• 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

Our President Trump’s Battle Against the Obama Fascistic Left

Walk a Mile in Trump’s Shoes

by Brian C. Joondeph  at American Thinker:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lefty Democrat Women Still Cling to Hillary for President….


We are aware that the human female animal is born ditsy.  Some, namely today’s leftwing Democrats and Socialists, remain ditsy for life, preferring feelings over knowledge and reality.    Here, in this hotair article below, is an example of how difficult it is for the human female animal to accept reality over feelings.

It is the human male who is genetically  programmed to  become  a problem solver…..to be curious,  to seek knowledge to know what’s around him,  to seek Truth,  facts,  to defend, protect, to build, to threaten, to deceive for greed, power……and be a killer if needed, driven, or flawed.

The human female animal is born to bear offspring for the survival of the species.   She  is not genetically driven or framed to build, problem solve, invent, be curious.   She has feelings to overwhelm and direct her.  She’s born, programmed to be ditsy, and be  driven by feelings while seeking security above all.  She’ll quit work when it’s time, not when the problem is solved.

The following article about Democrat women’s adoration, feelings, cravings for Hillary…..yes, that very same Crooked, devious Hillary, spoiled brat and mouth of Clinton fame!

Please read the following article about our famous Crooked Hillary and her women of today…..this  feminist moment, apparently, for 2020AD:


Sour Puss Democrat Cummings, noted for his grump, Fails His Homework

Cummings Slams Politically Charged Trump EPA Program. Turns Out To Be Obama EPA Program

On Friday evening there was a story at Politico which didn’t seem to gain much traction, what with all of the Trump activity going on. Congressman Elija Cummings (D-Md) is the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee and he’s demanding that committee chair Trey Gowdy issue a subpoena to the EPA over their handling of both FOIA submissions and requests from Congress for documents, saying that Scott Pruitt’s administration was “screening” requests based on political sensitivity. (More background coverage available at Government Executive.) These were all part of a skyrocketing number of such requests the EPA has received under the Trump administration, but we’ll have more on that below. So what was this new, secret program to allow the EPA to “screen” incoming requests?

Hot Air has received a copy of both Cummings’ letter to the EPA as well as the response sent to Cummings this weekend from Kevin Minoli, EPA’s Principal Deputy General Counsel and Designated Ethics Official. First, let’s have a look at the introductory portion of Cummings letter and what he’s clearly implying with his demand for a subpoena. (Click on thumbnail for full image. Emphasis added.)

I am writing to request that you issue a subpoena to compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to produce documents it has failed to produce about policies implemented by ousted Administrator Scott Pruitt to withhold information about his tenure in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. On June 11, 2018, I wrote to former Administrator Pruitt requesting that he produce documents by June 25, 2018.

EPA’s only response to date has been an email from an EPA official providing a link to documents already publicly released under FOIA—some of the same documents I already cited in my request letter. Information recently obtained by the Committee confirms that EPA is using a process in which political appointees review FOIA requests and hand select requests to be processed by a different team if they are complex or “politically charged.” Responses to FOIAs are at times deliberately delayed, and political appointees review responses to FOIA requests before they are released. In at least one instance, EPA gave favorable treatment to an industry lobbyist.

Cummings goes on from there to discuss his committee’s discovery of something called a “FEAT Team” at the EPA which reviews incoming requests. So what was sort of devious political chicanery was Scott Pruitt up to and what is this mysterious new “FEAT Team” doing? In the response from the EPA we learn the full history of FEAT, including why it was put in place.

As it turns out, it was a program set up more than five years ago under the Obama administration to prioritize the handling of such information requests when they too fell far behind in responses. And Obama’s crew was running late with far fewer requests to handle. It turns out that since President Trump took office, FOIA requests to the EPA (including many fishing expeditions from the media) have increased by a whopping 400%. Here’s the key, introductory portion of the letter from Kevin Minoli. (Again, click for full size. Emphasis added.)

Dear Ranking Member Cummings:

In a letter from you in your capacity as the Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Committee) to the Honorable Trey Gowdy, Chairman of the Committee, you raised questions regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) process for responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The letter highlighted the role of EPA’s FOIA Expert Assistance Team (FEAT) in that process. I write to provide information as to the origin and role of the FEAT, and to offer to brief Committee staff on the same.

In 2013, EPA’s FOIA program was routinely the subject of litigation, public criticism, and Congressional oversight (including oversight by this Committee). Then-Acting Administrator of EPA Robert Perciasepe turned to me and my counterpart in the Office of Environmental Information and gave us the following task: make the FOIA process at EPA better. In response, the FOIA Expert Assistance Team, affectionately known as the FEAT, was created. The purpose of the FEAT was to provide strategic direction and project management assistance on the most challenging or complex FOIA requests. Here is how the FEAT was described in its original Functional Statement:

Under the supervision of the Senior Counsel, this unit provides legal counsel on all issues pertaining to selected FOIA requests that have been determined to be [the] most complex and/or potentially sensitive requests received across the Agency. Utilizing an extraordinary breadth of FOIA knowledge and experience, together with in-depth organizational and external awareness, the team provides advice and guidance to the highest echelons of management within the Agency.

So this is the program that Cummings has “discovered” and determined to be involved in assigning special handling to requests deemed “complex or politically sensitive.” Turns out that’s exactly why the program was set up… by Barack Obama’s EPA. The letter goes on to cite various incidents where they were handling requests carefully and with great sensitivity. These include FOIA requests relating to Bristol Bay, Alaska, the spill of polluted water from Gold King Mine, EPA’s response to Volkswagen’s use of defeat devices and drinking water contamination in Flint, Michigan.

Gee, do you think any of those issues were “politically charged” and in need of special handling? But somehow nobody seemed to care that the Obama administration EPA was lagging in response time on those subjects even though they were only facing one quarter the number of requests received while Scott Pruitt was in charge. As to that massive influx of oversight and FOIA requests, we’ll have more details on that coming in a later article. (Ironically I’m waiting on a response for more information. Insert LOL gif here.) But at any rate, the mystery that Congressman Cummings was investigating has been solved.



SPECIAL!! Flake Andrew, the Cuomo Running New York, Says He’ll “Sue” If Supreme Court Overturns Roe!

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo: If The Supreme Court Overturns Roe, I’ll Sue

by Allahpundit  at  HotAir:

He’ll sue? Who does he think he’s going to sue, Brett Kavanaugh?

Somehow, some way, this guy is a law-school graduate.

 I’ve said this before but the terrible truth of it bears repeating: Chris is the “smart Cuomo.”

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo says he’ll sue if the Supreme Court rolls back Roe v. Wade.

Gov. Cuomo has been calling on lawmakers to increase protections in New York.

“We never passed the New York State law because we relied on Roe v. Wade and everyone assumed it would always be there,” Gov. Cuomo said.

When he says “I’ll sue,” he doesn’t really mean anything by it. He’s terrified that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s House primary upset is a harbinger of what Cynthia Nixon’s going to do to him in the gubernatorial primary so he’s making whatever beast-like grunts and whistles he feels he needs to in order to protect his left flank. Next week he’ll be threatening to challenge Kavanaugh to a duel. He’s a clod. But in an indigo blue state, when your daddy was a popular governor, the right grunts and whistles are all you need to win.

As for what he says about New York law being tougher on abortion than Roe, that’s marginally true. You’re free to liquidate your fetus up until 24 weeks but late-term abortions are forbidden even there unless a doctor decides it’s necessary to save a woman’s life. Cuomo naturally wants abortion removed entirely from the Penal Code if possible, which would presumably make the dream of abortion on demand up to the moment of crowning a reality.

Kathleen Gallagher, the director of pro-life activities for the New York State Catholic Conference, a key opponent, said that the governor’s proposal would make late-term abortion available “for almost any reason,” would let health providers other than doctors perform abortions and would eliminate the crime of an “unwanted abortional act.” The latter applies in cases where, for instance, an abusive partner pushes a woman down stairs with the intent of ending a pregnancy. Without abortion being part of the penal code, that partner could still be charged with assault on the mother, but with no crime against the fetus.

He’s going to try to use the lefty froth over Kavanaugh to get New York’s law repealed now. But even if he can’t, is there any doubt that New York Republicans would be steamrolled if Roe really were overturned and the state’s liberal voters demanded full legalization? Cuomo’s scaremongering is an ironic reminder to blue-staters that not only would nothing change in their backyards if Roe were dumped, the new legal regime that replaces it in the state legislature might be more liberal than what Roe has provided them. If that’s possible.


Hillary Stench at the 2016 FBI Expands as Documents are Forced Free, inch by inch


by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

The FBI has slowly been producing documents to the DOJ Inspector General and various Congressional committees. As the process continues, more information comes out about the FBI’s attempt to cement the 2016 presidential election for Hillary Clinton. This piece by John Solomon in The Hill is two days old, but I don’t think it has received as much attention as it deserves. Solomon’s reporting evidently is based on information from sources in Congressional committees or perhaps the FBI or the IG’s office.

The memos show Strzok, Lisa Page and others in counterintelligence monitored news articles in September 2016 that quoted a law enforcement source as saying the FBI was investigating Carter Page’s travel to Moscow.

The FBI team pounced on what it saw as an opportunity as soon as [Carter] Page wrote a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey complaining about the “completely false” leak.

“At a minimum, the letter provides us a pretext to interview,” Strzok wrote to Lisa Page on Sept. 26, 2016.

In the current moment it goes unnoticed, but in normal times, for senior FBI officials to seek a “pretext” to pursue a political agenda would be a scandal.

Within weeks, that “pretext” … had been upsized to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant, giving the FBI the ability to use some of its most awesome powers to monitor Carter Page and his activities.
Some internal memos detail the pressure being applied by the FBI to DOJ prosecutors to get the warrant on Carter Page buttoned up before Election Day.

This was the “insurance policy” that Strzok said would “stop” Trump from becoming president.

In one email exchange with the subject line “Crossfire FISA”…

Has the FBI or the Department of Justice ever officially admitted that the FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page was part of its investigation of the Trump campaign, as opposed to a freestanding warrant sought in the normal course of business, based on legitimate suspicion of criminal activity? I’m not sure. But “Crossfire FISA” eliminates any doubt.

…Strzok and Lisa Page discussed talking points to get then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking DOJ official to sign off on the warrant.
“At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the F up pressure on him,” Strzok emailed Page on Oct. 14, 2016, less than four weeks before Election Day.

Time was getting short for the insurance policy.

Four days later the same team was emailing about rushing to get approval for another FISA warrant for another Russia-related investigation code-named “Dragon.”

I confess that I can’t keep up with the ever-expanding FBI scandal, but do we know what “Dragon” is, and how it differs from “Crossfire Hurricane”? Whatever Dragon was, it apparently had to do with stopping the Trump campaign, as Strzok and Page were eager to get it off the ground:

“Still an expedite?” one of the emails beckoned, as the FBI tried to meet the requirements of a process known as a Woods review before a FISA warrant can be approved by the courts.

“Any idea what time he can have it woods-ed by?” Strzok asked Page. “I know it’s not going to matter because DOJ is going to take the time DOJ wants to take. I just don’t want this waiting on us at all.”

Was another FISA warrant issued in connection with “Dragon”? Maybe the answer is in the public domain, but I don’t know.

In any event, as we now know, time ran out on the FBI’s effort and Donald Trump won the election. As we have seen in prior disclosures, the FBI didn’t throw in the towel:

The day after Trump’s surprising win on Nov. 9, 2016, the FBI counterintelligence team engaged in a new mission, bluntly described in another string of emails prompted by another news leak.

“We need ALL of their names to scrub, and we should give them ours for the same purpose,” Strzok emailed Page on Nov. 10, 2016, citing a Daily Beast article about some of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s allegedly unsavory ties overseas.

“Andy didn’t get any others,” Page wrote back, apparently indicating McCabe didn’t have names to add to the “scrub.”

“That’s what Bill said,” Strzok wrote back, apparently referring to then-FBI chief of counterintelligence William Priestap. “I suggested we need to exchange our entire lists as we each have potential derogatory CI info the other doesn’t.” CI is short for confidential informants.

So the day after the election, James Comey’s FBI was looking for “derogatory CI info” on Donald Trump.

As the president-elect geared up to take over, the FBI made another move that has captured investigators’ attention: It named an executive with expertise in the FBI’s most sensitive surveillance equipment to be a liaison to the Trump transition.

On its face, that seems odd; technical surveillance nerds aren’t normally the first picks for plum political assignments. Even odder, the FBI counterintelligence team running the Russia-Trump collusion probe seemed to have an interest in the appointment.

I suspect that we have barely scratched the surface of the FBI scandal.



Democrats’ Fascist Revolutionaries to Sabotage Trump SCOTUS Pick!?!

Another Hail Mary Attempt from the Left to Deny Trump His SCOTUS Pick

by Brian C. Joondeph   at  American Thinker:

June was a tough month for the left. It began with a successful North Korean summit, followed by news that the economy is hotter than even the current heat wave embracing much of the country. The Supreme Court handed President Trump a win on the travel ban on nationals from terrorist-heavy countries, along with a handful of other decisions which are displeasing, to say the least, to Democrats.

The month culminated with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s imminent retirement, providing the president with his second SCOTUS nomination in as many years. Liberal heads are exploding on cable news shows and on the sets of unfunny late night comedy shows. Last week Trump was a Nazi, this week he is overturning Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education, sending America back into the dark ages.

The left is now trying to disqualify any of Trump’s potential court nominees. Senator Elizabeth Warren is front and center in the resistance saying the president’s “short list of Supreme Court nominees was hand-picked by right-wing extremists who want to criminalize abortions and punish women who have them.” Hey, at least it wasn’t a bunch of Nazis (left-wing extremists, by the way) suggesting nominees, just “right-wing extremists.” Not yet, at least.


The academics have weighed in, too, with the able assistance and partnership of the anti-Trump media. George Washington School of Law Professor Paul Schiff Berman opined in the New York Times about how to derail, or at least delay, the president’s court nomination, scheduled to be announced next week.

The professor’s first tactic argues that Kennedy’s, “replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall” since the same argument was, “used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.”

Unfortunately, the professor forgets that these precedents were set years ago, by Democrats. Call them the Biden-Schumer rules, where Democrats began the practice of stymie-ing presidential SCOTUS nominations.

In 1992, then Senator and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Joe Biden said that then-President George H.W. Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

Senator Chuck Schumer echoed this approach, recommending that, “no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.”

But Trump isn’t on the ballot in November. It’s an election year for Congress, not the president. Still, the argument will be made by the media and the left. Just remember the Biden-Schumer rules.

Professor Berman then offered a second reason why President Trump can’t make a SCOTUS nomination. “People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases.” Actually the special counsel investigation results go the deputy Attorney General who then decides whether to release the results or not. The Supreme Court doesn’t preside over the Robert Mueller investigation.

If high crimes and misdemeanors are alleged, the remedy is Congress, not any court, including the Supreme Court. Impeachment is the constitutional mechanism for dealing with presidential crimes and the Senate can vote to remove the president from office if they so desire. It’s members of Congress who would preside over Trump’s case, if there is one, and Trump does not appoint members of Congress.

For President Trump to find himself before a criminal court, he must be indicted first, and the Office of Legal Counsel from past administrations declares that criminal indictment of a sitting president “is a categorical no.” The Constitution provides the appropriate remedy.

Out of curiosity, have other presidents made SCOTUS nominations while “under the cloud of investigation”? Precedent is a concept that I assume a law professor would find useful. Let’s take a stroll down memory lane.

President George W. Bush made two SCOTUS nominations while his administration was being investigated by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, appointed in 2003. John Roberts and Samuel Alito were both nominated to SCOTUS in 2005. Fitzgerald’s case against Scooter Libby was still active in late 2005, during and after both nominations. Both nominees were confirmed despite the president and his administration being, “under the cloud of investigation.”

President Bill Clinton was “under the cloud of investigation” beginning January 1994, when Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Robert Fiske as special prosecutor to investigate Whitewater and the death of Vince Foster. Yet Clinton was able to nominate Stephen Breyer to SCOTUS in May 1994 followed by a confirmation vote of 87 to 9. Back in the day, when the opposition party actually consented to a president having a SCOTUS justice of his choosing. And despite the president being under investigation.

President Reagan, going back even further, was also “under the cloud of investigation” beginning in December 1986, when Lawrence Walsh was appointed independent counsel to investigate the Iran-Contra affair. This investigation didn’t wrap up until 1993. Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy, who is now retiring, to SCOTUS in 1987, bringing this discussion full circle. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, a far cry from what we will see with any Trump nomination.

How about that? Three recent past presidents made four SCOTUS nominations while “under the cloud of investigation” by some combination of special or independent counsels or prosecutors. These nominees were all confirmed and I don’t recall journalists or law professors caterwauling that such a nomination, “will be a stain on the legitimacy of this nomination, on the performance of whomever is confirmed and, even, on the Supreme Court itself” as Professor Berman asserted.

Only with Donald Trump are these important issues. Just as being tough on border security was fashionable during the Obama and Bush years, but not during the Trump presidency.

When you hear desperate excuses, such as those above, claiming that Trump’s next SCOTUS nomination is illegitimate, just remember past precedent which blows up these arguments. It will fall on deaf ears as the left is in freefall panic over Trump’s successes and the increasing irrelevancy of the modern Democrat party. Pass the popcorn and enjoy the show.



Walkaways on the Way to Donald!!

Donald J. Trump is my favorite President of my lifetime.   My first vote went to Dwight D. Eisenhower.    I married a demanding Democrat in 1957 and remained in that sphere until good man Ronald Reagan competed in 1980.   Republican presidencies and candidates following Reagan were mediocre   at best until socialist, racist, anti American Barack Hussein rose to his  throne in 2008 to inculcate the beginning of the end of the once civilized, once  American Democratic Party.

And then, along came politically detached Donald J. Trump who won  me over at the first Fox Republican Presidential debate,  August 6, 2015.   It was at the moment he  answered  a snotty  feminist Megyn Kelly   question on whether he thought all  women were disgusting and  he   answered, “No!  Only Rosie O’Donald”.    His stardom has risen ever since, in my mind and the among the public.

Donald Trump was, and is a New Yorker but NOT a Democrat, liar, or socialist.  I knew he was bright, successful and “different” from politicians, and didn’t drink.

He has been winning friends ever since that evening nearly three years ago, especially when he began his days in the White House.  I admit.  He is so winsome I’ve come to love  the guy for his  intelligence, skills, forthrightness, and drive to rebuild our fading America!

Donald Trump is an entertaining  full blooded  American guy who loves his country!

Please read the following article below  by Josh Kantrow at American Thinker  about today’s leftist walkaways from the fascist left of today’s Obama fascist Democrat Party: