been creeping over Washington during the few months Donald Trump had been in office.

I didn’t feel like I could say any of that to the president on the phone. I’m not sure I would have wanted to say it to him in person, either—or that he would have cared. I told him that people here were very surprised, but that we were trying to get back to work.

The president said he thought most people in the FBI voted for him—he thought 80 percent. He asked me again, as he had in his office, if I knew that Comey had told him three times that he was not under investigation. Then he got to the reason for his call. He said, I really want to come over there. I want to come to the FBI. I want to show all my FBI people how much I love them, so I think maybe it would be good for me to come over and speak to everybody, like tomorrow or the next day.

That sounded to me like one of the worst possible things that could happen. He was the boss, and had every right to come, but I hoped the idea would dissipate on its own. He said, Why don’t you come down here and talk to me about that later?

After we agreed on a time to meet, the president began to talk about how upset he was that Comey had flown home on his government plane from Los Angeles—Comey had been giving a speech there when he learned he was fired. The president wanted to know how that had happened.

I told him that bureau lawyers had assured me there was no legal issue with Comey coming home on the plane. I decided that he should do so. The existing threat assessment indicated he was still at risk, so he needed a protection detail. Since the members of the protection detail would all be coming home, it made sense to bring everybody back on the same plane they had used to fly out there. It was coming back anyway. The president flew off the handle: That’s not right! I don’t approve of that! That’s wrong! He reiterated his point five or seven times.

I said, I’m sorry that you disagree, sir. But it was my decision, and that’s how I decided. The president said, I want you to look into that! I thought to myself: What am I going to look into? I just told you I made that decision.

The ranting against Comey spiraled. I waited until he had talked himself out.

Toward the end of the conversation, the president brought up the subject of my wife. Jill had run unsuccessfully for the Virginia state Senate back in 2015, and the president had said false and malicious things about her during his campaign in order to tarnish the FBI. He said, How is your wife? I said, She’s fine. He said, When she lost her election, that must have been very tough to lose. How did she handle losing? Is it tough to lose?

I replied, I guess it’s tough to lose anything. But she’s rededicated herself to her career and her job and taking care of kids in the emergency room. That’s what she does.

He replied in a tone that sounded like a sneer. He said, “Yeah, that must’ve been really tough. To lose. To be a loser.”

I wrote a memo about this conversation that very day. I wrote memos about my interactions with President Trump for the same reason that Comey did: to have a contemporaneous record of conversations with a person who cannot be trusted.

People do not appreciate how far we have fallen from normal standards of presidential accountability. Today we have a president who is willing not only to comment prejudicially on criminal prosecutions but to comment on ones that potentially affect him. He does both of these things almost daily. He is not just sounding a dog whistle. He is lobbying for a result. The president has stepped over bright ethical and moral lines wherever he has encountered them. Every day brings a new low, with the president exposing himself as a deliberate liar who will say whatever he pleases to get whatever he wants. If he were “on the box” at Quantico, he would break the machine.

After Comey’s firing, the core of my concern had to do with what might happen to the Russia case if I were to be removed. I convened a series of meetings about that investigation—including the one interrupted by the call from the president—in which I directed an overall review of every aspect. Was the work on solid ground? Were there individuals on whom we should consider opening new cases? I wanted to protect the Russia investigation in such a way that whoever came after me could not just make it go away.

As requested, I went back to the White House that afternoon. The scene was almost identical to the one I had walked into the previous night. Trump was behind the Resolute desk. He lifted one arm and jutted it out, fingers splayed, directing me to take a seat in one of the little wooden chairs in front of him. Reince Priebus, then the chief of staff, and Don McGahn, then the White House counsel, were in the other chairs.

The president launched back into his speech about what a great decision it was to fire Jim Comey, how wonderful it was that the director was gone, because so many people did not like Comey, even hated him—the president actually used the word hate.

Eventually he changed the subject. He said that he wanted to come to FBI headquarters to see people and excite them and show them how much he loves the FBI. He pressed me to answer whether I thought it was a good idea. I said it was always a good idea to visit. I was trying to take some of the immediacy out of his proposal—to communicate that the door was always open, so that he wouldn’t feel he had to crash through it right away. I knew what a disaster it could turn out to be if he came to the Hoover Building in the near future. He pressed further, asking specifically, Do you think it would be a good idea for me to come down now? I said, Sure.

A Note from Cjack Regarding “Obstruction of Justice”

Note from Cjack, Sentinel on the Gulf:

“Obstruction of Justice.” What is it…we must ask! Well, for those befuddled by these words so readily thrown to the American public, like gratuitous morsels to hungry dogs by our vociferous Democrats and their anti-Trump co-conspirators in the media, the following definition is offered. “Obstruction of justice is the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law, especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officers, or by furnishing false information or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process.” Obstruction of justice is a felony under federal law. Is there any evidence that President Trump obstructed justice when he fired the corrupt ex-Director of the FBI, James Comey for his ‘leaking’ of a scurrilous self-serving memo of his private ‘conversations’ with the president to the Columbia University professor who delivered it to the NY Times…(redacted falsehoods intended to trigger the appointment of ‘a special counsel’ to investigate the President, his campaign officials and transition team based on a ‘fake dossier’ of a ‘Trump-Russia Collusion’ to deny Hillary Clinton the presidency of the United States).

Moreover, that ‘fake dossier’ was used by the FBI and the DOJ to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Mr. Trump, his family, and personnel involved in his presidential campaign and transition team.

It must be noted that all of these unethical acts were conducted by high law enforcement and intelligence officials of the Obama administration. Yet, now with the nefarious Obama out of office and the ‘Trump-Russia Collusion’ narrative discredited, Special Counsel Mueller is doggedly pursuing an obstruction of justice charge against the president; if not to take down the president, most surely to impede the investigation of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Obama’s ‘deep state’ operatives who may have committed a string of criminals acts that may have compromised our national safety and security.

It was not Donald Trump who colluded with foreign powers to enrich himself at the expense of our national security; it was the corrupt ex-president Barack Hussein Obama and high officials in his administration who sold our nation’s respect, security and sovereignty for $145,000,000.00 to the Russians. Those are the colluding crooks Mueller should be after, not Donald Trump. But then again, the then FBI director Robert Mueller must have been in on the “Uranium One Deal”…eh?

I say, based on the illegal anti-Trump activities conducted by politically-partisan rogue elements of the FBI and DOJ and the evidence uncovered by creditable legal firms and non-partisan media organizations, the above legal definition of what constitutes obstruction of justice should justify the immediate termination of ‘Special Counsel’ Robert Mueller’s investigation; the President has not acted in any manner to collude with the Russians, or to obstruct justice when he fired the crooked James Comey.

However, what is quite clear is what amounts to be a ‘politically convenient’ investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller— based on the discredited “false” Trump-Russia Collusion ‘dossier’ compiled by the ex-British spy Christopher Steele— is nothing more than an attempt to ‘cover up’ a string of criminal activities conducted by high US government officials under the consent of our ex-president Barack Hussein Obama; a US president whose legacy to date must be footnoted as the saddest chapter in our political history; a dastard act to deny our duly elected President Donald J. Trump his legal authority to govern the nation. Mr. Barr, these perpetrators must be punished.

Mr. Barr should immediately put an end to the two-year bogus, expensive, investigation by ‘special counsel’ Robert Mueller and his pro-Hillary team of corrupt lawyers aiming to overthrow our duly elected President and his administration. Never in the history of our nation has there been such a glaring political coup to invalidate the will of the American people to cover up the criminal/seditious activities of an American president; in this case Barack Obama, our ‘first black president’ and his administration.

CJack, Editor, Sentinel on the Gulf, January 17, 2019

Note: Because William Barr has been nominated by President Trump to be the ‘nation’s’ next U.S. Attorney General he must be reminded that his friendship with the unconstitutional “Special Counsel” Robert Mueller must never be above the U.S. Constitution. In fact, by now, Mr. Barr should be well aware that the Kremlin’s most prominent moles embedded in our past administration were our ex-president Barack Obama and his ex-secretary of state Ms. Hillary Clinton; an so were Obama’s ex-FBI director James Comey, his ex-CIA director John Brennan and his former director of US national Intelligence James Clapper—a nest of traitors who should be sentenced to long jail terms along with Rod Rosenstein U.S. Deputy AG.

Fascism, Atheism, Feminism Rule Today’s Dim Dems Determined to Destroy the Republic

Today’s Democrats: Anti-Christian, Anti-Israel, Anti-God

by Trevor Thomas at American Thinker:


Anyone who considers himself a friend of God must have at least great pause when it comes to modern Democrats.  Seldom has a major American political party so distanced itself from the notion that, as President John Adams pointed out, “righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people.”

This is what happens when “live your truth” is the prevailing moral position.  No one should be surprised that politicians who support the “right” to kill children in the womb, who championed the legal redefinition of marriage, and who now pretend we can no longer rely on science, or common sense, or even simply our eyes to tell us who is a male and who is a female, would display open animus against people whose faith tells them such positions are immoral, and who live according to the notion that there is such a thing as absolute truth.

If something is immoral, then perhaps it should be illegal.  If there is such a thing as absolute truth, then perhaps our laws should reflect that truth.  Democrats just can’t take the chance that such thinking will prevail.  Thus, unless Christians can manage to get themselves elected, our role in our government is increasingly imperiled.

This is especially true of Christians who wish to serve in the Judiciary.  Because liberals have long seen the courts as a “super-Legislature” that they can use to enact their perverse agenda, Brett Kavanaugh will be far from the last Christian conservative judge who will draw the ire of Democrats who wish to derail such nominations.

Before Justice Kavanaugh, there were Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett and her loud “dogma.”  Now we have “Sir” Brian C. Buescher of the Knights of Columbus.  Democrat senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono recently implied that Judge Buescher’s membership in the two million-strong, 136-year-old Catholic service organization makes him unfit for the federal courts.

What really troubled the Senate Democrats is the position of the Knights of Columbus on abortion and marriage.  Never mind that such positions are perfectly in line with centuries-old teachings of the Catholic Church and that disqualification on such grounds would bar from public service every Catholic who actually adheres to the Church’s teachings.  As Matthew Continetti rightly notes:

My concern is the anti-Catholic sentiment manifest in the Democratic Party.  Last March, Feinstein demanded to know if Michael Scudder, now confirmed to the Seventh Circuit, worked with his parish “to establish a residential crisis pregnancy center.”  Last May, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island asked Peter J. Phipps, now confirmed as a district court judge, about the Knights.  Last October, Feinstein, Harris, and three other Democrats wanted to know about the relationship between Fourth Circuit nominee Allison Jones Rushing and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nonprofit that supports religious liberty.  Last November, Feinstein asked Third Circuit nominee Paul Matey, “If confirmed, will you recuse yourself from all cases in which the Knights of Columbus have taken a position?

Right-minded Catholics should thank God that Trump was elected.  As Rod Dreher reported, a “new Wikileaks dump from Clinton campaign chief John Podesta’s emails reveals that Podesta created a couple of activist groups for the sake of undermining the Catholic bishops and the Church’s authority.”  As Thomas Peters tweeted, “the head of Clinton’s campaign has been organizing to fracture a major religion.”  Or, as Dreher rightly noted:

[A]t the senior level of the Democratic Party’s brain trust, a Clinton political operative – a Catholic! – created front groups specifically to undermine the authority of the Catholic bishops, and to separate the bishops from the people, as well as to secretly undermine Catholic teaching to make it more friendly to the Democratic Party’s agenda.  Podesta ought to be excommunicated.

Continetti notes that Democrats have not limited their religious bigotry to Catholics:

Baptists and Episcopalians are also under scrutiny.  In June 2017, Bernie Sanders clashed with Russell Vought, now acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, over a blog post Vought had written regarding Islam that several Muslim groups considered Islamophobic.  “I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith,” Vought said.  By the end of the exchange, Sanders said, “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”

Democrats also opposed Mike Pompeo’s nomination as secretary of state because of how his Christian faith informs and impacts his politics. Pompeo – a Presbyterian – has served as a deacon, is open about his faith, and has also indicated that he actually believes what the Bible says about life, sex, and marriage.  In November 2017, Sheldon Whitehouse critically questioned federal district court nominee Trevor McFadden – an Anglican – over his church’s traditional teachings on marriage and the family.

Along with targeting Christians who believe what the Bible reveals on the significant moral issues of our time, modern Democrats have also targeted Jews and the nation of Israel.

As John Perazzo recently noted, the black left is littered with racists and anti-Semites.  These Jew-haters are not mere race pimps and publicity prostitutes à la Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but are also elected Democrats.  As Warren Henry revealed last year, “Democrats are fielding even more anti-Semitic candidates for Congress.”  They’re not just running, but winning.

As Henry points out, Michigan representative Rashida Tlaib – who profanely promised to impeach President Trump – “is representative of the Democratic Party’s gradual march beyond the embrace of candidates and officials who criticize Israeli policy or its current government to a much uglier place in politics.”  Like a growing number of Democrats in Congress, Tlaib supports a “one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, along with the “boycott, divestment, sanctions” (BDS) movement.

Henry also notes:

The founders and leaders of the BDS movement support a “one-state solution” that destroys Israel as Jewish state.  The movement is the intellectual descendant of the 1945 Arab boycott, which did not distinguish between Jews and Israel.  It is based on the premise that Israel is a racist apartheid state requiring the sort of action once taken against South Africa.

Marc Greendorfer recently revealed:

While BDS has risen in the United States, so has anti-Semitism.  Anti-Semitic incidents have spiked from a low point of 751 incidents in 2013 to nearly 2,000 in 2017.  It is no coincidence that the spread of a movement that demonizes Jews has had the same effect in the U.S. that similar campaigns had in the last 2,000 years.

The real agenda of BDS is the destruction of Israel.  Robert P. George of Princeton warns that leading Democrats will soon altogether turn on Israel.  The modern left hates Israel because the existence of a nation called Israel is among the greatest evidence that the God of the Bible is real.  They hate God, so they hate Israel.

This is also why the left hates Christianity.  Authentic Christianity points people to the truth.  As a California church recently declared, “Bruce Jenner is still a man.  Homosexuality is still a sin.  The culture may change, the Bible does not.”

The left’s deceit seems to know no bounds, thus we are left debating what was once almost universally accepted.  This is what results when a major political party is so often opposed to the truth.

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.


When FBI Bigshots Went Fascist in 2017

by Mollie Hemingway  at the Federalist:
A Friday expose from the New York Times reveals that the FBI investigation of Trump for alleged treason was little more than retaliation against the president for lawfully firing an incompetent and ethically challenged FBI director.

In a Friday night news dump, the New York Times revealed the FBI’s surprisingly flimsy justification for launching a retaliatory investigation into President Donald Trump, their chief adversary during their recent troubled era.

Admitting there is no actual evidence for their probe into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” FBI officials instead cited their foreign policy differences with him, his lawful firing of bungling FBI Director James Comey, and alarm that he accurately revealed to the American public that he was told he wasn’t under investigation by the FBI, when they preferred to hide that fact.

The news was treated as a bombshell, and it was, but not for the reasons many thought. It wasn’t news that the FBI had launched the investigation. Just last month, CNN reported that top FBI officials opened an investigation into Trump after the lawful firing of Comey because Trump “needed to be reined in,” a shocking admission of abuse of power by our nation’s top law enforcement agency.

The Washington Post reported Mueller was looking into whether Trump obstructed the Russia investigation by insisting he was innocent of the outlandish charges selectively leaked by government officials to compliant media. Perhaps because such an obstruction investigation was immediately condemned as scandalous political overreach, that aspect was downplayed while Mueller engaged in a limitless “Russia” probe that has rung up countless Trump affiliates for process crimes unrelated to treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and spun off various investigations having nothing to do with Russia in any way.

The latest Times report does provide more detail than these earlier reports, however, and none of it makes the FBI look good. In fact, it provides evidence of a usurpation of constitutional authority to determine foreign policy that belongs not with a politically unaccountable FBI but with the citizens’ elected president. More on that in a bit.

Criminalizing Foreign Policy Differences

Using leaked information and testimony from various former governmental officials, we learn that the FBI opened its aggressive, norm-breaking, and unconstitutionalinvestigation, supposedly into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” after he fired Comey and revealed how the agency was playing games with their spurious “Russia” probe.

The Saturday New York Times article appeared on page one, above the fold, with the almost laughable headline “F.B.I. Investigated if Trump Worked for the Russians.” The online version of the story was headlined “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia.” Nine paragraphs into the story, the reporters admit that there is and was literally “no evidence” to support the idea Trump worked for Russia.

The top of the article, however, immediately presented the FBI-friendly interpretation of the agency’s motivations as fact — without evidence and despite strong evidence to the contrary — saying the FBI began its investigation because they were “so concerned by the president’s behavior” rather than saying it was because they were “so concerned he’d continue to expose their behavior” or “so concerned he’d hold them accountable for their political investigations.”

The article accepts FBI spin that arguing for better relations with the nuclear-armed Russia “constituted a possible threat to national security” that could only be explained if Trump was “knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.” Because FBI officials personally opposed Trump’s foreign policy, and that of the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him, the FBI was “suspicious” of him, we’re told. The reporters admit the reckless decision by FBI officials was “an aggressive move” that disturbs many former law enforcement officials.

The FBI never had a good reason to investigate Trump, according to information in the article, but even the justifications they use are erroneous. For example, all three items mentioned here are inaccurately framed and presented:

Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.

First, Trump never called on Russia to hack Clinton, despite repeated media claims to the contrary. Clinton had already destroyed her server, along with 30,000 emails she claimed were about yoga, while she was under investigation for mishandling classified information. Trump was highlighting that tons of hackers could have already accessed her insecure server when it still existed and, if they had, those emails should be released so that Americans would know what foreign governments undoubtedly already did. It was a way to highlight her reckless handling of classified information and the global security concerns of that.

Second, having a foreign policy different from those who seek conflict with Russia is neither a problem nor any of the FBI’s business. In fact, it’s a big part of why the American people voted for Trump. The American people get to determine who sets foreign policy, and they do so through elections. The FBI does not get to set foreign policy by running criminal and counterintelligence investigations to punish those who step outside their preferred approach. They have no constitutional authority to do that.

Third, even if the Republican Party had changed its convention platform regarding Ukraine, which it had not, that is also neither a problem nor any of the FBI’s business. It’s shocking and scandalous that the FBI thinks it should criminalize foreign policy disputes.

The FBI argues, without evidence, that the president needed to be investigated as a threat to national security. Keep in mind that the FBI did not act this way during the previous administration, when many of Barack Obama’s detractors argued his foreign policy was a threat to national security. They didn’t investigate collusion with Iran, or the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to the regime. Neither did they do such things with any previous president.

It’s good that they didn’t, because Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the authority to determine foreign policy to the president, not the director or acting director of the FBI. Harvard law professor and former Comey deputy Jack Goldsmith expands on this:

One danger in the what the FBI apparently did is that it implies that the unelected domestic intelligence bureaucracy holds itself as the ultimate arbiter—over and above the elected president who is the constitutional face of U.S. intelligence and national security authority—about what actions do and don’t serve the national security interests of the United States.

Criminalizing Lawful Hiring And Firing Decisions

The article says that the FBI was, unbelievably, discussing whether they could go after Trump because he asked if Comey was loyal. It does not mention that Comey promised his loyalty or the context of Trump’s question, which was rampant leaking by the FBI, Comey’s blackmail attempt before Trump was inaugurated, and obvious game-playing against him and his administration with the Russia probe.

The FBI ultimately decided to act when Trump told the truth and revealed some of their game-playing with the Russia probe. He wanted to send a letter to Comey in which he thanked Comey for telling him he was not a subject of the Russia investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wanted him to hide that fact.

Rosenstein, it’s worth remembering, wrote the memo explaining why Comey was so bad at his job, a view that was completely confirmed by the inspector general’s report on the Clinton email probe. When Trump fired Comey, in part for his incompetent handling of political investigations such as those mentioned in Rosenstein’s memo, Rosenstein used that as the predicate to launch what became the special counsel investigation against Trump.

In any case, Trump told Rosenstein to tell the truth even if he wanted to keep it hidden. Rosenstein refused, irritating Trump, according to the New York Times. Trump told the truth to the American public — which Comey was later forced to admit under oath — that Comey had told him three times he was not under investigation.

According to the New York Times, by not going along with the FBI’s game — privately admitting to Trump that he wasn’t under investigation while publicly suggesting otherwise or leaking numerous snippets of information, selectively curated and framed to suggest he was — the FBI grew concerned that he was a Russian agent. Readers would be forgiven for thinking that makes no sense whatsoever and that it’s more plausible they were concerned their behavior against Trump would be exposed.

Their other justification for targeting their political foe was that Trump publicly flat-out said he didn’t like the game Comey was playing with the Russia investigation. They decided, we’re told, to interpret, or pretend to interpret, this as obstruction.

‘I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it,’ he said. ‘And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’

Mr. Trump’s aides have said that a fuller examination of his comments demonstrates that he did not fire Mr. Comey to end the Russia inquiry. ‘I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people,’ Mr. Trump added. ‘He’s the wrong man for that position.’

Angered by Trump’s critique of Comey’s double-dealing regarding the Russia probe, the FBI retaliated with an investigation.

While it’s not mentioned in the article, hours after Comey was fired, top FBI officials and paramours Lisa Page and Peter Strzok texted about the need to open a “case” against Trump they’d already been discussing in a “formal, chargeable way” and that it had to be done “while Andy is acting.” The texts also mention “Bill”–believed to be FBI counterintelligence head Bill Priestap–being in on the plot.

“Andy” is then-deputy director Andrew McCabe, who took over the bureau until Christopher Wray was confirmed as director in August 2017. McCabe was later fired for repeatedly lying under oath about just one of many of his rampant leaks to friendly reporters and is reportedly under criminal investigation by a federal grand jury. Strzok was also fired for his behavior, Page resigned, and Priestap announced his retirement last month. It is unclear which officials in the Department of Justice authorized the unconstitutional investigation into the president as a national security threat because he didn’t share their foreign policy views.

It was important for this group to launch the official investigation into Trump while McCabe was acting director because they reasonably understood it wouldn’t happen if an FBI director outside their control took over the agency. The opening of an investigation followed a pattern of shocking behavior by the FBI, including Comey telling Trump that there was information floating around about an alleged videotape showing prostitutes urinating on a bed while he watched (there is zero evidence that such a videotape exists or that the alleged event it memorialized ever took place).

Government officials leaked the fact of that briefing to CNN almost immediately, one of the key moments that got the outlandish Russia conspiracy story started. Even Comey admitted that his behavior looked a lot like a blackmail or extortion attempt, which he strenuously denied it was. The move backfired because Trump immediately realized the FBI was playing games. McCabe also launched an investigation of former attorney general Jeff Sessions, before Sessions recused himself from holding the FBI accountable for their handling of the Russia probe.

In sum, the framing of this New York Times article is either poorly conceived or outright disingenuous at every turn. Using the completely lawful and constitutional firing of the bumbling Comey as pretext for opening a criminal investigation into the president is a grand abuse of power by the FBI. Attempting to overtake the authority to determine U.S. foreign policy from the lawfully determined president of the United States is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

For one of the nation’s largest newspapers to suggest that this makes the president — and not the FBI — look bad actually validates two of Trump’s biggest complaints: the media are hopelessly biased, and there really is a “deep state” out to to overturn the 2016 election.



Didn’t James Comey’s FBI Dems Lie “Freely” to the FBI?

Dershowitz On Mike Flynn: It’s Not Always A Crime To Lie To The FBI

by Allahpundit at HotAir:

This is true, but his reasoning as applied to Flynn is so dubious that it’s become chum for a feeding frenzy among lawyers on Twitter today. Dershowitz’s point is straightforward: It’s only a crime to lie to a federal agent if you lie about material fact. If the sky is blue and you tell the FBI it’s red, there’s no jail time for that because that fact isn’t material to whatever it is they’re investigating.

But the question of which facts are “material” isn’t always clear cut. How to define them? Well, says Dershowitz, here’s one way: If the feds already know the fact before you mention it, then it can’t be material. Your lie hasn’t misled them. They won’t waste any time or money investigating it. They already know the truth. No harm, no foul, no prison. In fact, if the feds are asking you a question about a fact they already know, presumably they’re only doing it in hopes that you’ll perjure yourself, right? That’s the Flynn situation, Dershowitz argues today in an op-ed.

Flynn, during his brief time as national security adviser to President Trump, told FBI agents untruths that are contradicted by hard evidence. Why he did that remains a mystery because, with his vast experience in intelligence gathering, he must have known that the FBI had hard evidence of the conversations he denied having with a Russian diplomat. Be that as it may, this reality does not automatically exclude the possibility that the FBI acted improperly in eliciting untruths from him.

The FBI knew the truth. They had recordings of the conversations. Then why did they ask him whether he had those conversations? Obviously, not to learn whether he had them but, rather, to give him the opportunity to lie under oath so that they could squeeze him to provide incriminating information against President Trump.

Weekly Standard Commits Suicide; Bill Kristol Sells Soul to CNN’s Fascistic Left

My Dad and his genetic world were all  devoted Republicans by the hundreds.  They were all hard working people who wound up settling in the North Dakota wilds shortly after the Civil War.

My Mother’s genetic  world was hard working Democrats of German farm and labor settlement of the west side of St. Paul, Minnesota in late 1870s.   My Mother loved my Dad, not politics.  They were religious about voting…..not by religion, but by devotion to country.  They first met in the 1920s competing against each other in couples ballroom dancing competitions at the St. Paul Auditorium.   Soon they became partners themselves and voted GOP together for  the rest of their lives.

I became a Democrat when I got married, and remained so until 1980.   I wanted to please my wife who was very, very stubborn about political matters.

That gifted American star of a President,  Ronald Reagan,  made me the  religious conservative I am today.   Only America’s 45th President, Donald J. Trump stands higher in my esteem for his efforts to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

But our America has become an open border playground made possible by a world wide collection of America hating  fascist left stirring  the 22,000,000 illegal immigrants from coast to coast, already controlling California and nesting, rioting  and voting with leftist Democrats and Bill Kristol’s GOP from metropolis to metropolis, press to press, school to school.

I  subscribed to the New York Lefty pinched Bill Kristol’s GOP Weekly Standard for twenty years but quit subscribing when fascistic Bill began his hate tantrums against our President Trump.

I noticed a photo of pompous Bill on page A3 of today’s Wall Street Journal under the headline, WEEKLY STANDARD TO STOP PUBLISHING, an article by Jeffey Trachtenberg and David Marcelis.    It read:  “……The Washington, D.C. -based publication, which helped shape conservative thought and rose to prominence  during the George W. Bush administration, stood out among conservative outlets for its steadfast opposition to the Trump presidency.   Co-founder William Kristol, who edited the magazine until late 2016 called himself a “Never Trumper”……and then continued to report the magazine’s collapse.

Leftist Kristol has been starring his hate against the President  on lefty ABC, PBS, and especially with the fascistics on CNN ever since the Trump victory election in 2016.

All because Donald J. Trump upset America’s socialist dictatorship world by indeed, trying to do what he said he would do….MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN….

Please read the following article at PowerLine giving farewell to the Weekly Standard: