No, the FBI didn’t just make “errors and omissions” (51 of them) in their FISA applications targeting the Trump campaign. The FISA Court says it was deception.

As reported by John Solomon in JUST THE NEWS, U.S. District Judge James A. Boasberg, the new chief of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, issued an order last week suspending all FBI and DOJ lawyers involved in the Russia “collusion” case from appearing before his court until it’s determined whether or not they engaged in misconduct. (I would note that at this point, many are no longer there.) Boasberg blamed senior officials in a scathing rebuke, saying, “The frequency and seriousness of these errors in a case that, given its sensitive nature, had an unusually high level of review at both DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have called into question the reliability of the information proffered in other FBI applications.”

In other words, we can’t believe the FBI. To cut to the chase, Judge Boasberg said there’s “little doubt that the government breached its duty of candor to the Court with respect to those applications.” The judge here is accusing the FBI of lying to the FISA court.

He went on: “The errors the OIG [Office of Inspector General] pointed out cannot be solved through procedures alone. DOJ and the FBI, including all personnel involved in the FISA process, must fully understand and embrace the heightened duties of probity and transparency that apply in ex parte proceedings.”

Translation: It’s not enough to do what FBI Director Chris Wray wants to do and reform the process. This needs to go further. All personnel involved with FISA have to understand and be committed to the heightened importance of transparency and proof in proceedings such as this, in which a judge rules without all parties being present.

Top FBI and DOJ officials have spent three years trying to weasel out of being held accountable. James Comey recently said it was “nonsense” that the FBI opened the “Trump/Russia” probe without good cause. Rod Rosenstein said that the DOJ took its responsibility to submit “admissible evidence, credible witnesses” very seriously. (I guess he means the phony “dossier”?) How refreshing that this ruling by Judge Boasberg has placed the blame right where it should be.

We still don’t have indictments, but this certainly is a move in the right direction. As Solomon put it, “A judge has formally concluded that his court was misled by the work product they oversaw and signed.” By “they,” he means people at the top: James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein and others.

Ranking House Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes of California still calls this action “too little, too late.” He appeared on Monday’s HANNITY along with Gregg Jarrett and Sara Carter shortly after meeting for about an hour and a half with Attorney General Bill Barr, who has “some great ideas,” he said. But Democrats control the House right now, and it’s doubtful they’re going to pursue needed reforms. Nunes said what needs to happen is for Congress to “open up” FISA and really take a look at it, but as Congress is currently led by Democrats, that isn’t happening.

"At the end of the day,” he said, “we need FISA to protect this country, but not if it comes at the sake of our liberties that we would have to give up.”

FOX legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said he believes the only way to bring about real reform is to either get rid of FISA entirely or adopt the rule Sen. Rand Paul has called for: No more FISA spying on Americans. The ‘Foreign’ Intelligence Surveillance Act needs to be applied only to FOREIGN, not domestic, spying.

Sara Carter pointed out that to spy on Americans on U.S. soil is a violation of Fourth Amendment. (I would add that the FBI apparently went around the Fourth Amendment by luring Americans to foreign soil to spy on them there!) Carter was right in saying we can’t trust the intel bureaucracy to do their job within the system as it exists right now.

British ex-spy Christopher Steele, whose name is on the anti-Trump “dossier” that was used to mislead the FISA court, also came up in the conversation with Hannity, so here’s the latest on him, as reported by Chuck Ross at THE DAILY CALLER: Steele defended his own work recently at a private event sponsored by the Oxford University Student Union. “I stand by the integrity of our work, our sources and what we did,” he said.

Oh, brother.

The FISA Court certainly would not agree with Steele’s self-assessment. They found that the FBI could not corroborate Steele’s allegations regarding Carter Page and other Trump associates and that Steele’s only direct source disputed much of what was in the “dossier.” That source’s FBI interview in early 2017 “raised doubts about the reliability of Steele’s description of information in his election reports,” they said. Before the 2016 election, Steele himself told his FBI contacts that one subsource of his was a “boaster” and egotist” who was unreliable. Then there are the known factual errors, such as the claim that Michael Cohen visited Prague in August of 2016 to meet with Kremlin officials to discuss paying off computer hackers. (!) Say what you will about Michael Cohen, but he never made such a trip to Prague; in fact, as far as anyone knows, he has never been to Prague.

Over the past three years, Steele has gone back and forth on the reliability of his work as his own convenience warranted. What he’s saying now is certainly at odds with what he reportedly said under oath in a British deposition. Aside from that, the FBI got plenty of warning that it was really just political garbage paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign (with money laundered through the law firm Perkins Coie), but they used it, anyway. We know that most of the “dossier” wasn’t even written by Steele, but by Fusion GPS (read Lee Smith’s THE PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT). Also, the Mueller report found no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, though Steele had alleged this in his “dossier.”

We know Steele had hoped to keep Trump from being elected, so perhaps his renewed defense of the “dossier” is intended to help keep him from being re-elected. He has said he won’t cooperate with the Durham investigation. And not surprisingly, he disparaged Trump at the Oxford event. “Trump himself doesn’t like intelligence because its ground truth is inconvenient for him,” Steele lied. “The reality check is that Russia is a hostile state as it is run at the moment, it is out to destabilize the West, and it is nefarious in the way it goes about its business.”

Well, yes, we all know Russia wants to destabilize the West. But “ground truth” means “facts or firsthand information,” and Steele relied on fiction when the facts were on the President’s side. Steele himself --- not to mention the FBI --- must've pleased Russia to no end by encouraging that very destabilization.

Democrat Race Update

March 10, 2020

Today, six more states hold primary elections: Missouri, Mississippi, Washington state, Idaho, North Dakota and the biggest prize for the Democrats, Michigan, with 125 pledged delegates. You can tell how important Michigan voters are to the Democrats because, unlike during the 2016 election, their eventual nominee will have actually visited there.

Michigan is being called a “make-or-break” state for Bernie Sanders by pundits who like to use political clichés. He scored an upset victory over Hillary there in 2016 that revitalized his campaign (still didn’t get the nomination, though), and is hoping for another one, as if that would convince the Democrats to let him have the nomination this time. Biden is well ahead in polls, but polls can be unreliable, and with so many people voting weeks early these days, last minute twists like “Joe-mentum” or Bernie’s mancrush on Castro or Joe’s alarming word salad incidents might not have as much effect on the vote as you’d suspect.

Both candidates have been focusing hard on Michigan to win it back from Trump by using populist appeals to convince blue collar workers that their policies will destroy blue collar jobs slower than the other Democrat’s policies would.

I will just remind the voters in all these states that if neither of these ranting old fabulists excite them, Tulsi Gabbard is still in the race. To those who say, “But she can’t win,” I’d reply, “She could if everyone put a check mark next to her name on the ballot.” But, hey: it’s your primary, even it does occasionally more resemble a rerun of “The Walking Dead.”

Meanwhile, Cory Booker is the latest failed Democratic Presidential hopeful to join the effort to shore up Joe Biden and keep the nomination away from Bernie Sanders.

So far, Booker, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, O’Rouke, Deval Patrick, John Delaney, Tim Ryan and Kamala Harris have endorsed Biden. There are suspicions that Harris is really not so keen on Biden (she nearly sank his campaign by branding him as a racist), but she’s angling to be his Attorney General.)

Only Bill DeBlasio and Marianne Williamson have endorsed Sanders, with Elizabeth Warren still on the fence.

Say, do you know who Warren should endorse? Tulsi Gabbard. If she doesn’t, it proves she’s just a sexist like all the Democrats who didn't vote for Warren.

Coronavirus news

March 10, 2020

Fox News has created a handy page with “everything you need to know” about the COVID-19 coronavirus, including where it came from, what are the risks, and the best ways to avoid catching it.

In “Of Course We’re Not Politicizing the Coronavirus!” News: Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier demanded that President Trump stop holding campaign rallies because the virus can spread in large gatherings. I assume she thinks it’s okay for Democratic Presidential candidates to keep holding campaign rallies because those aren’t large gatherings.

VOTE NOW:  How worried are you about the coronavirus (COVID-19)?

Worth noting: considering that her district includes parts of San Francisco, is she really in a position to lecture anyone else about not creating unhygienic conditions that spread disease?

Obviously, Congress members didn’t get the memo about not politicizing the coronavirus, but here’s a refreshing narrative-buster: some of the most anti-Trump Democratic Governors, like Jay Inslee in Washington and Gavin Newsom in California, are praising the Trump Administration for its swift and efficient actions in dealing with the disease.

Newsom was goaded by a reporter to comment on Trump reportedly not wanting passengers from exposed cruise ships allowed onto US soil. While Chuck Schumer would probably say that means Trump hates cruise ship passengers, Newsom, surprisingly, said this:

“We had a private conversation, but he said, ‘We’re gonna do the right thing’ and ‘You have my support, all of our support, logistically and otherwise.’ He said everything that I could have hoped for. And we had a very long conversation, and every single thing he said, they followed through on."

If CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, et al, can find a way to twist that into a negative, then they should be making pretzels instead of practicing journalism. Actually, that’s great career advice for some of them regardless. And if you’re actually hoping a virus kills enough people to damage the President politically, then you are so sick, I don't even want you touching my pretzels...

Here’s this morning’s round-up of more coronavirus headlines from Instapundit…

This story prompted “Huckabee” writer Pat Reeder to post on his Facebook page, “The ultimate irony: Boston canceled its St. Patrick’s Day Parade out of fear of a disease named after beer.”

For a more positive outlook, John Hinderaker at the Powerline blog suggests that the stock market freak-out over the coronavirus will be short-lived, and that ultimately, this will be a positive for the US economy. He says it’s proof that Trump was right all along about how we need to disconnect from China and stop relying on them for necessities, like pharmaceuticals. The left and many on the right savaged Trump for his trade war with China, but it encouraged US businesses to seek suppliers outside China two years ago, which looks like a really good decision now.

And one more piece of positive news, a 100-year-old Chinese man contracted the coronavirus… and now, he’s over it.

We begin tonight with sad news from our own neighborhood. This past week, the Nashville area was hit by a brutal tornado that killed at least 24 people, destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses, and left thousands of people homeless. One of the hardest hit communities was Cookeville, TN, hometown of our own Keith Bilbrey. Our theater and studios are located just north of downtown in Hendersonville and our facilities and our staff and team were largely outside the path and wrath of the storm. But the families of those who perished in the storm need our prayers and all of the victims need our help. Our friends at Samaritan’s Purse have been on the scene and will continue to help. They and other relief organizations provide a reliable way to give, knowing the funds will actually help victims.


We’ve also all been affected by the Coronavirus, not because most of have it or will get it, but because there is a world-wide panic about it. I’m in no way minimizing the serious nature of any type of flu and this one is frightening because it appears to spread rapidly and no vaccine is developed yet to stop its spread, although Israeli scientists say they are but days away from finding one. In the US, there are less than 250 cases so far confirmed, and less than 30 have died, but keep in mind that there are 330 million people in our country and that the regular flu has already this year affected about a million people and over 12, 000 have died from it. We’ve all heard the common sense advice about preventing it—wash hands vigorously and often, keep hands away from one’s face, and probably best to avoid shaking hands and maybe wave or do an elbow bump or foot bump. Or if you’re Joe Biden, just sniff the hair of other people without actually touching it.

Let’s also mention that the field of Democrats in the 2020 Presidential race has dramatically dropped with only Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Tulsi Gabbard still in. You probably haven’t even heard that Tulsi is still in because for reasons that I’ve never understood, the Democrat Party seems to be intent on keeping her off the stage and out of sight. They have manipulated the rules to keep her off the debate stage, and many of the commentators even lament that there are no women left in the race, which must come as a surprise to Tulsi, who at last report has not transgendered. Suddenly the party that prides itself on diversity is left with 2 elderly white guys, the youngest of whom is 77 years old and one female that they insist on keeping out of sight and out of mind. It’s easier to find the body of Jimmy Hoffa than Tulsi Gabbard at a Democrat Party function!

One of the comforting take-aways from the recent reduction of the Democrats in the race is that despite big money still being more important in politics than good policies and ideas, not even Mike Bloomberg could buy the White House. And he sure did try! The guy spent almost $600 million dollars and only won in American Samoa. As a consolation prize, the Girl Scouts gave him a case of their Samoa cookies. He burned so much money that environmentalists blame him for global warming. And TV & radio stations and online advertisers are crying because he pretty much individually funded them. But it’s good news for those who now can watch cat videos on You Tube without first having to suffer through a “Mike will get it done” ad. Mike got it done all right. He’s down and done. And all he keeps is a t-shirt that says, “I spent $600 million dollars and all I got was this t-shirt in extra small.” Yep, Bloomberg came up short…

Crime is up in New York

March 7, 2020

People feign outrage whenever anyone suggests that the left is actively trying to destroy America, but even if you grant that they aren’t, if they WERE, what could they possibly be doing that’s any different from what they’re doing already?

Here are a couple of inexplicable cases in point: New Yorkers have watched in anger and astonishment over the past few months as a new state law (written by the Democrats they elected to absolute power) allows criminals to be released without bail to commit the same crimes over and over. To no thinking person’s surprise, this has vastly emboldened criminals and sparked a big jump in crime.

In New York City, major crimes were up 22.5% in February from one year ago, and shootings were up 7.1%. Since the strict gun laws have only gotten tighter since then, while only restrictions on criminals were loosened, someone with rudimentary deductive skills might think that proves controlling criminals is a more effective way to reduce shootings than passing more gun laws.

New York City has seen increases in robberies, felony assault, burglary, grand larceny, grand larceny of a vehicle and hate crimes. Of course, attacks on police officers are up. Even “squeegee guys” are back! Rape is down slightly from 2018, but that could just be due to failing to report it to police.

Retired NYPD Bronx detective Malcolm Reiman was there in the hellish pre-Giuliani days under liberal Mayor David Dinkins. He told Fox News, “Crime was out of control. People forget how bad it was…Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Reiman said, "You would walk down the subway steps every day, and all you could smell was urine; it was littered with muggers and mentally-ill people everywhere. Subways were truly terrifying places. Those protesting today don't know what it was like for everyone back then."

Well, they’re getting a taste (or smell) of it now, and without even having to fly to San Francisco or L.A. But what did they expect when they elected (and reelected!) Dinkins’ far-left protégé, Mayor Bill DeBlasio, who seems more concerned with protecting criminal illegal aliens than his own cops and constituents?

Maybe the power of video will shake some sense into New York voters’ heads if they see this latest horrific outrage on TV or social media. A 15-year-old girl in Brooklyn was surrounded on the street by five male teens (reportedly “friends” of hers with whom she’d had an earlier altercation.) They savagely beat her and left her lying on the sidewalk with head trauma and other injuries before stealing the Air Jordan shoes off her feet and running away. Luckily, the entire sickening assault was caught on video, and the alleged attackers turned themselves in to police. Although, under the current regime, who knows if anything will happen to them, or if they’ll be out beating up another girl by this time tomorrow?

This is what happens when young people have no respect for the law or the police. And why should that be a surprise when the political leaders in charge of enforcing the laws obviously have no respect for the law or the police either?

Elizabeth Warren is now officially out of the Presidential race, after flopping on Super Tuesday. If you’ve been following her campaign, which has largely consisted of angry, hectoring lectures about how bad things are and how unfair, racist, sexist, etc., America is, you won’t be surprised to hear that she and her staunchest followers are blaming her failure to win the nomination on sexism.

But wait: didn’t the Democrats already nominate a woman in the last election? Or maybe Warren was done in by racism, due to her 1/1024th Cherokee blood. (Which, incidentally, she was never asked about in all 10 debates. Can you imagine a white male Republican candidate taking career advantages intended for a minority under false pretenses, and not even being asked about it? I call that “Democrat privilege.”)

If Warren supporters are correct, then ultra-liberal Democratic primary voters are sexists and racists, even in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, Warren’s home state where she came in a distant third.

Commentary continues below advertisement

By the way, there is still a female candidate in the race, one who’s a genuine racial minority: Tulsi Gabbard. She even won a delegate on Tuesday, which was the previous criteria for being in the debate (even though they previously let in Bloomberg, who had no delegates, while snubbing Gabbard.) So naturally, the DNC changed the rules to keep her out of the next one. They claim it’s because she has no chance of winning, but I think it’s because they’re afraid she’d absolutely demolish their two geriatric white male “frontrunners” (neither of whom looks like he can still jog, much less run.)

But if she did demolish them, wouldn’t that leave her as the strongest candidate standing, which would give her a real chance at winning the nomination? Since the DNC refuses even to let her have a shot, then I guess we know where the real sexists are.

Back to Warren: I think one big reason she didn’t do better is that her entire campaign was based on nothing but leftist negativity. She painted a dark, angry picture of a suffering, dystopian America that only leftists see, one that she was going to transform with fiscally untenable, big government giveaway programs and leftwing wish list craziness that she would cram down our throats on day one with executive orders. She used identity politics to divide Americans and pit us against each other. And she almost always came across as being blow-her-top furious, like Lewis Black without a sense of humor.

I don’t want to be accused of being one of those sexist guys who tells a woman she should “smile more,” but does Liz Warren EVER smile? This has nothing to do with gender: Americans like leaders of either sex who are optimistic and make them feel good about the future. A big part of the presidency is being America’s head cheerleader. It’s also essential to have a sense of humor. Today’s leftists are too humorless to see it, but many people watch Trump rallies because he’s hilarious. So was Reagan. I disagreed with Obama’s policies, but I admit he had great comic delivery. Joe Biden has skated on a number of controversies and gaffes because of his blinding smile and avuncular “Uncle Joe” persona. And when I ran for President, I would tell people that “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anyone about it.”

Let’s try a thought experiment: Close your eyes and picture Elizabeth Warren...

Okay, did you imagine her snarling into the camera with one arm raised, poking an accusing finger in your face? Join the club. It doesn’t matter if the candidate is male or female, can you blame anyone for not wanting to see that every day for the next four years?

From Jan:

Good article. One thing I have actually thought about is that Joe is such a liability to the party because of his son, Hunter, and their actions in the Ukraine. Honestly, what I think is a possibility is that the DNC will actually work toward bringing Joe down themselves, once he gets the nomination. Using this scenario as an excuse to get him out and get someone who they really would like to get in there; i.e., Michelle Obama or someone with that kind of star power.

From Laura:

Thanks for writing, Jan. I chose not to venture into the Ukraine/Hunter Biden issue because the wheels of justice turn sooooo slowly, it’s hard to know how much of a factor this will become to Democrat voters (who, lest we forget, always forgive their own) before the convention and/or the election. But it certainly could create more scenarios, and you're right: it’s one more way to get him replaced at some point. The Dems surely have even more contingency plans in case Durham delivers his report.

RELATED READINGAinsworth: With Biden winning, watch what Michelle O does now

Their move will depend on the timing of that report. Here’s just one of several possibilities: Biden picks Michelle as running mate; with her popularity, they win; before inauguration (it can't be after, because Barr would have been fired on Day 1 and the investigation stopped), Durham report finally comes out and shows criminality and cover-up; Biden relinquishes office in lieu of impeachment (a la Nixon) “for the good of the country”; Michelle assumes Presidency. The Obama machine gets back in.

Or, the report comes out sooner, before November, with Biden possibly having to step away from his nomination before the election. But in that case, too, Michelle steps in and if she wins, the result is the same: the Obama machine gets back in.

By the way, the Senate has just started its own investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden, with Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson vowing to force a vote on the first subpoena as soon as next week. From their end, Ukraine is also investigating.

Right now, the Democrats –- with help from Mitt Romney, who might as well be one –- are trying to taint the Senate investigation as purely political. They will do everything possible to stall the process and keep old Joe viable at least until the convention and the naming of Michelle as his running mate. The media will help them by continuing to downplay Biden’s mental deterioration and ignoring any damaging developments in the Ukraine scandal.


From Lorna:

Comment/question: Would she qualify? I have read where she doesn't have the 14-year citizenship requirement because of her tax status. Her parents filed her out of country for education benefits and she filed out of country while she was in college. I wish I could recall where I read this but I remember looking and if true, she wouldn't be eligible until 2021.


From Laura:

Very interesting question! This may have been what you read…

First, on counting the number of years: the Constitution is vague on whether the 14 years need to be consecutive or cumulative. But there is precedent for the “cumulative” argument: the presidency of Herbert Hoover. Hoover was elected in 1928 and inaugurated in 1929. As USConstitution explains, if the “consecutive” argument were correct, Hoover would’ve had to live in the U.S. since March of 1915. But he’d lived in London for a time during that period. In fact, the Court Directory of London lists a London address for him from 1910 to 1917. So that precedent dispenses with the “consecutive” interpretation and leaves us with the “cumulative.”

And what exactly does “residence” entail? The early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said this: “by ‘residence,’ in the Constitution, [it] is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicile within the United States.”

I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem that this requirement is flexible enough for Michelle to get around it. Obviously, she was living here, regardless of what her sneaky tax returns say, and she would be able to prove she was. The founders included the residency requirement to give the candidate a tangible tie to this country, and she would argue that she absolutely has that, fulfilling the founders’ intent.

It should be noted for the purposes of our discussion that the 12th Amendment made the same qualifications for President apply to the Vice President.

You’ll recall there were challenges to Barack Obama’s candidacy as well, his having to do with whether or not he was born in the United States and also –- the one I still puzzle over –- whether his American citizenship was renounced when he was signed up to attend a Muslim school in Indonesia as a boy.

As far as I know, we have NEVER been provided the paperwork on this, nor that of much of Obama’s official life, not even his college transcripts or writings while in school –- which is pretty curious for an editor of the Harvard Law Review. But you’ll notice he got to run, and serve, as President for two terms despite the murkiness concerning his citizenship and background. I doubt that any “residence” challenge to Michelle’s candidacy would stop her.

While researching the answer to this question, I came upon a piece in AMERICAN THINKER from April of last year that mentions what the great Rush Limbaugh was saying then about the Obamas trying to get back into the White House. Seems I’m in good company.

Rush speculated then that Michelle wouldn’t throw her hat into the ring unless it was a virtual certainty that she would win. I agree, but this sort of “backdoor” way into the White House via Biden’s candidacy is different. She wouldn’t be getting in as a traditional candidate.

In July of last year, Rush explained what her motivation for running would be; namely, preserving as much of the “Obama legacy” as possible. Oh, goody.

But here’s a different viewpoint posted August 26 of last year at AMERICAN SPECTATOR. David Catron believes that although Michelle is the Most Admired Woman in the world and all that, even she would have a tough slog running against President Trump, who would give her a hard time about some atrocious things she’s said over the years. (Note: Trump had better be careful how he treats her, though, or that could backfire.) I still say much has happened since last August --- the implosion of the Democrat lineup and, especially, the further deterioration of Biden --- to make a Michelle run likely, either as a last-minute substitute for him or as #2 on the ticket with him, as he quietly fades away.

First, I should admit that if you’d like to see a demonstration of “confirmation bias” in action, you need look no further than my periodic observations about Michelle Obama. You see, I concluded well over a year ago that, based on political realities and what I’d already seen, Michelle O would be the Democrat nominee for President. So now I actively look for developments that tend to support this view. And I find a lot.

It’s not that I want this to happen --- just the opposite. One of the many reasons I don’t is the main reason many Democrats do: she’s absolutely the only person on the Democrat side with the star power to generate excitement and draw crowds in a way approaching Trump. (It DOESN’T MATTER that she has no accomplishments other than a failed lunch program.) Bernie was drawing good-sized crowds of “progressives,” but enthusiasm has waned since he went full-out commie and praised Fidel Castro for his “literacy programs,” and he failed to wow on Super Tuesday. (Hey, Breadline Bernie, what good is literacy when you’re permitted to read only Party-approved propaganda?) Dems crave rock-star quality and “cred,” and Michelle has all that. They like her for what she represents to them.

Commentary continues below advertisement

Biden did surprisingly well on Super Tuesday, but with his mind teetering on the brink and his impression that of a diminished person, the individual selected to be his running mate is all-important. If Biden’s faculties fade even more noticeably on the campaign trail, that person will need to step in “for the good of America” before the election. If Biden manages to make it through to the election and wins, he won’t be able to keep up with the immense responsibilities and non-stop schedule of a President, and the 25th Amendment will almost certainly be used at some point in his term of office to “retire” him and install the Vice President as the new POTUS. We’ve all envisioned this scenario. I do believe that Uncle Joe is being used as a vehicle for others to obtain power.

Laura Ingraham said as much on Wednesday night: “...Everyone knows, including all those big names who just endorsed Biden, that he’s just going to be a figurehead President. Americans won’t be voting for a man who can articulate a serious policy agenda, let alone defend it. They’ll be voting for the party machine’s geriatric puppet...The man barely knows where he is or who he’s with at any hour of the day...Biden is basically being shuffled around by his wife and his staff from event to event, campaign stop to campaign stop. He’s not in charge, and everyone knows it.”

Already gaffe-prone, Biden is, sadly, deteriorating before our eyes. What used to be mildly amusing is no longer anything to laugh at. On Wednesday, Guy Benson on Shannon Bream’s FOX NEWS show tried to be kind: “The larger concern [with Biden] is the [brain] synapses, and I say this with all respect to the former Vice is a little bit difficult and painful to watch. And I think a lot of other candidates have danced around that issue. Donald Trump will not; Donald Trump will have a sledgehammer on this issue.”

Brit Hume, who has spoken of this before, was more blunt: “How many of the people who voted for him tonight would agree that he’s senile?”

Tucker Carlson understands the danger this situation poses, and he didn’t hold back Wednesday in talking about what we all can see:

Hillary must desperately want to be on that ticket with Biden. She’s increased her visibility –- in safe situations –- and surely has done God-knows-what behind the scenes to wangle this for herself. But she has more baggage than the Lost-and-Found at LaGuardia. Too many voters on both sides of the aisle can’t stand her and have had enough of her scandals. And after what her DNC did to Bernie in 2016, his supporters won't come out to support HER. They’ll either spend Election Day holed up in their rooms in their parents’ basements, tweeting and smoking pot, or they’ll scream at the sky and riot.

Plus, we’re talking about Democrats here, with their laser-beam focus on identity politics (which is a racist scourge on society), and she’s so...white, and so...old. Biden, challenged in the general election by his own whiteness and oldness, has said specifically that he’d consider a black female as his running mate. Pundits automatically thought of Kamala Harris, but her stunning lack of success on the campaign trail suggests that'll be a NO.

Democrats are desperate this time, not just to dump Trump and retake the White House, but to hold Congress and perhaps even take the Senate. A Democrat White House could do serious damage even with a Republican Senate, as it would release a flurry of big-time executive orders in place of legislation that would have had to pass there. With a Democrat Senate, though, they could pass these as laws AND oversee all judicial appointments, perhaps even moving the Supreme Court farther left if a conservative judge such as Clarence Thomas needs to step down. In other words, stick a fork in the Constitution; it’s done.

So, what’s Michelle Obama up to these days? Apparently, she’s readying to hit the campaign trail in the battleground state of Michigan, to “boost voter turnout” as co-chair of a “non-partisan” (sure) group called “Why We All Vote.” The tickets to her appearance in Detroit on March 27 are free, but not available to the general public (so much for the “all”), only to “the organization’s volunteers and partners, as well as educators, college students and high school students who are eligible to vote.”

And what is the Democrat Party up to? I’d guess they’ve been working up some plans…

Plan A: Biden gets nomination, names Michelle as running mate; he crashes and burns before election; Michelle becomes the candidate. If she wins, Obama machine gets back in.

Plan B: Biden gets nomination, names Michelle as running mate; if they win, he is “retired” and Michelle assumes power. Obama machine gets back in.

Plan C: Biden gets nomination, names Michelle as running mate; if they win, Biden remains as figurehead for a time and Obama machine gets back in.

Plan D: No one has enough delegates; it’s a brokered convention; Michelle ends up on ticket in either the #1 or #2 spot; if they win, Obama machine gets back in.

Plan E: Biden crashes and burns BEFORE convention; Michelle is drafted at convention; if she wins, Obama machine gets back in.

There may be other scenarios I haven’t thought of, but they all lead to the Obama machine getting back in. That’s Valerie Jarrett, the old DOJ and intel bureaucracy, and maybe the whole works. I hope I'm wrong. The only thing to stop it is a tsunami of Trump support, and MY plan is to be a part of that.

And now, another prominent Democrat who made violent threats against people she disagreed with, then tried to weasel out of taking responsibility or even apologizing...

Denver City Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca retweeted a tweet in which someone said, "For the record, if I do get the coronavirus, I'm attending every MAGA rally I can." CdeBaca added some laughing and “OK” emojis and “#solidarity Yaaaas!!”

I’m pleased to report that she was hit with a wave of complaints about her endorsement not only of spreading the coronavirus, but of using it to try to sicken and even kill people just because she disagrees with their politics (but don’t worry: today’s leftists only admire socialist nations’ literacy programs and free health care, not the authoritarianism!)

Following the Schumer playbook to the letter, CdeBaca refused to apologize and instead sent out a spokesperson to try to gaslight the public and deflect the justifiable outrage over her own actions onto the people who criticized her. Here’s her statement:

"Councilwoman CdeBaca made a sarcastic tweet on Twitter to call attention to the Trump administration's downplaying of the Coronavirus outbreak as a 'hoax' no more dangerous than the common flu. Rather than conservative outlets making a four-day-old Tweet their focus on Super Tuesday, they should focus their energy on demanding a competent Federal response to this public health crisis instead."

Okay, you want a response from a conservative? Here’s my response:

1. President Trump is being praised by actual medical authorities for taking swift action that’s helped to delay and contain the coronavirus in the US, actions that met initial resistance from liberals such as (ta-da!) Chuck Schumer, who accused him of a “war on immigrants” for blocking people from entering the US from China.

2. Trump didn’t say the coronavirus was a “hoax,” he said the claim that he wasn’t taking action on it was a hoax. The councilwoman claimed she was calling attention to a hoax when she was actually perpetuating a hoax to dodge responsibility for her own actions.

3. That tweet wasn’t “sarcasm,” it was a clear endorsement of biological warfare against political opponents, in utter disregard of the general health of the US population and human decency in general.

4. If Denver voters reelect this person, it will be convincing evidence that the city has way too many marijuana dispensaries.

Super Thursday

March 5, 2020

Happy “Super Thursday,” America! Despite what Joe Biden apparently thinks, there are no primaries on “Super Thursday,” but you can celebrate Mike Bloomberg dropping out of the race by drinking a Super Big Gulp.

Better enjoy that large drink while you can, though. Just moments after the electoral defibrillator paddles resuscitated Biden’s campaign, pundits began floating the idea that Biden would not be a caretaker President so much as a President who needs a caretaker. The theory is floating around that powerful members of the Democratic Party establishment want Joe in the White House because he would be a befuddled figurehead while they actually ran everything behind the scenes (you know, like that phony image of Reagan they created, only this time for real.) Here’s Tucker Carlson outlining that scenario…

Biden didn’t help by declaring that he would put table-vaulting anti-gun fanatic “Beto” O’Rourke in charge of his gun policy. President Trump relished using the term “quid pro quo” to advance his theory that all the other candidates who’ve quit and endorsed Biden were promised something big in return, like a high-level Biden Administration appointment. Funny, I thought when the voters rejected them, they made it clear that they didn’t want those people anywhere near the levers of power. But if you looked at that crowded debate stage and thought that all of those people put together wouldn’t add up to one good President, well, elect Biden and you might find out.


Or better yet, don’t elect Biden, and we won’t have to worry about “Beto” riding roughshod over the Second Amendment, or Pete Buttigieg deciding what religious beliefs we’re allowed to express, or Mike Bloomberg being named as Czar In Charge of Telling You How Big Your Beverage Can Be. (“Your soda cup must be shorter than Mike Bloomberg to be allowed to drink it!”)

On a serious note, does anyone else find it odd that Democrats want to ban all sorts of things that people do to their own bodies, from vaping and smoking (aside from pot), to drinking large sodas, from using too much salt to eating meat…yet their go-to response to any limits on abortion is that the government can’t tell a woman what to do with her own body? Reality check: drinking a large soda is something you do to your own body. Abortion is something you do to your unborn child’s body. Guess which one is more lethal.

Schumer goes too far

March 5, 2020

This would be an excellent day for an update on my never-ending series of replies to that online commenter who claimed that most politically-motivated threats and violence come from the right against those on the left. If you read the news for a living, surely you must recognize that that’s like claiming that rain falls upward.

Today, I have two examples of threats from the left, and not just from anonymous radical nuts working as Bernie Sanders campaign organizers. These are prominent people in allegedly responsible elected positions, one of them a top national figure, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments over a Louisiana abortion law that could lead to a revisit of the abortion limits under Roe v. Wade. Here are some details on this possible landmark case:

Commentary continues below advertisement

Meanwhile, outside the SCOTUS, Schumer (whom I thought had a job to be at during weekday business hours) was addressing a pro-abortion rally crowd and said this:

“I want to tell you, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

That not-so-veiled threat against two sitting Justices (particularly dangerous in a climate in which deranged leftists have already been fired up by irresponsible and incendiary rhetoric to shoot up the Family Research Council’s office and nearly kill Republican Rep. Steve Scalise) led to a rare public rebuke by Chief Justice John Roberts. He wrote, in part:

“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

President Trump called for Schumer to pay a stiff price for that outrageous conduct, and a number of other Senators and commentators echoed that, with Sen. Josh Hawley moving to censure Schumer over it. Hawley said he would call on Schumer to apologize, “but we all know he has no shame.”

As if to prove Hawley’s point, Schumer sent out his spokesman not with an apology but with a load of transparent bull droppings. He said that Justice Roberts was echoing the “right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said. Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these Justices on the court, and a warning that the Justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision."

Okay, let’s go to the Instant Replay!

Chuck Schumer: “I want to tell you, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

So he stood outside the Court and specifically addressed Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch with his threats, but he was really talking to the Senate Republicans who weren't even there? I think we’ve found another Washington Democrat whose ability to think clearly is almost as eroded as Joe Biden’s.

PS - Almost as bad were the attempts by Twitter trolls to defend Schumer by claiming that Trump had threatened Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg. No, he never "threatened" them. He said they should recuse themselves from any cases involving his Administration because they'd publicly revealed their bias against him. Anyone in any court would be justified in asking for a recusal under those circumstances.

The relentless promotion of transgenderism and “gender fluidity” to innocent children may be starting to face a backlash. There have been several recent articles about young people who underwent painful, disfiguring “gender confirmation” surgery, only to later realize that it was a horrible mistake and they actually just had emotional issues that should’ve been treated with counseling – an obvious truth that you can now be banished from society for voicing. But now, one of those victims is seeking legal redress.

British teen Keira Bell is suing the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, parent of the National Health Service’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS.) GIDS has become infamous for over over-diagnosing “gender dysphoria,” with cases leaping from a few dozen to over 2,000 in ten years. At least 35 psychologists have resigned from it in the past three years in protest that young people are being “over-diagnosed and over-medicalized,” such as being given dangerous hormone treatments, but they’re afraid to resist for fear of being branded “transphobic.”

(May I just add: “Government health care, ladies and gentlemen!”)

Ms. Bell claims that she was rushed into gender reassignment treatments after just three short sessions that did nothing to uncover the fact that her “gender identity crisis” was really a coping mechanism for deeper issues. She suffered serious health effects that left her feeling drained, depressed and suicidal. She said her body went into a menopause-like state and “shut down,” and “There’s no going back from it.”

I wish her the best with her lawsuit, and I hope it turns into a class action suit that forces an end to this madness perpetrated on our children. Today’s true epidemic of “dysphoria” is not children who look in a mirror and see the opposite sex, it’s politicized health officials who look at a child and see a guinea pig.

Super Tuesday results

March 4, 2020

Super Tuesday has passed into the history books…

…So before Super Thursday arrives, let’s take stock of what we’ve learned:

1. Media talking heads obviously haven’t learned anything. The same people who were confidently predicting Bernie’s revolution, Joe Biden’s political demise and Bloomberg’s rise, or endorsing both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, were caught totally flat-footed by Biden’s resurgence, Bernie’s wilt, Bloomberg’s humiliation and Warren’s inability even to place higher than third in her home state. Yet within minutes of the results arriving, they were already back to making more confident, totally baseless predictions. (Remember when they assured us the candidate most likely to be our next President was Kamala Harris?)

Commentary continues below advertisement

As I said on my TV show two weeks ago, I might not agree with these candidates on anything, but I respect them all for having the courage to get in the game. None of the people commenting on them (present company excluded) have ever done that, yet they opine on it at length as if they were experts. If you just need something to fill your time, better to buy a DVD box of Looney Tunes cartoons than listen to them. Because, as I’ve been hammering away since I started my media career in 2009, you can’t trust polls, and the people inside the media bubble are largely out of touch with most of America. They have less understanding of people outside the Beltway than Mike Bloomberg does of farming. That’s why the only polls that matter are the ones where people actually vote.

2. Bernie may have done himself in by ignoring the advice, “Never go full commie.” Much of his popularity for years has depended on him being like an M&M: a lovable “Crazy Uncle” candy shell hiding the radical socialist within. A lot of people bought into that facade, particularly young people who have no actual memories of what real socialism/communism are like. They were miseducated to believe in “Democratic socialism,” which isn’t the icky kind with the goon squads and starvation but the shiny, happy kind, where the government gives you free stuff and pays your college tuition and sends the bill to greedy rich people. The only nation where that’s ever existed is Fantasyland.

But over the past couple of weeks, Bernie has given some interviews in which he allowed some cracks to open in his candy coating and reveal the reality inside. Like his defense of Fidel Castro: sure, he turned a paradise into a prison island and put dissenters in dungeons and in front of firing squads – but he also had that great literacy program! And free health care! I think the blinders may have come off some of his young followers, who failed to show up in the expected numbers, and especially older voters who hadn’t been paying that much attention. They suddenly realized that Bernie is an honest-to-Pete SOCIALIST, and he may claim he just admires Denmark, but he also thinks he sees Denmark when he's looking at Cuba.

When the reality finally started to dawn, Bernie’s revolution started crumbling faster than the Berlin Wall (for you youngsters: that was a concrete and barbed wire border wall designed to keep people in a socialist utopia from fleeing it, even though they still risked their lives to do so, just as Cubans took their chances with the sharks rather than stay there to enjoy Castro's free health care and literacy program.)

It’s extremely telling that Bernie did much better in early voting, with those who decided this week making a big surge away from him and toward Biden. Speaking of whom…

3. It’s true that Bernie didn’t do as well as expected and Biden far outperformed his…well, performance (largely thanks to black voters.) Biden even won Massachusetts! It's a big PR boost for his campaign, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Biden will win the nomination before the convention.

I mentioned last week that Democrats are always changing the rules based on the last election with no thought to how it might negatively affect them in future elections (for instance, wanting to eliminate the Electoral College because they lost there in 2016.) On Super Tuesday, they reaped more of the unintended consequences of their own fiddling with the process.

They now have no winner-take-all state primaries (that wasn’t “democratic” enough.) So even though Biden seems to be surging ahead of Bernie to the DNC’s great relief, they still could face a brutal contested convention because they have to divvy up the delegates proportionally between all candidates getting 15% or more of the vote (“Fairness!”) That makes it almost impossible for one candidate to top the 1,991-delegate threshold to clinch the nomination without a string of landslide wins -- unless either Bernie or Biden drops out (fat chance!) For instance, Biden scored a big morale victory by winning Texas, but by only a few points over Bernie. And with Bloomberg topping 15%, Biden may be hailed as the frontrunner, but he won’t collect many more delegates than Bernie.

Under their arcane rules, if a candidate scores a lopsided win, he/she/xe gets a much larger cut; but if it’s a close shave, the delegates are carved up more equally. Here’s some more on that, if you’d like your eyes to cross:

Democrats also agitated for years for early voting, thinking an extended voting period would benefit them. They didn’t consider how many Democrats would be furious because they cast early votes for Buttigieg, Steyer or Klobuchar only to have them drop out at the last minute, rendering their votes meaningless and keeping the delegate count fractured when they desperately want as many as possible to go to Biden.

The lesson I take from this is that despite their rebranding of themselves as “progressives,” these are the last people in the world you should trust to anticipate and plan wisely for the future.

4. Finally, the good news for Tom Steyer is that it’s likely he will have to hold the embarrassing record for the most expensive failed vanity Presidential campaign of all time for only a couple of days. The $250 million he spent pales next to the estimated $500 million Mike Bloomberg spent on a blitzkrieg of advertising to win a handful of delegates and exactly one primary, in American Samoa (5 delegates.)

At this writing, Bloomberg reportedly plans to stay in for the duration (but then, Warren says that, too.) He has another 123 half-billion dollars he could burn. But as it stands now, the one thing he’s accomplished for all that spending is to forever debunk the Democrats’ whining about how billionaires can use their money to buy elections.

From the Interesting-But-Not-Surprising Department: The Democrat establishment, including Obama-era “deep state” bureaucrats such as former FBI Director James Comey, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and former CIA Director John Brennan have something in common besides support of Hillary and hatred of President Trump. They've come out solidly in support of Joe Biden.

It didn’t require Obama’s official endorsement of Biden for them to know he was the one to back, the one who would best serve their interests.

Comey was proud to tweet that he had voted in his first Democrat primary because that was the party dedicated to “restoring values” in the White House. (I’ll pause while you fall to the floor, helpless with laughter.) He went on: “We need [a] candidate who cares about all Americans and will restore decency, dignity to the office. There’s a reason Trump fears Joe Biden and roots for Bernie.”

Commentary continues below advertisement

So, Comey wants to restore decency and dignity to the office of President? Who did he think was going to restore decency and dignity to the office of FBI director after he screwed it up so badly?

Andrew Bates, director or rapid response for the Biden campaign, reportedly tweeted this (according to THE HILL): “Yes, customer service? I just received a package that I very much did not order. How can I return it free of charge?”

After getting some pushback on that tweet, he clarified: “I forgot the #1 rule of politics, which is if you talk about anyone or anything related to 2016, common sense goes out the window. It was meant to be a lighthearted joke – not a rejection. We appreciate the vote of anyone repelled by Donald Trump.”

Bates was in a quandary, as a Comey endorsement during the primaries doesn’t necessarily help Biden. That’s because of Comey’s announcement, shortly before the 2016 election, of the FBI’s re-opening of Hillary’s email investigation, widely seen by Democrats as damaging to her prospects. (I believe he was actually trying his best under the circumstances to minimize the damage Hillary had caused to herself with the use of a private server and the appearance of her emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, but what can you do when someone has flouted the law so egregiously?)

Susan Rice tweeted a picture of herself embracing Biden, with a message from the heart: “I’m proud to endorse Joe Biden for President. Here he is comforting me on 1/4/17 just after my mother passed away. There is no one kinder, more empathetic and caring than Joe Biden. He will lead America with the same deep compassion and decency.”

Biden would naturally support a friend after the loss of her mother, and he surely has moments of extreme kindness. On the other hand, I know we can all think of many things Biden has said that did NOT show a glimmer of compassion or decency or even comprehension of reality. One that quickly comes to mind for me is something horrible he said about Republicans: “They’re gonna put y’all back in chains.” He plays the race card. He calls people names. He picks fights at town halls with those who disagree with him. Plus, on many occasions he doesn’t seem to know what state he’s in, what the Declaration of Independence says, or what media personality he’s talking to.

John Brennan tweeted that “Joe Biden is one of the most honest, decent, practical & experienced individuals with whom I have ever worked. If nominated and elected, he is capable of unifying our country & restoring America’s standing around the world.”

Not to imply something truly nefarious about Biden personally, but with that line coming from Brennan, I can’t help but be reminded of a similar line from THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE: “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”

The article from which I took these pro-Biden tweets makes a good point: that this group is part of a vast network of powerful figures with assets in the media, Hollywood, and political party offices who will do everything they can to get Biden the nomination. I would add that if he gets it, they’ll be pushing for him to win in November like we’ve never seen before. Even if he’s gradually losing his mental faculties --- I can’t say for a fact that this is happening but it increasingly seems to be --- they’ll push for him anyway. A feeble-minded 80-year-old figurehead is fine with them if he has the right “figures” behind him, running things.

With the party and the bureaucracy pushing Biden as the nominee, it strikes a nerve whenever someone suggests their convention will be rigged to keep Bernie off the ballot in November. In case you haven’t seen it, former DNC chairwoman and current FOX NEWS contributor Donna Brazile totally lost her mind when this was brought up by RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. She actually told McDaniel, repeatedly, to go to hell.

She said Republicans “don’t have the kind of democracy we see on the Democratic side.” (Pause for laughter.) She also said Republicans were using “Russian talking points” in order to “sow division among Americans.” That was when she sowed division by telling Ronna to go to hell on live TV.

"We are not trying to prevent anyone from becoming the nominee,” Brazile insisted. “If you have the delegates and win, you will win. This notion that somehow or another Democrats are out there trying to put hurdles or roadblocks before one candidate, that’s stupid.”

And then she goes full-on with the phony “Russia” narrative: “[Republicans] need to be [focusing on] preventing foreign interference in our elections. Stop using Russian talking points, Madame Chairwoman. Period. Stop using it.”

McDaniel tweeted later: “It’s ok...I’d be having a bad day too if my party was still hopelessly divided. Talk of a brokered convention and the DNC trying to stop Bernie Sanders obviously hit a little close to home.”

Indeed. Recall that it was Brazile herself who slipped Hillary three questions in advance of one of the 2016 presidential debates. No wonder this struck a nerve.

But be ready to hear about “Russia” whenever Biden is challenged by Republicans. The same people who originated the false “Russia” narrative against Trump will use it to help Biden now. Conveniently, the real hard-core Russia aficionado, Bernie Sanders, is assisting in that effort by going pedal-to-the-metal Castro-loving commie.

Oh, and just to end with something really hilarious, here’s Hillary Clinton in a Super Tuesday appearance on ABC’s GOOD MORNING, AMERICA, in which she slams the Sanders campaign and stresses the importance of following the rules. You have to admit that any time Hillary lectures other people about following the rules, that’s pretty funny.

Super Tuesday notes

March 4, 2020

A few notes on the Super Tuesday Republican primaries: President Trump seems like a pretty safe bet for the GOP nomination. In Texas, Sen. John Cornyn easily fought off a challenger from the right. And Jeff Sessions will face a run-off against former football coach Tommy Tuberville after failing to win a majority in his attempt to reclaim his Alabama Senate seat. Naturally, President Trump had some comments on his former AG who recused himself from the “Russia collusion” investigation on day one. Can we assume this means he’ll be endorsing Tuberville?

RELATED READING:  Super Tuesday results

Despite barely registering in the GOP primaries against Donald Trump, diehard NeverTrumper Bill Weld says he plans to continue his loooooogshot challenge. Don’t be surprised if he even tries a third party run, which he makes clear in this article would be purely to pull three or four percent of the vote and cost Trump his reelection

I think Trump’s winning margin will be more than enough for that not to matter. I also doubt Weld would even pull 3%. But I just wanted you to know that the guy who claims that Trump doesn’t stand for real conservative principles is openly trying to get a far-left Democrat elected President. Frankly, that's not one of my conservative principles.

The Dow leaped over 500 points this morning on the news that it’s even less likely that Bernie Sanders will ever be President of the United States.

Bloomberg out

March 4, 2020

Just hours after Mike Bloomberg’s campaign claimed he would press on past his Super Tuesday wipeout, Bloomberg suspended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden. Although you’d think he’d be a Bernie man by the way he just redistributed so much of a billionaire’s wealth.

RELATED READING: Super Tuesday results

The announcement was greeted with great sadness by thousands of TV stations and websites that were making a killing off his wasted $500 million ad budget, but with great relief by everyone outside of American Samoa, who will finally be able to watch cat videos on YouTube without having to see Mike Bloomberg first. It just proves once again that all the advertising in the world can’t sell a faulty product once the public gets a good look at it.

Joe Biden's gaffes

March 4, 2020

Joe Biden’s legendary “gaffes” seem to be getting more frequent. Not only did he head into Super Tuesday by forgetting the most famous line of the Declaration of Independence and telling supporters to press on to “Super Thursday” (Democrats: please note that this year’s election has been moved to the secondThursday in November, per Joe Biden), during his victory speech, he mixed up his wife and his sister.

It was especially unfortunate that this happened right after he promised to launch a war on Alzheimer’s disease. Maybe this particular “gaffe” was just a function of lights in his eyes, campaign stress or being distracted by the crowd, but it happens a lot, even in dim light and one-on-one interviews. Some pundits are suggesting that if Biden were elected, most of his duties might be delegated to others, and as we’ve seen from him promising to put “Beto” O’Rourke in charge of gun control, that’s a scary thought, indeed.

As sad as this is, some commentators couldn’t help joking about Biden confusing his wife with his sister. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit remarked, “This puts Hunter’s behavior in a whole new light.” And comic Steven Crowder tweeted: “BREAKING! Ilhan Omar endorses Joe Biden for President.”

(NOTE to all the liberal “fact-checking” sites: that last tweet was a JOKE. Ilhan Omar didn’t really endorse Biden. It’s premised on the claims that she married her brother to get him a green card. Confusing a sibling with a spouse. See? Sigh… Jokes were so much funnier when you didn’t have to explain them to humorless leftists.)

Last Thursday at Disney World, for the first time since Disneyland opened on July 17, 1955, a boat on the iconic Jungle Cruise ride sank (the Disney World version has been operating since 1971 without any Titanic-like incidents.) What next, a 20-car pileup on Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride?

Fortunately, the water is only five feet at its deepest point, so the tourists aboard were fine, if a bit wet. They also escaped being devoured by the animatronic hippos. Guess it’s a good thing Disney didn’t go with the original idea of using real live jungle animals. This link has some fascinating photos of that ill-fated three-minute tour, as well as the construction of the ride.

Since aquatic tragedy was averted, we can all celebrate our relief by enjoying this animated video of one of Weird Al Yankovic’s greatest original (non-parody) songs, “Skipper Dan,” about a tour guide on a jungle cruise ride who would probably welcome his boat sinking just to break up the monotony of his job.

Once again, the persistence of conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has finally paid off. D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth has granted their request to depose Hillary Clinton about her emails and Benghazi attack documents. Not only that, but he's allowed the depositions of Hillary’s IT technician, her former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and two other State Department officials.

"I give kudos to Judicial Watch,” House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes said to Tucker Carlson on Monday. “They have been tough. They’ve stayed on this. That’s what we have to do in this town. These people don’t just lie down. They don’t go away. You have to fight them every single step of the way.”

Commentary continues below advertisement

I know my readers get tired of waiting for justice, but persistence is the only way. This case goes back to 2014, when Judicial Watch found out that Susan Rice’s “talking points” for her false statements about Benghazi were actually created by the Obama White House. Recall that it was JW’s lawsuit about Benghazi that led to the discovery of Hillary’s private email server in 2015. Think of it: if JW hadn’t been digging around about Benghazi, Hillary’s use of a private email server to conduct government business would likely have remained a secret forever. There’s so much about The Swamp that would never have come to light. (And who knows what else there is that’s still shrouded in darkness; we’ve seen just the tip of the iceberg.)

So now, in the ongoing case of Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State, Judge Lamberth, on the guiding principle that more information is always better, has opted for more testimony. (Thank you!) It was Judge Lamberth who in 2018 ordered discovery into whether Hillary’s use of a private server was intended to stymie Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. (I would add that no one knows more about the stymieing of FOIA requests than Judicial Watch.) Lamberth said that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Of course, it’s challenging whenever plaintiffs have to show intent. Did Hillary INTEND to circumvent FOIA? It defies reason to think she didn't. Fortunately, Judge Lamberth appears to be an eminently reasonable jurist. To us, it appeared that Hillary had skated away to a wine bar in Chappaqua, but this case has been moving under the radar.

Hillary argued that she had already answered questions and should not have to again, but Judge Lamberth disagreed. “With each passing round of discovery,” he said, “the Court is left with more questions than answers.” He finds it inexplicable that with so many important questions left unanswered, the Justice Department wants to close the case. “The Court is especially troubled by this,” he continued. “To argue that the Court now has enough information to determine whether State conducted an adequate search is preposterous, especially when considering State’s deficient representations regarding the existence of additional Clinton emails.”

My favorite part of the ruling is Judge Lamberth’s comments on Hillary’s ability to recollect: “The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfactory and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers IN PERSON AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER SHE GIVES THEM [emphasis mine]. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch --- it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.”

One of the other officials that Lamberth is allowing to be deposed is Paul Combetta, an IT specialist who worked on Hillary’s private server and was involved in deleting her emails (after they’d been subpoenaed). He took the Fifth during previous questioning, so we’ll see. Remember this?

By now, Judicial Watch should be well-armed with questions for Combetta to not answer. Also to be deposed are a couple of other State Department officials familiar with Hillary’s private server, Brett Gittleson and Yvette Jacks.

Hillary will play the artful dodger. As Gregg Jarrett said on Monday’s HANNITY show, she is “a master of prevarication. She has elevated lies and deception and evasion to an art form.” It’s true; we’ve seen her tell lie after lie and change her story whenever she needed to. Recall that at the start of the curiosity about her email, she said she hadn’t emailed classified material. Later she said she never sent material that was classified at the time. Still later, she changed her story again, saying she had never emailed anything marked “classified.”

Even James Comey had to say that this was not true. (Never mind that he lied himself when he said “no reasonable prosecutor” would take that case.)

Oh, and in her bogus “Mid-Year Exam” interview with the FBI, Hillary said some version of “I don’t recall” 39 times. Jarrett thinks this new interview will most likely be a waste of time because she’ll just “feign amnesia.”

In this opinion piece for FOX NEWS, he calls her “slippery as an eel.”

But I would add that her amnesia-feigning will fall at the same time she’s trying to garner some notice as an alternative for the presidential nomination. Why should Democrats opt for her phony memory loss when they already have a candidate with real memory loss, Joe Biden?

And she actually might not get away with it this time. Expect her to be especially hard-pressed in this deposition, perhaps being put on the spot as never before. As Judge Lamberth said, “[The existing record] does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business.” He called her responses “either incomplete, unhelpful or cursory at best.” And no –- written questions will not do, he said, as they “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture...”

We’re not going to learn from this case what actions were taken after the 2012 Benghazi attack; that’s a separate issue and Judge Lamberth has ruled witnesses can’t be questioned about it. But witnesses will be asked about “their knowledge of the existence of any emails, documents or text messages related to the Benghazi attack.”

There’s a good reason why we have laws against doing what Hillary did. Can you imagine what such easy access to the Secretary of State’s emails would mean to foreign spies? I’d bet that over the decades in previous administrations, enemy agents have lost their lives trying to gain such access. Yet Hillary Clinton didn’t care and has never thought the laws applied to her. It’s time for her to finally learn she was wrong about that.

Another take-away from this: Judge Lamberth is a Reagan appointee and a fabulous judge who obviously cares about the law. Elections mean things!

Coronavirus twist

March 3, 2020

The coronavirus outbreak has suddenly been politicized in a way nobody saw coming. There are now 2,336 cases and 77 deaths from it in Iran. One of those deaths was of a close confidant to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and 23 of the new cases are among Iran’s Parliament members.

But the political ramifications aren’t limited to Iran. Shortly before the outbreak hit, Connecticut liberal Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy took it upon himself to thumb his nose at the Logan Act and hold a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, apparently to undermine President Trump’s tough policy stance against Iran. It’s unclear if any other Democrats also held meetings with any Iranian officials at the same time.

Even though there’s a very low risk that Murphy was infected, he’s been schmoozing around Washington for weeks, and there’s a slight possibly he’s been spreading the infection. A number of people are demanding he be quarantined.

I don’t know if a quarantine is necessary to prevent Murphy from spreading the coronavirus, but locking him in his house for a while might at least keep him from illegally conducting foreign policy.

Several very influential people have passed away in recent days, so I thought I’d take a minute to pay last respects to them...

One of the most brilliant and visionary scientists of our time, Freeman Dyson, died Saturday at 96. Dyson made enormous contributions to physics, math and quantum electrodynamics, despite never even bothering to earn a Ph.D. He also never won a Nobel Prize, even though his ability to understand things that others could not imagine led to fundamental advances in science and technology. As Mark Steyn wrote, you can get a sense of his importance just by the number of things that bear his name: “the Dyson sphere, Dyson series, Dyson graphs, Dyson number, Dyson operator, Dyson conjecture, Dyson tree, Schwinger-Dyson equation, Dyson's transform, Dyson's eternal intelligence” and so on.

As Steyn notes, toward the end of his life, other scientists not nearly so brilliant turned on him for casting doubt on their apocalyptic climate change predictions. Dyson believed in manmade climate change, and said he was a Democrat through-and-through and loved Obama, but he thought Obama was on the wrong side of climate change and the Republicans on the right side. He believed that the effects of CO2 on climate were vastly overstated and the benefit of more CO2 outweighed the negatives. Also, that the alarmists were too attached to their own computer models that had been proven wrong again and again. As Steyn quotes Dyson:

“A model is such a fascinating toy that you fall in love with your creation... Every model has to be compared to the real world and, if you can't do that, then don't believe the model.”

As happened so many times in his life, Dyson saw and stated a fundamental truth that his fellow scientists were oblivious to. Here are some testimonials from those who knew him:

Commentary continues below advertisement

Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch died Sunday at 84. One of the most successful businessmen of the late 20th century, Welch’s hard-driving style and willingness to dump unprofitable companies and lay off workers brought him both admiration and criticism. He oversaw GE’s acquisition of RCA (and later NBC) and got the company into finance with GE Capital. That brought in massive profits, but seven years after his retirement, the 2008 mortgage crisis nearly destroyed the company. Welch said he gave himself an A for execution but an F for his choice of successors. You can read more about this controversial and influential man at the link.

James Lipton, the longtime host of the award-winning interview series “Inside the Actor’s Studio,” has died at 93 after battling bladder cancer. What you might not know about him: he served in the Air Force in World War II and came to New York after the war intending to become a lawyer, but instead fell into movie and TV production. On radio, he was the voice of the Lone Ranger’s nephew Dan Reid. He wrote a novel, choreographed a ballet, wrote for several soap operas and spent 10 years acting on “The Guiding Light.” Our condolences to his wife of nearly 50 years, former model Kedakai Mercedes Lipton.

Late last month, computer scientist Larry Tesler died at 74. He spent two decades at Apple, helping make human-computer interactions easier. His most famous contribution: while working at Xerox, he created the copy/cut/paste commands that allow computer users to move text around in documents and between different programs. In his honor, Twitter users are creating endless threads by copying and pasting the link to his obituary.

Super Tuesday - Go Vote

March 3, 2020

Today is Super Tuesday when primaries are held in 14 states and American Samoa. By this time tomorrow (assuming the Democrats have figured out how to count ballots), we should have a clearer idea of whether Joe Biden is really back in the race or if South Carolina was just a fluke; whether Democratic primary voters actually believe Bernie Sanders is going to help workers just because his ideas are straight out of The Daily Worker; and whether it really is possible for Mike Bloomberg to buy a shot at a major party Presidential nomination by running more ads than My Pillow.

One person who will definitely not be coming out of Super Tuesday a winner is Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who dropped out of the race on Monday (too bad if you already voted for her in early voting!) and endorsed Joe Biden. Pete Buttigieg also endorsed Biden, but it took him a couple of days. As usual, President Trump had a hilarious comment, suggesting that these candidates are being promised jobs in a Biden Administration in exchange for their endorsements. Trump said, “That’s called a quid pro quo. QUID!...PRO!...QUO!”

If you’re a Democrat, I urge you to turn out and vote for the loser of your choice. And Republicans, even though Trump is likely a given for the nomination (barring a last-minute surge by Rocky da la Fuente), you should also vote. Not only to make your voice heard, and to scare the media with the pro-Trump turnout, but also because your local races matter. This is true for both parties!

Commentary continues below advertisement

Case in point: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in the House of Representatives now because voters in her solid blue New York district thought incumbent Joe Crowley was a shoo-in, so the primary didn’t matter. AOC’s partisans showed up at the polls, and she now has a national platform for her dangerous socialist nonsense, thanks to just 15,897 voters, about the same number as the population of Durant, Oklahoma. Her 4,000-vote winning margin was smaller than the population of Prairie Grove, Arkansas. The population of her district is 706,440 people. I'll bet a lot of them wish now that they'd showed up to vote in the last primary so they'd actually have a Congressional Representative.

It’s not too late to do some last-minute research into the candidates. Your local newspaper’s website probably has information on all of them, perhaps even with the editors’ endorsements, which you can take as a cue to vote for or against their pick, based on what you think about their editorials.

It’s important to vote in primaries because it’s not enough just to elect someone with the correct letter after their name in parentheses. Republicans held the House during Trump’s first two years, but stymied much of Trump’s agenda. Then Democrats took over and ignored all pressing issues in favor of impeachment uber alles. You can’t just have power in the hands of your party. It needs to be trusted to the right people in your party. That’s up to you, by turning out and casting an informed vote in your local primary races.

Prayers for Nashville

March 3, 2020

I woke up this morning to the tragic news of the devastating tornado that struck last night near downtown Nashville. It occurred in the middle of the night when most people were asleep and couldn’t hear any warnings. It was described as an EF-3 level tornado that went through a heavily-populated area. The communities of Mt. Juliet and Germantown were hit particularly hard. At this writing, I’ve heard unconfirmed reports that there are nine people dead, along with major destruction and power outages, although it’s still too early to assess the damage. There’s more information at this link, but there will be bulletins coming throughout the day.

Please join me in praying for the victims and that there are no more casualties. For those of you who have expressed concern: so far, I haven’t heard of anyone in the “Huckabee” TV family who was hit, although some were close enough to the tornado’s path to hear it roar past. One staffer was evacuated to a shelter and is “safe but shaken.” Our TBN studio is in Hendersonville, just north of downtown Nashville, and was untouched.

The Red Cross has already set up a shelter for those who have lost their homes. To help, you can make a donation at I’m sure Samaritan’s Purse will also be there, and you can help them at Thank you for your prayers and donations.

Benjamin Netanyahu wins

March 3, 2020

As a lesson about the importance of turnout, voter turnout yesterday in Israel was slightly up at 71%, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears on track to win 59 seats, leaving his party two seats short of a majority in the Knesset. That total could rise when the votes of soldiers are counted, but Netanyahu still considers it a major victory. He plans to quickly form a strong nationalist coalition government with other conservative parties.

Full disclosure: Netanyahu is a friend, and I admire him greatly, not only as a great leader of Israel but as a great world leader. I was in Israel just last week, where I gave a speech on his behalf and he graciously thanked me for being such a longtime friend of Israel. I’ve watched in dismay over the past year or so as leftwing opponents who couldn’t beat him at the ballot box have attacked his character and his family and tried to defeat him with politicized charges and investigations (sound familiar?) I congratulate the voters of Israel for seeing through these tactics and making the right choice, for their own security and the security of the entire Middle East.

This week, I felt a great disturbance in the Twitterspere, as if millions of leftists suddenly cried out in terror at the thought that they might be stopped from silencing conservatives.

It was caused by news that Elliot Management, a hedge fund run by conservative billionaire Paul Singer, had purchased a major stake in their favorite PC, speech-censoring platform, Twitter. Word is that Singer wants to force out Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who has let his den of social justice warriors repeatedly block conservative content while allowing far more threatening or questionable leftist content to remain online.

As Monica Showalter details at American Thinker, Dorsey likely has more in mind than changing Twitter’s political leanings.

Commentary continues below advertisement

We’ve seen how a number of Silicon Valley tech companies run by socialist billionaires have prioritized advancing “woke” political views and virtue signaling over maximizing shareholder returns, resulting in massive unrealized profits. Twitter has deplatformed popular conservative voices such as James Woods, driven away conservative users and refused to accept political ads because they “don’t want to affect the election”…possibly the stupidest thing a for-profit media platform has ever said.

As Ms Showalter notes, liberals have complained that Singer is aggressive, persistent, very tough, uncompromising, a difficult adversary, and he “won’t go away.” He’s taken on such adversaries as the socialist government of Venezuela, so he’s not likely to be intimidated by Twitter trolls. He may be after Twitter and Dorsey purely for the profits, but it’s possible that a happy side effect would be returning Twitter to the platform for free speech it started out as before being warped into a censorious propaganda outlet and outrage mob tool by the leftist activist techies inside its own corporate version of the Deep State.

I can almost hear them crying out now: “Help us, George Soros! You’re our only hope!”

Trump appoints Ratcliffe

March 2, 2020

President Trump went to South Carolina Friday (he loves to troll Democratic primaries) for a rally in North Charleston.

While en route, he announced that Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe is his nominee for the new Director of National Intelligence. On cue, Ratcliffe was savaged by liberals, with Nancy Pelosi claiming the pick showed Trump’s “clear disrespect” for the intelligence community.

I wonder why Trump would want to put someone in charge who defended him against bogus impeachment charges based on an investigation sparked by fake “evidence” that was used by entrenched political partisans in the intelligence agencies to get illegal warrants to spy on his campaign and undermine his Administration? Why, he should have promoted from within! Get somebody who’s been in the Deep State for a looong time! What could possibly go wrong?

There’s also a lot of whooping and hollering over Trump saying at the rally that Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus and trying to blame him for the disease or the stock market drop it’s caused. Some Democrats are theatrically infuriated over anyone questioning their pure motives…

Why, it’s OUTRAGE-ous that Trump would say such a horrible thing that’s patently obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention. Prominent liberals have been publicly hoping for some disaster or recession to come along for months now, and they're doing their best to whip up panic and celebrate its fallout. And they don’t even have the decency to delete their tweets when they’re called out, like Chuck Schumer.

If you prefer to get your Trump rally news unfiltered and undistorted, here’s a video of his entire speech:

Fake News Monday Update

March 2, 2020

Fake News Monday! There’s actually some good news on the fake news front today. A phony narrative pushed by the Democrats and the liberal media that President Trump called the coronavirus a “hoax” was so blatantly false, easily disprovable and reprehensibly misleading and dangerous to the public health that even Facebook has started flagging posts that repeat it. Imagine that: Facebook actually admitting that a fake story about Trump is fake!

For the record, what Trump actually called a hoax was the Democrat/media attempt to politicize the disease by falsely claiming that his Administration hasn’t been acting to prevent a pandemic. The fake story was repeated by many major media outlets and even by Mike Bloomberg in a “60 Minutes” interview last night.

RELATED READINGSad: Democrats and the media use the coronavirus to bludgeon President Trump

Bloomberg also purchased three minutes of prime TV time Sunday to talk about the coronavirus and Trump’s handling of it, which backfired when many commenters noted that he came across as a billionaire using his money to exploit a health crisis by undermining confidence in public health authorities at a time when Americans need to be listening to them to prevent the spread of a deadly disease.

This would be a good place to toss in that, no, there have been no budget cuts to the CDC. Also, even the New York Times and the World Health Organization now admit that Trump’s quick action in blocking travel from China helped prevent or at least delay a potential widespread outbreak here.

And while I’m at it, here’s a positive assessment of the Administration’s handling of the coronavirus written by a biochemist. He also offers some good advice on avoiding contracting both the coronavirus and the brain disease of Trump Derangement Syndrome that’s currently running through the media like the 1918 Spanish flu.

Today's Edition



Congratulations to Joe Biden, who won a larger-than-expected 48.4% in Saturday’s South Carolina Primary. Bernie Sanders was a distant second at 19.9%, followed by Steyer (11.3%), Buttigieg (8.2%) and Warren (7.1%.) Bloomberg wasn’t on the ballot, which is probably the only thing he hasn’t paid to put his name on in the past two months.

Shortly after the results were in, Steyer and Buttigieg threw in the towel and dropped out. Steyer was predictable; that was largely a vanity candidacy. Buttigieg was a stronger candidate but he aimed above his pay grade. Nobody seriously thinks anyone should leap from mayor of South Bend, Indiana, to the White House. He can run for Congress in some leftwing district and get some federal experience, then he’ll be back. It would be better to run for governor and get some real executive experience, but as we know from the treatment of Mike Pence, Democrats with no executive experience whatsoever think that being Governor of Indiana isn’t a real qualification for anything important.


With gratitude,

Mike Huckabee



"Russia hoax" goes on despite evidence of monstrous CrowdStrike lie

By Mike Huckabee

The “Trump/Russia” collusion hoax goes on, with Jim Acosta, still CNN’s chief White House correspondent, asking Trump at a press conference in India, ”Can you pledge to the American people that you will not accept any foreign assistance in the coming election?” When challenged by Trump, Acosta actually insulted him, saying, “Mr. President, I think our record of delivering the truth is a lot better than yours sometimes...” Trump said from the podium that Acosta ought to be ashamed, and he should be, but he won't, because he has no shame.

California Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has announced he’s planning to file a federal lawsuit Monday afternoon against the WASHINGTON POST after years of false “Trump/Russia” reporting. Even after no evidence of collusion has been found, the fake news lives on and evolves.

"The mainstream media continues to go about their normal pace of creating narratives and then going out and selling them to the American people, and they hope that we forget,” he told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News Sunday.



Commentary continues below advertisement


I wanted to make sure you also read these comments:

Adam Schiff is outraged that President Trump’s attorneys “convinced two judges” to rule in his favor over Schiff’s demand that his White House counsel testify. Silly me, I thought that since Schiff had a law degree, he’d know that attorneys convincing judges to side with their clients is how all non-jury cases are decided.

This is Schiff’s entire tweet: “Trump’s lawyers convinced two judges of their unprecedented legal theory that courts CANNOT enforce congressional subpoenas. This was after they argued during the impeachment trial that the House was REQUIRED to enforce subpoenas in court. Such duplicity can't survive appeal.

You tried to force Trump’s close staffers to testify without issuing subpoenas. Trump asserted his right as President to refuse, giving you the option of issuing subpoenas that would then go before a court to decide whether they were protected by executive privilege. You decided instead to impeach him for the made-up charge of “obstruction of Congress” because he invoked his long-established executive privilege rights. That was so ridiculous, even Mitt Romney wouldn’t buy it.

Such stupidity should not survive reelection.


“The Party of Diversity”: On Twitter, Karen Tumulty notes that the “most diverse Presidential field ever” has now been winnowed down to the top three contenders, all of them straight, white males between the ages of 77 and 78.


Many New Yorkers are quite angry upon discovering they can no longer have the things they buy in stores put into plastic bags, thanks to the new statewide ban on them. Might I remind them that their anger is aimed in the wrong direction. You’re the ones who voted for this. You can put it back in the garbage bag of history where it belongs.

Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)

"Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost."

- Romans 15:13

Did you miss reading a newsletter recently?  Go to our archive here.


With Tom Steyer ending his quixotic Presidential campaign, it’s time to settle up the accounts, and he’d better sit down for this. Ken Kurson at the California Globe suggests that this could go down as the worst Presidential campaign in history. There’s a lot of competition for that title, but it is in the running for the biggest waste of money.

The FEC reports that through January 31st, Steyer’s campaign spent $253,718,074 and over $250 million of that (a quarter of a billion dollars!) was his own money. Kurson estimates that at the same spending rate through February, Steyer spent about $280 million to win 83,000 votes that cost him $3,373 per vote. Heck, I would’ve voted for him in an open primary for half that! He also spent $280 million for zero delegates.

RELATED READING: Biden's big South Carolina win

This doesn’t even take into account the $70 million or so he spent on TV ads and Astroturf groups to promote impeaching President Trump, which turned out to be one of the dumbest, most counter-productive, time-wasting political witch hunts in US history.

And this guy wanted us to send him to Washington to make decisions about how to spend our tax money wisely! I’d rather trust my life savings to a Nigerian email scammer.

The good news for Steyer is that at least he made a name for himself in history for running the most pointless, spendthrift campaign ever. Of course, he might not even keep that title for long, considering Mike Bloomberg has already spent about $500 million on advertising and started dropping in the polls after voters got a good look at him in the debates.

The good news for both of them is that they should eventually be able to make back all the millions they squandered, as long as Trump is reelected and keeps the economy booming.

Several days ago, news reports of the violent death of Department of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney, age 66, stunned his friends and colleagues. His body, with one gunshot wound to the chest, was found on the ground near his car, close to an intersection of two major roads near his home in the San Francisco area. As is typical in such cases, details were conflicting at first: his death had been quickly ruled a suicide; no, it hadn’t; the weapon had not been found at the scene; yes, it had. The family did not suspect foul play; yes, they did.

But now, a few facts in the case have been released by the Amador County Sheriff’s office. The case is still under investigation and has not been ruled a suicide. (Be aware that deaths are not supposed to be ruled suicide until investigators have ruled out homicide, and that has not happened in this case.) Earlier in the week, they issued a statement saying, “Unfortunately, there was misinformation immediately being put out that we have determined Mr. Haney’s death to be a suicide. This is not the case. We are currently in the beginning phase of our investigation, and any final determination as to the cause and manner of Mr. Haney’s death would be premature and extremely inappropriate. No determination will be made until all the evidence is examined and analyzed.”

Commentary continues below advertisement

Haney’s body was found not on the side of the road as first imagined from the reports but in a park-and-ride area right off California state Highway 16, a busy thoroughfare, and close to state Highway 124, about 40 miles east of Sacramento. This location is less than three miles from the RV park where Haney was residing. The day his body was found, sheriff’s investigators examined the area for any points of video surveillance (at this writing, they haven’t released that information), and they went to his RV park and interviewed his neighbors. They also scheduled a forensic autopsy, to be performed by forensic pathologists from the office of the Sacramento County Coroner.

In contrast to early reports, the firearm WAS found at the scene, and investigators have it, along with Mr. Haney’s RV. From the scene and from inside the RV, they also retrieved his phone, some documents and a laptop, and to help them analyze these potential pieces of evidence, they’ve reportedly enlisted the aid of “their law enforcement partners in the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” (I know what you’re thinking when I say the letters “FBI.” That’s because I’m thinking the same thing.)

Recall what I wrote about Haney right after the first reports of his death. He worked at DHS during the Obama years, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2016 that his agency made him erase hundreds of files he’d accumulated on people with connections to Islamist terrorist organizations. (It had been his job to compile exactly that kind of information.) He made the case that certain terrorist attacks might have been prevented if the pertinent files had not been deleted. In an opinion piece written for THE HILL in 2016, he wrote about how “demoralizing and infuriating” that was.

It truly is infuriating that this is what was going on in President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security. “[Obama’s] administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material –- the intelligence we had collected for years,” Haney said. Then when an attack would occur, he said, Obama would excoriate the officials at DHS for failing to “connect the dots.” Obama had made them erase those very dots.

And Haney said this, which sums up the problem with refreshing bluntness: “After leaving my 15-year career at DHS, I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy, our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness --- and subsequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack.”

Here is the piece Haney wrote --- an absolute MUST-READ.

And this is the latest news report on the investigation into Haney’s death. They’re not saying much at this time, which is to be expected.

But we do know more from his friends. Sources close to Haney said he’d recently been in contact with top officials about returning to work at Homeland Security. As I mentioned, he lost his wife to cancer about a year ago but had met someone and was planning to be married soon.

RELATED READING: Who was Philip Haney and why did he die?

Haney co-authored a book called “SEE SOMETHING, SAY NOTHING: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.” In November, he sent a text to the WASHINGTON EXAMINER that mentioned he was planning a sequel. Interestingly, Haney’s text also referred to anti-Turmp “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella (whom I continue to name because he is NOT entitled to anonymity): “Odd (surreal reality) that I was a highly visible whistleblower...that virtually no one listened to, while this guy remains invisible, but is treated like an anointed oracle from above. However, my story is still live, i.e., there’s still more to come. It’ll be called ‘National Security Meltdown.’”

Haney went on, sounding in this text like someone very much involved in this new project: “I have a severely hyper-organized archive of everything that’s happened since See Something, Say Nothing (SSSN) was published in May of 2016. The National Security Meltdown sequel will pick up right where SSSN left off. My intention is to have it ready by by early- to mid-Spring of 2020 (just before the political sound wave hits), then ride that wave all the way to the Nov. elections.)”

Well, that’s one wave Mr. Haney won’t be riding. It’ll be interesting to see if this manuscript-in-progress turns up at all, and if it does, what forensic analysis will say about it. And, no, I don’t mean the FBI’s forensic analysis --- this looks like another investigation that needs to be dropped in the lap of John Durham. It’s sad to have to say that no one else at the federal level can be entrusted with it.

I’m not going to speculate about Haney’s death at this point, given that all the information we have is secondhand and it’s still very early. But friends and colleagues have reportedly said that he had a deep faith in God, believed suicide was a sin, and had told them various versions of “If I’m ever found dead, and they try to say it was suicide, it wasn’t.” For now, let’s leave it at that.

And here’s a piece by Andew C. McCarthy at NATIONAL REVIEW that Haney surely would have wanted to read, as it’s about the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR), a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, and their efforts to keep people from seeing a movie called HONOR DIARIES, which documents the inequality and brutality suffered by women in strict Muslim-majority societies. By working through chapters of the Muslim Students Association, they’re succeeding in getting it banned from several college campuses, starting with (where else?) the University of Michigan at Dearborn. This sounds like a movie that really deserves to be seen, and I’ll bet Philip Haney would have appreciated it.

Congratulations to Joe Biden, who won a larger-than-expected 48.4% in Saturday’s South Carolina Primary. Bernie Sanders was a distant second at 19.9%, followed by Steyer (11.3%), Buttigieg (8.2%) and Warren (7.1%.) Bloomberg wasn’t on the ballot, which is probably the only thing he hasn’t paid to put his name on in the past two months.

Shortly after the results were in, Steyer and Buttigieg threw in the towel and dropped out. Steyer was predictable; that was largely a vanity candidacy. Buttigieg was a stronger candidate but he aimed above his pay grade. Nobody seriously thinks anyone should leap from mayor of South Bend, Indiana, to the White House. He can run for Congress in some leftwing district and get some federal experience, then he’ll be back. It would be better to run for governor and get some real executive experience, but as we know from the treatment of Mike Pence, Democrats with no executive experience whatsoever think that being Governor of Indiana isn’t a real qualification for anything important.

Commentary continues below advertisement

And if you think President Trump didn’t have anything to say about two more of his would-be replacements biting the dust, well, you really don’t know him, do you?...

Elizabeth Warren is hanging in there, hoping for a Super Tuesday miracle. That seems highly unlikely, given a new Suffolk University/Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll that shows she’s trailing Bernie Sanders by 24%-22% even in her uber-liberal home state of Massachusetts.

Biden’s South Carolina win not only gives his campaign a desperately-needed boost, it was also the first time he’s ever won a presidential primary in 32 years and three tries, and the first election he’s ever won outside of Delaware. More importantly, it shrinks Sanders’ delegate lead over him from 30 to 8.

But Joe won’t have much time to savor his victory, since tomorrow is Super Tuesday, when primaries are held in 14 states and American Samoa (and no, Joe, that’s not a Girl Scout cookie.) Biden has been clinging on for a win in South Carolina to shore up his campaign, but during the past month, he hasn’t held a single Super Tuesday rally while Bernie has been rising in the polls and Bloomberg has been blanketing the airwaves with ads.

The biggest plum, with 415 pledged delegates and 79 superdelegates, is California. A new poll by Nexstar Media and Emerson College shows Bernie leading there with 37.8%, nearly 17 points ahead of Biden. Sanders also has 23 campaign offices in California to Biden’s one. But then, it was always assumed that Bernie would win California, since it’s his natural constituency: people who will keep voting for far-far-left nuttery no matter how badly it ruins their lives. California Democrats have become like co-dependent spouses who keep supporting their abusive partner no matter how many times he spends all the food and rent money on drug needles and condoms and handouts to his deadbeat friends.

One of the big questions about Super Tuesday (and another argument against early voting) is what about the two million or so votes that were already cast with Buttigieg and Steyer on the ballot? Anyone who already voted for them only to have them drop out two days before the primary might feel as if they’d thrown their votes away (if I were mean, I’d say they should've probably felt that way anyway.) Biden can’t count on all those “moderate” voters swinging his way. Bloomberg skipped the early states to concentrate on Super Tuesday, so any votes he pulls would likely be from Biden’s target demo, not Bernie’s.

I refuse to make any predictions or advise anyone to drop out, because I know what a difficult and personal decision that is. But there’s no question that as long as the votes remain fragmented, it’s likely that Bernie, with his hardcore leftist cult, will continue to do well. And if he makes it to the convention with not quite enough delegates, and the Party establishment brokers a deal to nominate someone else (Bloomberg, Hillary, Michelle Obama, The Rock), I wouldn’t count on the Bernie Bros calling off their riots and putting down their bongs long enough to vote in November for whoever they think ripped them off again. And if the candidate is Bernie, I imagine a lot of moderate Democrats would find something better to do on Election Day, as well.

If you’d like to dig even deeper into the what if’s and potential maybes of the primary season/Democratic convention, Mary Anne Marsh is a Democratic political analyst for Fox News and she has more of a stomach for writing about these people than I have.

Fake coronavirus news

March 2, 2020

“I’m Not A Doctor, But I Report Fake Medical News On TV” Dept: A couple of actual doctors are extremely put out with the media’s attempts to denigrate and second-guess the Trump Administration’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak. Dr. Drew Pinsky has some words for those attacking Mike Pence’s handling of disease outbreaks as Governor of Indiana, and two of those words are “fake news”:

Also, the claim that President Trump had “muzzled” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, was branded as “fake news” by…Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Dr. Fauci said, “I have never been muzzled ever and I’ve been doing this since the Administration of Ronald Reagan, I’m not being muzzled by this Administration...” He said he just put some TV interviews on hold while they reorganized the task force after Pence took over, but now, he’s reapplied for clearance to do them and been approved; “so I have not been muzzled at all, that was a real misrepresentation of what happened.”

My prayer for you all is that you never have a doctor who gets important things wrong as often as the Trump-hating news media do.

Coronavirus update

March 2, 2020

The stock market took a beating last week, due to fears of the spread of the coronavirus and that it might cause trade and manufacturing disruptions and launch the US into a recession. If the fear-mongering seems a little overstated, some medical experts agree. They think the World Health Organization is acting on pressure from China in raising the global health risk assessment to “very high,” the worst possible ranking. Here’s Dr. Marc Seigel condemning “alarmism” when we should be calmly doing whatever it takes to contain the spread and stop it.

RELATED READING: Sad: Democrats and the media use the coronavirus to bludgeon President Trump

That’s just what President Trump has been working on for a while now, even as his critics relentlessly attack him, both for not doing enough and for doing too much. Example: when he stopped travel from China, Sen. Chuck Schumer sent out a tweet accusing him of hating immigrants. When it became apparent that was a smart decision (Australia quickly followed suit), Schumer deleted his tweet.

This is another example of why being a Senator is not preparation for being President: when you’re one of 100 Senators, you can shoot off your mouth with no consequences; but being an executive teaches you to make the tough decisions and deal with the consequences. All that Schumer will have to deal with is the fact that the Internet is forever, so his Tweet was preserved. He should be ashamed of it, but I think we’ve long established that he has no shame.

If you’d like to catch up with the latest on the coronavirus, the Instapundit site is doing a daily round-up. Here’s today’s, and I hope you don’t let it spoil your weekend.

HBO Max has convinced the six cast members to reunite for a one-hour special in May. It’s not a new episode of the series, but a cast reunion where they’ll talk about the show.

And conservative showbiz writer Christian Toto reports that CNN knows exactly how they should spend that hour: groveling and apologizing for all the jokes from 20 years ago that are now “problematic” for today’s ultrasensitive PC snowflakes. They might need more than an hour.

The Twitter mobs love to attack “Friends” because it’s popular with young viewers, but it has elements that, well, could they BE more politically incorrect? Like jokes about how fat Monica once was (body shaming!), or Chandler’s insecurity about his masculinity (homophobia!) or the lack of racial diversity of the cast. And don’t forget the more arcane triggers, like Ross being embarrassed that his wife left him for a woman or depicting Phoebe as being tougher than the others because she’d once been homeless when that could have been an “opportunity to raise viewers’ social consciousness.” (And wouldn’t that have been hilarious!)

The CNN article tsk-tsk’s, “As even devoted fans can recognize now, ‘Friends’ often ended up on the wrong side of cultural history, highlighting many troubling norms of its time.”

Speaking of troubling norms, one of the most troubling norms of our current time is the insistence on judging things and people from the past by standards that didn’t even exist at the time. Another is treating comedy as if it’s deadly serious, which is killing humor. That’s why I refuse to let it die: I will continue making fun of these humorless PC prigs, and when they slam me on Twitter, I just laugh at them. Take a tip from Ricky Gervais: they only have as much power as you give to them. So stop giving them any. They’ve done nothing to deserve it, and they see every apology not as an opportunity to forgive and move on but as weakness, some blood in the water to encourage more attacks.

I hope the “Friends” cast and creators don’t waste a lot of time in this special addressing this nonsense. After all, these sniping critics don’t seem to appreciate that in its day, “Friends” was one of the more liberal sitcoms. The creators actually thought they were creating a “social justice” landmark by airing TV’s first lesbian wedding, and even casting Newt Gingrich’s sister as the minister to poke conservatives in the eye. It was so controversial, two TV stations refused to air it. Now, just a few years later, they’re under attack by the very people they were trying to side with. It shows once again that the left always turn on and devour their own eventually.

If the “Friends” reunion turns into an hour of groveling apologies because some jokes from decades past aren’t PC enough for 2020, then someone had better start a new cable channel for Norman Lear to apologize for “All In The Family” 24 hours a day.

The “Trump/Russia” collusion hoax goes on, with Jim Acosta, still CNN’s chief White House correspondent, asking Trump at a press conference in India, ”Can you pledge to the American people that you will not accept any foreign assistance in the coming election?” When challenged by Trump, Acosta actually insulted him, saying, “Mr. President, I think our record of delivering the truth is a lot better than yours sometimes...” Trump said from the podium that Acosta ought to be ashamed, and he should be, but he won't, because he has no shame.

California Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has announced he’s planning to file a federal lawsuit Monday afternoon against the WASHINGTON POST after years of false “Trump/Russia” reporting. Even after no evidence of collusion has been found, the fake news lives on and evolves.

"The mainstream media continues to go about their normal pace of creating narratives and then going out and selling them to the American people, and they hope that we forget,” he told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News Sunday.

Commentary continues below advertisement

Unlike the suit by Trump’s campaign against The New York Times, which was not brought by an individual and therefore might be determined not to have standing, Nunes' is on his own, as WaPo went after him personally. “What [they] did to me...there’s no explanation for it. I never talked to President Trump about Admiral McGuire; I didn’t go to the White House. None of this was true; it was all invented by someone.”

Nunes also has an ongoing suit against CNN --- that's right, Jim Acosta --- over a fake story they ran about his activities in Vienna; he has proof he was not there when they said he was. Similarly, when Nunes, according to WaPo, was supposedly meeting with Trump about Admiral McGuire, he was actually in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He says that if these news outlets want to know where he is, all they have to do is go to his social media.

He’s created a website associated with the Devin Nunes campaign called “that people can go to and join the fight.” He wants to stop the media from being able to poison millions of Americans with fake news.

Recall that the whole “Russia hoax” claim –- which led to sanctions against Russia, the two-year Mueller investigation and a presidential impeachment –- originated with Hillary Clinton (of course) and the supposed hacking of John Podesta’s emails, which were extremely damaging to her at a critical time in her fight against Bernie Sanders for the 2016 nomination. American Greatness has just posted a revised and expanded version of two articles from July of 2018, under the single title “The Monstrous Lie Behind CrowdStrike” by Michael Thau, in which he looks at the DNC’s unsubstantiated claim that Russia hacked their servers as well as their unrelenting determination to keep those servers in the hands of CrowdStrike instead of turning them over to the FBI.

RELATED READING:  McCabe, Comey retained spying program for political espionage

Thau’s article makes a strong case that the Democratic National Committee refused to let investigators look at their “evidence” of Russian infiltration for a very simple reason: there isn’t any.

Of course, President Trump is well aware of this whole business, and it seems obvious that his mere mention of “CrowdStrike” in the call with Ukrainian President Zelensky struck fear into the Democrats and led them even more frantically down the impeachment path. Think about it: if they'd had the goods on the Russkies with actual forensic evidence, they would have gleefully handed it over to the FBI on a silver platter decorated with roses and daffodils. But instead they've drawn a red line, so to speak, and refused to hand it over to anyone.

Robert Mueller’s team went ahead and blamed the Russians anyway.

So why wouldn’t the DNC instruct CrowdStrike to hand over the servers, and why did the FBI just shrug their shoulders and refuse to get tough about this? Even then-FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress three times that the DNC refused the FBI’s “[m]ultiple requests at different levels” to collect forensic evidence.” Simultaneously, the DNC had been hyping the theft of the emails as akin to “an act of war.” This makes no sense, unless they were pulling a "Jussie Smollett."  It also makes no sense that the FBI didn't, well, make a federal case out of it.

A senior FBI official told The Hill in January 2017 that the Bureau “repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise.” This same source said that “the FBI [had] no choice but to rely upon” CrowdStrike, whose executives refused to discuss the matter under oath.

No choice??

The DNC also rebuffed Department of Homeland Security head Jeh Johnson’s requests and wouldn’t even discuss the matter with him.

I’m no computer expert, but numerous people who are have expressed skepticism about the claim of a Russian hack. One such skeptic who goes by the pseudonym “Adam Carter” has concluded, after working on this story for a few years, that “Guccifer 2.0” was a fake identity created by CrowdStrike as a fake hacker. Though most of Carter’s evidence is technical, Thau says “he’s unquestionably found an inconsistency in the Russian narrative that ought to raise doubts in even the most computer-illiterate congressman’s mind.” This article presents exactly that.

To explain why the DNC might resort to such elaborate fakery, Thau takes us back to March 19, 2016, the day they learned that "hostile actors" had obtained all the emails in the Gmail account of Hillary campaign manager John Podesta. We know this was not an actual hack; he’d fallen for a common “spear-phishing” scam that tricked him into divulging his password (which was --- I kid you not --- “password”). The emails were extremely derogatory towards Hillary and even contradicted the defense they’d publicly made for her use of a private server. When Julian Assange said on June 12 that he’d acquired Hillary’s emails, they must have immediately assumed these were from the same "hack."  Bernie Sanders reacted, too, by meeting with top advisors and resolving a continued fight for the nomination.

The DNC quickly armed itself with the “Russia” narrative and, on June 14 in WaPo, shrieked about Russia stealing Podesta’s emails. (Not surprisingly, all information in the WaPo article had been provided by CrowdStrike and the DNC.) By October 7, when WikiLeaks began releasing the emails, Hillary’s supporters had already been, in Thau’s words, “taught to tune them out by angrily reciting the mantras ‘Putin’ and ‘Russia.’” This became Hillary’s personal defense. “What is really important about WikiLeaks,” she said, “is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans.”

Thau’s article takes a close look at “Guccifer 2.0” and the carelessness of “clues” left in documents sent to the press and asks excellent, common-sense questions that debunk the claim --- maintained in Mueller’s report and continuing through the 2020 election --- that he was a Russian spy trying to aid Donald Trump. By all means, set aside a block of time to read this.

Bernie Sanders has been rightly criticized for his rose-colored glasses views of communist dictators such as Fidel Castro, which has forced him to claim rather unconvincingly that just because he’s a socialist, that doesn’t mean he endorses authoritarianism (FYI: there has never been and could never be actual socialism without authoritarianism, which follows socialism as inevitably as dusk follows the dawn. Just ask a Venezuelan. Or read this article by a Cuban-American, about what Cuba was like before Castro seized power, and what it was like afterward.)

If Bernie doesn’t want to impose authoritarianism, he has a pretty odd way of showing it. I’m not even talking about his campaign aides who’ve been caught on video chomping at the bit to build gulags to “reeducate” people who disagree with them. I mean all the revolutionary plans he has to remake America, some of which he plans to impose through executive orders. At a rally in California over the weekend, he came up with a new one: he’ll issue an executive order making marijuana legal in all 50 states and expunging the records of most people who have been arrested for it.

I notice in that pledge no concern at all for whether any particular state wants legalized marijuana or not, or for the fact that Congress makes laws, not the President. Some might call that “authoritarian.” But there’s no denying that making drugs legal nationwide would be good for Bernie, since I fervently believe you’d have to stoned out of your mind to vote for him.

Today's Edition



This week, President Trump took to Twitter to express his displeasure and frustration with Democratic leaders who seem more concerned with blaming him for the coronavirus and hyping up a panic than in doing anything to help. He noted that while he was working to prepare for the virus, they were tying up Congress with their fruitless impeachment crusade.

Not to add to the panic, but there already is a terrible epidemic disease ravaging America. In the worst cases, it results in hysteria, loss of brain function and inability to control one’s mouth. That disease is TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome.)

It’s primarily spread via airborne means, such as 24-hour TV news channels, and chiefly affects Democratic politicians and their unpaid press agents in the media. A particularly virulent strain started in China and is now reaching peak infection. You can see the symptoms on full display in the reactions to President Trump’s press conference on the coronavirus, where he introduced some top health experts who are leading the effort. Also, to show how seriously he’s taking this, he announced that Vice President Pence will head up a White House task force to coordinate the efforts of multiple agencies. This is important because a number of agencies will be involved and having someone with the Vice President’s clout in charge will help eliminate red tape and bureaucratic turf conflicts.

To a person with a normal, healthy brain, that should all have been reassuring. But here’s what TDS sufferers heard:



With gratitude,

Mike Huckabee

Learn more about RevenueStripe...



A Florida poll worth looking at

By Mike Huckabee

I normally don’t pay much attention to polls, but there’s a new one out of Florida that’s very interesting, if it’s remotely accurate. The St. Pete Poll shows that Biden is well ahead in Florida with 33.8%, followed by Mike Bloomberg at 24.9%. The interesting part is that just one week ago, the very same poll had Bloomberg ahead at 31.7% and Biden lagging at 26.5%. Bloomberg managed to vault into the #1 slot with his carpet-bombing of TV and Internet ads, but after voters got a look at him in the debates, he fell by almost 7 points in one week. Proving that advertising might be able to sell anything at first, but if there’s a problem with the product, people stop buying it.

A couple of side notes: there’s been some talk of Bernie Sanders collapsing to third in this Florida poll due to outrage over his praise of Castro, but in fact, he actually rose from 11.4% to 13% in the past week. Cuban-American parents might want to sit their kids down and tell them a little family history to counteract what they’re hearing in college.

Also, here’s some ammunition for critics of early voting. Primary voting is already underway in Florida, and among those who’ve already voted, Bloomberg has 29.4% support, while he’s only at 24.6% among those who have yet to vote. This does bolster the view of those who wait until the last minute because they want to know everything there is to know about the candidates before voting, to avoid buyer’s remorse.


Learn more about RevenueStripe...


##Appellation##, I wanted to make sure you also read these comments:

This just in: Bernie Sanders isn’t the only Democratic Presidential contender who can see the good in communist tyrants. I’ve also heard that Hitler was a marvelous dancer and an excellent painter. He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon. Two coats!


Israeli researchers say they’ve made a breakthrough on the coronavirus and might be able to develop a vaccine within a matter of weeks, and have it available 90 days after that.

So, since Democrats who are attacking Trump’s handling of this disease seem so concerned about the coronavirus, does this mean they’ll stop attacking Israel, slandering Benjamin Netanyahu, making anti-Semitic statements, and supporting known anti-Semites and the vile BDS divestment movement?

Don’t hold your breath. For anyone who thinks they’d put the public’s health and safety ahead of their political agenda, I have two words: “sanctuary city.”


I’m always proud to say I’m from Arkansas, but never more so than after I saw this headline:

Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.."

- 1 Corinthians 13:4-5

Did you miss reading a newsletter recently?  Go to our archive here.


Today's Edition





This week, President Trump took to Twitter to express his displeasure and frustration with Democratic leaders who seem more concerned with blaming him for the coronavirus and hyping up a panic than in doing anything to help. He noted that while he was working to prepare for the virus, they were tying up Congress with their fruitless impeachment crusade.

Not to add to the panic, but there already is a terrible epidemic disease ravaging America. In the worst cases, it results in hysteria, loss of brain function and inability to control one’s mouth. That disease is TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome.)

It’s primarily spread via airborne means, such as 24-hour TV news channels, and chiefly affects Democratic politicians and their unpaid press agents in the media. A particularly virulent strain started in China and is now reaching peak infection. You can see the symptoms on full display in the reactions to President Trump’s press conference on the coronavirus, where he introduced some top health experts who are leading the effort. Also, to show how seriously he’s taking this, he announced that Vice President Pence will head up a White House task force to coordinate the efforts of multiple agencies. This is important because a number of agencies will be involved and having someone with the Vice President’s clout in charge will help eliminate red tape and bureaucratic turf conflicts.

To a person with a normal, healthy brain, that should all have been reassuring. But here’s what TDS sufferers heard:



With gratitude,

Mike Huckabee

Commentary continues below advertisement



A Florida poll worth looking at

By Mike Huckabee

I normally don’t pay much attention to polls, but there’s a new one out of Florida that’s very interesting, if it’s remotely accurate. The St. Pete Poll shows that Biden is well ahead in Florida with 33.8%, followed by Mike Bloomberg at 24.9%. The interesting part is that just one week ago, the very same poll had Bloomberg ahead at 31.7% and Biden lagging at 26.5%. Bloomberg managed to vault into the #1 slot with his carpet-bombing of TV and Internet ads, but after voters got a look at him in the debates, he fell by almost 7 points in one week. Proving that advertising might be able to sell anything at first, but if there’s a problem with the product, people stop buying it.

A couple of side notes: there’s been some talk of Bernie Sanders collapsing to third in this Florida poll due to outrage over his praise of Castro, but in fact, he actually rose from 11.4% to 13% in the past week. Cuban-American parents might want to sit their kids down and tell them a little family history to counteract what they’re hearing in college.

Also, here’s some ammunition for critics of early voting. Primary voting is already underway in Florida, and among those who’ve already voted, Bloomberg has 29.4% support, while he’s only at 24.6% among those who have yet to vote. This does bolster the view of those who wait until the last minute because they want to know everything there is to know about the candidates before voting, to avoid buyer’s remorse.


Commentary continues below advertisement


##Appellation##, I wanted to make sure you also read these comments:

This just in: Bernie Sanders isn’t the only Democratic Presidential contender who can see the good in communist tyrants. I’ve also heard that Hitler was a marvelous dancer and an excellent painter. He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon. Two coats!


Israeli researchers say they’ve made a breakthrough on the coronavirus and might be able to develop a vaccine within a matter of weeks, and have it available 90 days after that.

So, since Democrats who are attacking Trump’s handling of this disease seem so concerned about the coronavirus, does this mean they’ll stop attacking Israel, slandering Benjamin Netanyahu, making anti-Semitic statements, and supporting known anti-Semites and the vile BDS divestment movement?

Don’t hold your breath. For anyone who thinks they’d put the public’s health and safety ahead of their political agenda, I have two words: “sanctuary city.”


I’m always proud to say I’m from Arkansas, but never more so than after I saw this headline:

Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.."

- 1 Corinthians 13:4-5

Did you miss reading a newsletter recently?  Go to our archive here.



This week, President Trump took to Twitter to express his displeasure and frustration with Democratic leaders who seem more concerned with blaming him for the coronavirus and hyping up a panic than in doing anything to help. He noted that while he was working to prepare for the virus, they were tying up Congress with their fruitless impeachment crusade.

Not to add to the panic, but there already is a terrible epidemic disease ravaging America. In the worst cases, it results in hysteria, loss of brain function and inability to control one’s mouth. That disease is TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome.)

It’s primarily spread via airborne means, such as 24-hour TV news channels, and chiefly affects Democratic politicians and their unpaid press agents in the media. A particularly virulent strain started in China and is now reaching peak infection. You can see the symptoms on full display in the reactions to President Trump’s press conference on the coronavirus, where he introduced some top health experts who are leading the effort. Also, to show how seriously he’s taking this, he announced that Vice President Pence will head up a White House task force to coordinate the efforts of multiple agencies. This is important because a number of agencies will be involved and having someone with the Vice President’s clout in charge will help eliminate red tape and bureaucratic turf conflicts.

To a person with a normal, healthy brain, that should all have been reassuring. But here’s what TDS sufferers heard:


If you think I’m exaggerating their exaggerations, you must not have been near a TV in the past couple of days. I’ve seen networks such as CNN and MSNBC trot out furrow-browed “experts” to tell us that the government is totally unprepared, that Pence hates science, that Trump slashed funding for the CDC and the NIH so there’s nobody left there who knows anything about how to deal with this, and that Trump is a lying liar who lies so it’s better to listen to China and hysterical rumors than the disease stats and info the White House is giving us.

Speaking of lying liars, two leading Democratic Presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg, both made such egregiously false claims about Trump gutting the CDC and NIH budgets that even the A.P. couldn’t let them slip past. Here’s their fact-check, and for once, it’s a legitimate checking of facts:

In short: no, neither agency’s budgets have been cut. There was a reduction in CDC grants to state and local governments, but that was in place before Trump took office. And there are numerous top health experts involved who have extensive experience dealing with previous epidemics, including CDC deputy director Dr. Ann Schuchat and NIH infectious disease chief Dr. Anthony Fauci, who’s advised six Presidents.

But some candidates have even more advanced case of TDS that have rendered rational thought impossible. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who actually thinks she should be in charge of national health emergencies, quickly introduced a “Prioritizing Pandemic Prevention Act” that would transfer the $10 billion Trump allocated for his “racist” border wall to the CDC to prevent pandemics. This sparked Ted Cruz and others with clearer heads to ask how you prevent people from bringing foreign diseases into the US by doing away with border security.

Bernie Sanders, who can find something good to say about any murderous communist dictator but thinks America is a cesspool of racism and xenophobia, accused Pence of intending to do nothing but try to “pray away” the coronavirus. Because he’s a devout Christian, and we all know what THOSE people are like, amiright?

A reminder to Bernie and all the others who are attacking and second-guessing Pence’s record as Governor of Indiana: he actually was a Governor, managing a huge Health and Human Services organization with an annual budget of around $14 billion. Bernie Sanders was the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, before becoming one of 100 Senators and sponsoring seven bills in 13 years that have passed, two of them to rename post offices and one to declare March 4, 1991, as Vermont Bicentennial Day.

Some of the deranged media responses include worries that the coronavirus might make Americans exhibit xenophobia against the Chinese and a New York Times article suggesting that the disease be named after Trump (I guess they think he’s responsible for the San Francisco-level public hygiene in parts of China.) And don’t even get me started on this terminal TDS case:

All of this is helping drive down the stock market. Sadly, I think that harming the market and the economy so they can blame Trump and hurt his reelection chances is a big motivator behind all this panic-mongering. I wish I didn’t have to suspect that the left could be so deranged that they would sacrifice Americans' jobs and security just to gain a political advantage, but I still remember Bill Maher publicly wishing for a recession just to harm Trump at the polls.

My advice would be to tune out all the hysteria and partisan finger-pointing and just listen to people who really know what they’re talking about, like actual doctors. They recommend following precautions similar to what you do when it’s flu season:

Wash your hands frequently; stay away from people who are coughing or sneezing; don’t go to work if you’re sick; use surface disinfectants such as Lysol or Clorox, especially in public places like airplanes; and seek medical care immediately if you have a cough, fever or trouble breathing. Fortunately, we don’t have socialized medicine (yet!), so you should be able to see a doctor immediately. Surgical masks likely will do no good, unless you already have it, then they might keep you from spreading it. Here’s more on that subject, from Dr. Marc Siegel and the World Health Organization:

Also important, don’t fall victim to TDS by listening to its fervent spreaders. As I said last night on Fox News, if President Trump flew around the world like Superman, sucked the virus out of every patient’s lungs, then dived to the bottom of the Pacific to get rid of it, he’d return home to find the Democrats and media accusing him of polluting the ocean.

Fighting the Coronavirus

February 27, 2020

Yesterday, President Trump held a press conference with officials from the CDC on the coronavirus. He sought to calm fears of a pandemic (there are currently 60 known cases in the US), described government efforts to prevent the spread of the disease, and announced that he was appointing Vice President Pence to lead the White House coronavirus task force.

From the reaction from Democrats and the media (again, sorry to repeat myself), you'd have thought Trump had stood at the podium and injected coronavirus into cute biracial children. I’m not even going to quote the tidal wave of hysterical, vitriolic attacks that were launched following the press conference. If you want to feel disgusted by their transparent attempts to exploit this disease to gin up panic, drive down the stock market and score political points, just do a Google News search like I did. I guarantee you that Google will helpfully list all the most rabid anti-Trump stories first.

Instead, I’ll just link to the whole press conference and let you watch it yourself, so when you see these people having a nuclear meltdown over it, you’ll know just how ridiculous they are.

If these Democrats who are accusing Trump of not doing enough to keep foreign diseases out of the US had done anything whatsoever about those issues in the past few years – you know, like not fighting his efforts to secure our borders and bring our industries home from China instead of wasting the people’s time on a doomed-from-the-start partisan impeachment crusade – maybe they’d have a point worth listening to.

For now, I strongly suggest they put on surgical masks. Not to protect them from the coronavirus but just to put some sort of muffle over their mouths and protect the rest of us from their Trump Derangement Syndrome.

On a side note, despite no reported cases in San Francisco as yet, the Mayor has declared a local emergency over the coronavirus. It’s nice to see that San Francisco officials are finally showing some concern over a disease that’s rumored to be spread by contact with human feces, but maybe they should have thought of that before deciding that defecating in the streets and parks is a human right.

Democrats and the media (pardon my redundancy) routinely claim that President Trump has dragged the Republican Party away from its traditional principles and to the far-right. But a recent analysis found that the major positions of the GOP have remained pretty consistent going back to Reagan, while the Democrats have moved sharply to the left.

I can think of no more disgusting example of that than yesterday’s vote in the Senate, where 56 Senators, including all the Republicans and three Democrats, voted to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, but it was blocked from final passage by a filibuster, thanks to 41 Democratic Senators opposing it. The three Senators running for President (Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar) weren’t there, but all three have previously opposed the bill.

All that this bill does is codify that if a baby is born alive during a “botched” abortion (“botched” meaning that the patient lived), it must receive the same medical care that any other baby would receive. This should not be a partisan issue. It’s a blindingly obvious example of basic human decency. At that point, the baby (and yes, it is a baby) is a separate, living human being. Like every other US citizen, from children to homeless drug addicts, he or she is entitled by law to receive emergency medical care.

But 41 Democrats (plus three more who were off running for President) are so beholden to the abortion lobby and its chief pusher, Planned Parenthood, that they actually voted to deny emergency medical care to that child rather than do anything that might theoretically place any limits at all on their radical “abortion up to and beyond the moment of birth” agenda. Didn’t Elizabeth Warren just rant about how horrible it was to say "Kill it" to a pregnant woman? Didn't Bernie Sanders just insist that “health care is a human right”? To oppose this law, they not only have to contradict their own statements, they have to deny the reality that a baby is a human.

To quote another long-ago Senate proceeding, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

All about Mike Bloomberg

February 27, 2020

It seems as if you can’t even look at the glass screen on your washing machine without seeing a commercial for Mike Bloomberg. But as I’ve warned many times, no matter how rich you are, if you get into politics, you can’t dodge that media colonoscopy. And so, some people have been doing deep dives into Bloomberg’s past. Here, Jim Geraughty of National Review reveals “20 Things You Didn’t Know About Mike Bloomberg,” and I’ll bet none of them ever makes it to one of his ads.

I have to warn you that some of the language and subject matter here is not for young eyes or delicate sensibilities, particularly the sexual harassment claims of women who worked in his companies. I’ll let you read those for yourselves. But here are a few other items that I expect will make news:

Bloomberg has claimed that the reason New York City has such stark income inequality is because it attracts billionaires from all over the world, adding, “All I know is from the city’s point of view, we want these people, and why criticize them? Wouldn’t it be great if we could get all the Russian billionaires to move here?”

Bloomberg was also criticized for using his status as Mayor to advance his businesses and for breaking his campaign promise not to raise taxes. Shortly after being elected, property taxes jumped by 18% and a year later, income taxes went up. More taxes followed.

This would be a good place to point out how crazy it is for Democrats who hate Donald Trump for being a billionaire and who falsely accuse him of breaking his campaign promises, using his office to enrich his businesses and cozying up to Russian oligarchs, to demand that replace him with Mike Bloomberg, an even richer billionaire who represents all those things on steroids.

There’s also a section quoting him about all the safety regulations his first business ignored when installing computers, “all without permission, without giving any thought to any fire law or building code. It’s amazing we didn’t burn down some office or electrocute ourselves.” And yet, he assumes that everybody, including criminals, will obey all all his new gun laws.

Finally, I thought that after insulting working women, pregnant women, blacks, Latinos, farmers, factory workers and even socialists, Bloomberg was running out of groups to tick off. But this story won’t win him too many suburban votes:

“At a breakfast in October 2001, he told executives that their companies should not hire people who live in the suburbs because suburbanites are not smart enough. (From the New York Times):

‘[Bloomberg] also suggested that companies should not be interested in hiring people who live in the suburbs because they are not “the best and the brightest.”

“There is a self-selection process,” he said. “People that want to go there aren’t the people that you want to have in your company.”’

I don’t know where he got his ideas about what farmers do, but it sounds as if everything he knows about suburban dwellers came from the song “Somewhere That’s Green” in the musical, “Little Shop of Horrors.”

As long as we’re on that subject, here’s a list of some questions that farmers actually have to deal with on a regular basis. What do you think the odds are that Mr. Bloomberg could ace this quiz?

Trump campaign sues NYT

February 27, 2020

When President Trump warned that lawsuits would be coming over the New York Times’ false reports of him colluding with Russia, most media outlets laughed it off as nothing but bluster. They are very slow learners.

Wednesday, Trump’s reelection campaign filed suit in New York State court against the Times for allegedly knowingly publishing false and defamatory statements about Trump and his campaign aides.

They specifically cited an op-ed by Max Frankel published on March 27th of last year, titled “The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo,” which flatly states that there was a deal between Trump’s campaign and “Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy” to defeat Hillary Clinton. His attorneys pointed out that the article included no proof of this claim, and it was knowingly defamatory because it contradicted the paper’s own previous reporting. They claim it was rushed out to get ahead of the release of the Mueller report, which the paper knew was likely to find no evidence of any collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. They further claim this is part of a “systematic pattern of bias against the Campaign, designed to maliciously interfere with and damage its reputation and seek to cause the organization to fail.”

Defamation cases are notoriously difficult for public figures to win, even more so for political office holders. The Times naturally dismissed the lawsuit, claiming the article was just an opinion piece protected by the First Amendment (for blanket protection, I suggest that they declare everything in the New York Times to be an opinion piece.)

The lawsuit is the longest of longshots, but it does serve as a shot across the bow to the biased media that we know what they are doing and it will no longer be shrugged off and ignored. And on the rare chance that Trump does find a judge who allows it to go forward, the discovery phase of how the New York Times creates its anti-Trump articles would be a lot of fun. Trump could just do what liberals who are trying to thwart his agenda do: go shopping for a judge who hates the defendant. Wonder if he’s appointed any of those?...

Investigative reporter John Solomon has outdone himself this time –- which is saying a lot –- with a “whistleblower” interview that confirms all we thought about the FBI’s misuse of their spying programs, and not just FISA.

This whistleblower is not anonymous and, being retired from the Bureau, receives no whistleblower protections. Retired Special Agent Bassem Youssef ran the FBI’s Communications Analysis Unit from late 2004 to late 2014. This was the (yes) “warrantless spying” program started after 9/ll that he came to believe was “deeply flawed” but that was kept on, he said, to give Americans a false sense of security and possibly also to enable “inappropriate spying, such as that which targeted President Trump’s 2016 campaign.”

Solomon conducted an interview with Youssef for THE HILL in 2018, and now, in a lengthy podcast for John Solomon Reports, Youssef has added to our understanding of what the intel community was doing. He sat down with Solomon again for the podcast after the release of a report from the White House civil liberties board that outlines the same problems he’d tried to discuss with James Comey and Andrew McCabe for years. “I have no doubt, or very little doubt, that it was used for political spying or political espionage,” he told Solomon.

This was called the NSA program, because it searched call records captured by the National Security Agency. (As I read about this, I couldn’t help but remember James Clapper lying before Congress when asked if the government spied on Americans. “Not...wittingly,” he fibbed unconvincingly.) After Edward Snowden leaked the existence of this program, the FBI performed an audit, which revealed a lot of monetary waste and numerous false positives and negatives. According to Youssef, it also showed “there was collateral damage in terms of civil liberties” of Americans whose phone records were unnecessarily searched or who were wrongly identified as being connected to terrorism. (And here, I can’t help but think of Michael Flynn and all the others who were surveilled and unmasked.)

Youssef discussed his concerns about the NSA program with Andrew McCabe on two separate occasions, the first when McCabe was assistant director for counterterrorism and the second after he’d been promoted to acting executive assistant director, the third most powerful job at the Bureau. Both times, Youssef’s warnings were brushed off. “...He was so adamant about, we need this program,” Youssef told Solomon. “We’re keeping it as this, even though we’re not getting anything out of it.”

So, why should it be so important to McCabe to continue a program that isn’t giving them what it’s supposed to deliver? He must have had some other reason to keep it around.

Likewise, when Youssef went to James Comey in September of 2014, Comey’s only expressed concern after Youssef had laid out all the problems, including the potential for abusing civil liberties, was “is it legal?” Or, in bureaucrat-ese: “Do you have a problem or concerns with the statutory authority?” As Youssef recounted it to Solomon, he told Comey he had no reservations about the program’s legality because the surveillance had to be approved by FISA court judges. (I wonder if he looks back on that comment now and smacks his forehead for being that naive.)

Youssef told Solomon that he had “no doubt whatsoever” that McCabe and Comey were fully briefed and understood the severity of the problems with the NSA program. Yet they continued it.

He said that since his retirement, he has developed “deep concerns” that the NSA program has been abused, just as the FISA program has been, during the Russia “collusion” investigation into the Trump campaign that involved spying on Carter Page. “There is no doubt in my mind now, looking at the backdrop and the information that has come up since 2016 in the media, that the abuses were rampant,” he told Solomon, “and not just for the FISA process, the FISA program, but for other programs that were used to spy on the Trump campaign. That to me is almost the obvious conclusion of what I’ve seen.” He very strongly suspects the NSA program he had run for ten years was used “to handpick selected targeted numbers” for political espionage. No wonder McCabe and Comey wanted so badly to keep it --- it was to be quite useful.

Here are the full details; there’s also a link to the podcast.

NYC floods Trump's fault

February 27, 2020

“Wow, That Trump Can Do Anything!” Dept: About 3,000 people in the Taft Houses public housing project in New York’s East Harlem neighborhood were without water for three days due to two water main breaks. And who is responsible for that? Donald Trump, apparently.

Mara Gay of The New York Times editorial board retweeted the news story, sarcastically adding, “But make America great again, right?” When users pointed out that New York State and City are both run by Democrats, Gay stood her ground, snarking back, “Public housing is a federal program, thanks.”

Users were quick to diagnose Ms. Gay’s advanced case of Trump Derangement Syndrome and to point out that public housing is a federal program administered by states and cities, and Taft House is under the umbrella of the New York City Housing Authority.

It's daft enough to blame the problems of a city housing project on Trump, but let me go a little further. The problem wasn’t caused by the housing project; it was caused by the two broken water mains that service the housing project. Those are definitely the full responsibility of Mayor Bill DeBlasio and his lopsided liberal city government. And the problem is hardly limited to the water mains serving the housing project. In fact, New York City is notorious for water pipes held together by ancient rust and fervent wishes.

Here’s a story from February 11th about a broken water main flooding the Lower East Side. It notes that this is the sixth flood from a broken water main in Manhattan in less than a month (in January, a broken water main shut down the subway.) It includes some great photos and videos from all the many flooded streets. Sorry, no picturs of water-skiing pizza rats.

And here’s a New York Times story from February 12th, headlined, “Water Mains Are Bursting All Over New York; Can They Be Fixed?” Maybe they should ask Trump to fix them; he was the one who finally fixed the skating rink that sat around broken for 10 years.

Know what all those broken water mains have in common? They’re all the responsibility of the far-left city government that has all the time in the world for thinking up new ways to impose “social justice” and reduce CO2, but apparently little interest in such boring concerns as policing crime, reducing homelessness, picking up the garbage and replacing decrepit infrastructure.

And yet, they not only blame Trump for their failures to do their own jobs, they also blame him for not taking climate change seriously enough. They claim that because of Trump, New York City may be under water in a hundred years. News flash: with these incompetent political hacks in charge, New York City is already under water, and climate change has nothin’ to do with it.

I’m passing this reader comment on to you because it’s particularly well-articulated and speaks for many who have written to me about the lack of accountability in Washington, DC. It came in reply to my commentary on the FBI lying to the court about George Papadopoulos…

From Melana:

Ok, great! This is all well and good but WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And yes, I'm YELLING! Flynn lied....he goes to jail....Schiff, Clinton, Brennan, Comey, Holder, Lynch, Obama, Biden, McCabe, all LIE and they are out writing books making millions! Please, answer that question...when is someone going to be accused, tried and go to jail? Those of us with an ounce of common sense can see pretty darn clearly how this has gone in the past and will most likely go in the future. I no longer trust the FISA "secret court"....get rid of them; I don't trust the FBI, CIA, IRS, DOJ or any other agency. There is no "justice" in the United States any longer. The rich and powerful can buy what they want, say what they want and DO what they want (example from last night's debate: Bloomberg was happy to state he "bought" the House in 2018). I grow weary reading all the well-written articles like this one to realize you might as well be reading it sitting in the dark in a closet because no "light" will be brought to the situation other than to continue to hammer home the point that NOTHING WILL EVER BE DONE.

From the Gov:

I’m not so sure that’s true, though even if I thought it likely that none of those people would see the inside of a jail cell, I’d still feel obliged to report to you what’s going on from day to day. If they operated in complete secrecy, their efforts to destroy this country’s founding principles would be even more brazen and much more consequential --- quickly so --- believe me. (That’s why they did so much damage to the process when Hillary was assumed to be the next President: “Ha! No one will ever know what we’re doing!”)

Now we KNOW what they were up to, and still are. Unfortunately, they continue to have most of the media on their side, covering for them, which means we have to work harder to expose them, rather than conclude we're fighting a losing battle and get so sick of the whole thing that we just give up. That would be the worst thing to do –- the very thing they want us to do and are trying to get us to do. (How happy they would be if we said, "Millennials want socialism? Okay, they can HAVE it and then let them see how they like it when the nation goes bankrupt and they're eating the bark off trees!") I can think offhand of several reasons to be hopeful:

1. Hillary did NOT get elected. (By the way, have you noticed that every scandal seems to lead, in some circuitous way, back to her? Amazing, isn’t it?) This one's at the top of my list. Consider that if she had fulfilled her dream of becoming President, the curtain of secrecy would have been fully lowered and nailed to the floor, and we would never have learned about what was going on. Heaven knows what they would be doing now behind the scenes to cement their power forever. Thank the Lord that we dodged that bullet; it was the kind of ammo that explodes inside its target and destroys vital organs with no hope of recovery.

2. Trump DID get elected, in spite of The Swamp's lying and spying, and he’s likely to be re-elected (though we must never take that for granted!) To cite just one accomplishment relevant to my argument, he’s made great strides with judicial appointments, and he needs the opportunity to do much more in that area. In fact, that's likely the biggest reason of all that the left wants him gone.

3. With luck and hard work –- this is where we as Americans need to put our effort –- the House will change hands with the upcoming election, and we can get down to the business of reform after two years of Schiff and Nadler and impeachment madness. (This is so important. Consider that the Democrat-led House is currently working on the bill to re-authorize the FISA process; too bad Republicans aren’t in charge of that right now!)

4. At last we have an attorney general who is set on getting to the bottom of what has gone wrong and, like the President, has the strength to stand up to the partisan attacks against him, which will become even more vicious in coming months. His appointment of John Durham to quietly and methodically lead the criminal investigation into the FBI/DOJ/CIA and “Crossfire Hurricane” appears to have been a masterful move.

5. Along with Durham and his team inside the government, we also have investigators such as Lee Smith and John Solomon in the private sector who refuse to stop digging. As “60 Minutes” doesn’t do its job any more, we should be especially thankful for people like him --- and for their publishers. The success of podcasters such as Dan Bongino and numerous others also gives me reason to hope. Leftists certainly are fighting to control social media --- along with everything else they want to keep a lid on --- but what does not kill us makes us stronger.

That’s five reasons, off the top of my head, not to despair. Something else I just thought of: the American people. I think we still have enough voters with sufficient brains to see that the left has gone off the rails at 200 miles an hour. (Anybody who watched the lineup of Democrat candidates in Tuesday’s embarrassing train-wreck "debate" could see that.) And, instinctively, most of us still react with horror at the idea of a two-tier justice system and government authoritarianism in general. This next election will likely tell the tale. Don’t give up, Melana.

I’ll close with this helpful comment from Don:

Actions and comments about Roger Stone by Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson shows that President Trump will need another 4-year term to just to drain the judicial swamp. How many more swamps are there?

From the Gov:

Thanks, Don. Four more years!

About that "Green New Deal"

February 27, 2020

Here’s some sobering news for anyone who thinks it’s urgent to pass the “Green New Deal” to save the Earth (reminder: it was originally dreamed up as a plan to remake the US economy into a socialist fantasy, with “Oh yeah, and save the Earth" added later as a sales tactic), and who really believes the banana oil that “billionaires and corporations” will pay for it.

A study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Power the Future, and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty estimated the costs of the plan in electricity generation, shipping and logistics, new vehicles and building retrofits in 11 key swing states: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

They found that on average, the Green New Deal would cost the typical household a minimum of $74,287 in the first year. But here’s the good news: annual costs fall to just $47,755 per household for each of the next four years (excluding Alaska), and down to a bargain basement $40,706 each year thereafter. If you’re in Alaska, you’re not so lucky. Alaskans’ estimated cost for year one is $84,584 per household, and it only drops to $51,740 after year five.

Considering the massive compliance costs that will drive manufacturers overseas, ignite mass business bankruptcies and destroy the economy, good luck making enough money to pay your electric bill! Oh, wait, I forgot: billionaires and corporations will pay for it all! Whew! Never mind then…

A reader comment on my report of the violent death of Philip Haney listed numerous eyebrow-raising connections among Clinton/Obama cronies, media people, and powerful leftists. Many of these are known and have been documented, but there were a few curious ones we’d never heard before and decided to check out. Case in point: the one at the top of the list, a claim that Adam Schiff’s sister had married George Soros.

Actually, since George Soros is extremely old –- you’d have to saw him in half and count the rings to know for sure just how ancient –- the more plausible version of this claim is that Adam Schiff’s sister had married Soros’ SON. And, as it turns out, this version has made the rounds online as well. Is either of these stories true?

It’s tempting to believe this, because if Schiff had a Soros connection, it would explain a lot. While looking to see what might have been written about it, we encountered the question on a website called, which describes itself as “a non-partisan website where Internet users can quickly and easily get information about eRumors, fake news, disinformation, warnings, offers, requests for help, myths, hoaxes, virus warnings, and humorous or inspirational stories that are circulated by email.” Its mission is “to debunk propaganda, disinformation and misinformation, offer context and nuance to help you better understand where to look next, and trace the effects of so-called ‘fake news’ around the world so you can better understand how to tell the real from the false.”

A worthy goal, wouldn’t you say? As for the Schiff story, they note that George Soros’ son is indeed married to someone whose maiden name is Schiff, but, based on the 1992 wedding announcement, her parents have different given names from Adam Schiff’s parents. (Hard to imagine Adam Schiff having parents, isn't it?) Conclusion: different Schiff. It did occur to me that they don’t address the possibility that there is some more distant familial connection, such as a cousin. It would have been interesting to find that out, but since it wasn’t the exact rumor being addressed and would surely require a LOT of research that we honestly don’t have time for, we left it at that.

As you know, I’m all for sorting out and exposing fake news. But in its effort to do so, at least in this case, the self-described “non-partisan” Truth Or Fiction has actually helped perpetuate it. First, they offered their explanation as to why the false rumors about Schiff had started circulating: it was to discredit him “as congressional investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians heated up in February 2018.” Schiff, they said, had “authored a ‘rebuttal’ to a memo authored by U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, a California Republican and chairman of the committee...Schiff’s oppositional role made him a natural target for conspiracy theories and fake news designed by some to erode his credibility.”

But what this “fact-checking” organization fails to mention is that Schiff’s “rebuttal,” not Nunes’ memo, is the one that has been debunked, as Schiff eroded his own credibility with his outrageous lying. In his memo, Schiff himself was offering conspiracy theories and fake news, and Truth Or Fiction, if their mission truly is debunking fake news, has missed a great opportunity to point that out. It’s Nunes’ memo that is correct. If Truth Or Fiction is there to provide “context and nuance,” they could have done that here.

They mentioned that Trump tweeted about the Nunes memo at the time that it “totally vindicates” him in the Russia investigation. What they didn’t say is that Trump was right about that.

To be scrupulously fair, we might give them a small benefit of the doubt, as follows: Since the date on this Q&A is February 6, 2018, it’s likely they misread what was going on in the Trump/Russia investigation at the time (perhaps because of...partisanship?) and didn’t realize SCHIFF was lying out the rear end to create fake news and that Nunes and Trump were presenting real news. Now that we know Schiff lied, and since the internet is forever, it would be nice to see Truth Or Fiction go back to this page and provide an update on their answer, rather than perpetuate the implication that Republicans needed to make up false rumors to discredit him. Just a footnote, perhaps, to provide “nuance.” Something. In the interest of real news, of course.

With a few rare and now-gone voices of sanity, such as John Delaney, the Democratic Primary has largely resembled a Bizarro World auction where the participants bid against one another to see who can give away the most stuff for “free.”

“Free” is in quotes because, as every child should be taught and obviously, far too few are these days, there is no such thing as a “free lunch.” That’s been true since the dawn of time, and putting the word “Democratic” in front of “socialism” won’t change it, any more than calling useless and counter-productive gun laws "common sense" will make them common sense. Not even the schools’ “free lunch” program is free: taxpayers pay a lot for it, and the money often comes with government strings attached. Or a “quid pro quo,” to coin a phrase.

Just last night, Tom Steyer added paying reparations for slavery to the list, and earlier, Bernie Sanders tossed another new expensive “human right” on the pile: a $1.2 trillion plan called “Free Child Care and Pre-K for All.”

Personally, I can think of few ideas more chilling than every child from the age of three being put into an “education program” designed by Bernie Sanders. But I suppose we should be thankful that the cost of this one is “only” $1.2 trillion, or a little less than 1/4th of the entire current federal budget, rather than his typical plan that costs the entire US GDP.

I know that child care is very important. It’s a real problem for many low-income working people, and the government might have a role to play, although it should be on the state or local level, or better yet, handled by community organizations and churches. But spending nearly a quarter of the entire federal budget to create a new “human right” to free day care is what passes in Bernie’s mind for “common sense” government action that isn’t “radical” at all.

I know that Bernie knows the word “privilege” because when he recently declared health care to be a “human right,” he added, “It is not a privilege!” I’ve written before about how “progressives” can’t win arguments on facts or experience, so they win by rewriting the language (for instance, liberals, leftists, socialists and communists became too infamous as purveyors of tragically failed policies, so they magically became “progressives.”)

But some of us still care about the English language, and how words actually mean things. As children used to be taught, a “right” is something you are endowed with by God, such as the right to free speech. It doesn’t require anyone else giving up their rights to provide it to you. Making a speech in a public park is a “right.” Demanding that the government provide you with a free P.A. system is a “privilege.” Just as demanding that other people attend medical school or deal with government paperwork to spend their time caring for you while others pay higher taxes to cover the cost makes that a “privilege.” You may say that you think health care should be a privilege of citizenship, but by definition, it can never be a “right.” Bernie goes around finding new “rights” the way my grandkids find Easter eggs, but they don’t have a "right" to chocolate eggs: that’s a privilege of me being their grandpa.

And as long as I’m offering a remedial primer on rights, I’d also like to point out that the Bill of Rights doesn’t list rights the government gives to you. It lists rights with which God endows you and that the government has no right to take away from you.


As liberal media people start to panic at the idea of Bernie Sanders being the nominee, they’re finally starting to do some background research into his previous kooky statements (both the ones we’re all known about for years, and some that are more…exotic.) As they put it at the Instapundit blog, Bernie keeps telling you what he is; you should believe him. Mike Bloomberg reportedly plans to spend some of his riches on blasting this oppo research far and wide, like Bernie’s ideas on child care that should make anyone recoil at the idea of a government day care program created by him.

Even more concerning is Bernie’s admiration for communist dictatorships like Cuba, Nicaragua and the USSR. He claims he doesn’t admire “authoritarianism,” but socialism without authoritarianism would be like trying to make coffee without coffee beans. If the government controls production and decides what choices you get to make (and Bernie is on record as thinking capitalism gives you too many choices of deodorants), then if someone disagrees and wants to make a different choice than what the government approves, somebody has to stop them to protect the “system.” Enter the government guns and gulags.

But Bernie is the eternal optimist, always able to see the daisy growing out of the pile of bull manure. First it was Castro’s “literacy program” (which forced people to read communist propaganda), and now he’s praising communist China for lifting more people out of extreme poverty than any other nation on Earth (too bad about all the genocides, forced sterilizations and destroying of churches.)

Actually, it’s socialism and communism that put people into extreme poverty, and capitalism that’s lifted more of them out of it than at any time in history. Even China made the advances they did by allowing limited amounts of capitalist free enterprise (but not too much freedom: see “Hong Kong.”)

Bernie’s go-to model for the US is Denmark, and other “Democratic socialist” Scandinavian nations. But there are things rotten in Denmark, and Bernie just can’t smell them. The problems with his argument include…

(A.) The Nordic nations are not socialist, as their leaders adamantly insist; by some metrics, Denmark has more economic freedom than the US. Norway’s prosperity is largely thanks to off-shore oil wells, which Bernie would surely ban…

(B.) These nations are actually rolling back some of the socialist-lite programs they instituted after realizing they were unaffordable and were eroding their people’s traditional work ethic (if you’ve ever heard the stories about “Norwegian bachelor farmers” and Lutherans on “Prairie Home Companion,” you know that if socialism won’t work on Scandinavians, who are raised to work hard and expect little in return, then it won’t work anywhere.)

(C.) The image of all those Danes who are happy as larks to pay exorbitant taxes in return for those amazing government services is a delusional fiction. Read this commentary from the Bookworm Room blog, on a book written by someone who’s lived there. Example: under that fantastic Danish government health care, the author visited an emergency care center and was told he’d have to make an appointment.

One of the comments on this story includes a great quote. The writer says that when the media were touting Denmark as the “happiest place on Earth” (they’re actually #2 in Europe behind Iceland in anti-depressant consumption), he met a Danish couple applying for US citizenship. When he asked why the Danes they were leaving behind were were so happy, she replied, “Because their expectations are so low.”

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to replace “Keep America Great” with “Lower Your Expectations.”


The stock market is taking a dive this week amid fears of the coronavirus spreading (or as President Trump called it, “a buying opportunity.”) It’s too early to know just how bad this could become, but it’s also too early to be launching panics over it. Here’s a little information that might help put things in perspective.

Investigative reporter Lee Smith, author of the highly recommended book THE PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, has a new must-read installment on the George Papadopoulos case, based on newly declassified FBI memos finally released under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

Recall that Papadopoulos spent 14 days in prison after taking a plea agreement. In the sentencing memo that led to his imprisonment, attorney Aaron Zelinsky --- as it happens, he's also one of the four Mueller attorneys who resigned from the Roger Stone case in protest when Attorney General Bill Barr revised the outrageously punitive sentence they’d recommended --- along with fellow special counsel prosecutors Jeannie Rhee and Andrew Goldstein, accused Papadopoulos of telling lies that “undermined investigators’ ability to challenge the Professor [Mifsud] or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States.”

But now that the 302s [official notes] from their interviews with Papadopoulos have been declassified, we can see that the truth was just the opposite. Papadopoulos provided his interviewers with information that would have enabled them, in Smith’s words, “to confront Mifsud with conflicting testimony on a point of critical importance to the stated purpose of the Russia collusion investigation before the professor’s departure.” This was not even mentioned in the “statement of offense,” or plea agreement.

Instead, the Mueller attorneys lied about Papadopoulos, saying that “the defendant’s false statements were intended to harm the investigation, and did so.” His lies “negatively affected the FBI’s Russia investigation,” they wrote, “and prevented the FBI from effectively identifying and confronting witnesses in a timely fashion.” We know now from these 302s that the truth was just the opposite: Papadopoulos had been cooperative.

Papadopoulos told them when and where he thought they might be able to catch up with Mifsud. Smith doesn’t make this observation, but it seems to me that if the FBI didn’t take advantage of these opportunities, it’s because they CHOSE to leave him in the shadows and blame Papadopoulos for their failure to get him on the record. They were depending on the story of Mifsud’s contacts with Papadopoulos and his tale of the Russians having Hillary’s emails to serve as the “predicate” (legal justification) for opening “Crossfire Hurricane” and spying on the Trump team. (We now know that it was really the Steele “dossier.”) Better to leave Mifsud off in some foreign country and NOT involve him further in any official capacity. That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it.

Anyway, the FBI investigators/Mueller prosecutors (same crew) lied outrageously about Papadopoulos, and Inspector General Michael Horowitz calls them out in his report. Lee Smith’s report includes Appendix 1 from the IG report, showing that their “factual assertions” about Papadopoulos in the FISA warrant were inaccurate. Even then, "inaccurate" suggests they might have made a mistake; this was no mistake.

If you have the time, you might like to read the Executive Summary of Horowitz’s report.

Finally, as long as we’re talking about sneaky partisans masquerading as law enforcement officials, here’s an update on Amy Berman Jackson, the judge who presided in the Roger Stone case and who has just decided that in spite of the outspokenly anti-Trump jury foreperson in his case (and her own extreme bias, displayed in her bizarre courtroom speech), Stone didn’t deserve a new trial. He absolutely does –- it should have been automatic –- and conservative media outlets are justifiably taking her apart. But it seems Judge Jackson isn’t taking criticism very well. I like what Judge Jeanine Pirro had to say about her reaction in a segment on Tuesday with Tucker Carlson. Go get ‘er, Judge!

Bernie's new rights

February 26, 2020

With a few rare and now-gone voices of sanity, such as John Delaney, the Democratic Primary has largely resembled a Bizarro World auction where the participants bid against one another to see who can give away the most stuff for “free.”

“Free” is in quotes because, as every child should be taught and obviously, far too few are these days, there is no such thing as a “free lunch.” That’s been true since the dawn of time, and putting the word “Democratic” in front of “socialism” won’t change it, any more than calling useless and counter-productive gun laws "common sense" will make them common sense. Not even the schools’ “free lunch” program is free: taxpayers pay a lot for it, and the money often comes with government strings attached. Or a “quid pro quo,” to coin a phrase.

Just last night, Tom Steyer added paying reparations for slavery to the list, and earlier, Bernie Sanders tossed another new expensive “human right” on the pile: a $1.2 trillion plan called “Free Child Care and Pre-K for All.”

Personally, I can think of few ideas more chilling than every child from the age of three being put into an “education program” designed by Bernie Sanders. But I suppose we should be thankful that the cost of this one is “only” $1.2 trillion, or a little less than 1/4th of the entire current federal budget, rather than his typical plan that costs the entire US GDP.

I know that child care is very important. It’s a real problem for many low-income working people, and the government might have a role to play, although it should be on the state or local level, or better yet, handled by community organizations and churches. But spending nearly a quarter of the entire federal budget to create a new “human right” to free daycare is what passes in Bernie’s mind for “common sense” government action that isn’t “radical” at all.

I know that Bernie knows the word “privilege” because when he recently declared health care to be a “human right,” he added, “It is not a privilege!” I’ve written before about how “progressives” can’t win arguments on facts or experience, so they win by rewriting the language (for instance, liberals, leftists, socialists and communists became too infamous as purveyors of tragically failed policies, so they magically became “progressives.”)

But some of us still care about the English language, and how words actually mean things. As children used to be taught, a “right” is something you are endowed with by God, such as the right to free speech. It doesn’t require anyone else giving up their rights to provide it to you. Making a speech in a public park is a “right.” Demanding that the government provide you with a free P.A. system is a “privilege.” Just as demanding that other people attend medical school or deal with government paperwork to spend their time caring for you while others pay higher taxes to cover the cost makes that a “privilege.” You may say that you think health care should be a privilege of citizenship, but by definition, it can never be a “right.” Bernie goes around finding new “rights” the way my grandkids find Easter eggs, but they don’t have a "right" to chocolate eggs: that’s a privilege of me being their grandpa.

And as long as I’m offering a remedial primer on rights, I’d also like to point out that the Bill of Rights doesn’t list rights the government gives to you. It lists rights with which God endows you and that the government has no right to take away from you.

Project Veritas has released another undercover video, this time of ABC reporter David Wright. In it, Wright describes himself as a socialist and espouses several far-left views on topics such as national health care and income inequality. He also calls President Trump an unrepeatable name and says, “We don’t hold him to account,” but admits, “We also don’t give him credit for what things he does do.” And Wright complains that “in television, we have lost any sense of context” and “the truth suffers, the voters are poorly informed.”

ABC claimed Wright had been tricked into speaking without knowing the camera was on, but they suspended him and said he would later be reassigned away from politics. The network said, “Any action that damages our reputation for fairness and impartiality or gives the appearance of compromising it harms ABC News and the individuals involved.”

As Ed Driscoll at Instapundit points out, this is the same network that has former Clinton right-hand man George Stephanopoulos as an impartial news anchor and that recently got a former ABC staffer fired from CBS for allegedly leaking an ABC reporter's complaints about ABC covering up for a politically-connected pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. So if their reputation for fairness and impartiality is stained, don’t look at Project Veritas.

Bonus: Driscoll also notes that Will Sommer of the liberal site Daily Beast called Wright’s suspension “ridiculous,” claiming that he just made “the same critiques of the broadcast news business that you’d hear in any journalism class.” That’s probably true, but the fact that it was opinions on current events from the standpoint of a self-admitted socialist probably says a lot more about current journalism classes – and the state of “journalism” itself – than Mr. Sommer realizes.

The South Carolina Debate

February 26, 2020

Today is Ash Wednesday, and yesterday was Fat Tuesday. But in honor of the Democratic debate, it was renamed “Body Positivity Tuesday.”

If you had last night’s Democratic debate on in the background, between all the yelling, talking over each other, badmouthing Trump and audience applause for crazy socialist ideas, you might have mistaken it for a prime time episode of “The View.”

I could link to a video of the entire debate for you to watch, but I have a reputation as a nice guy, and that would blow it. So here’s a Washington Post recap that offers the “highlights” (all three-and-a-half minutes of them, which is pretty generous):

Here’s a fairly dispassionate recap by the Daily Caller:

And here’s PJ Media’s reliably sharp and brutally funny live blog:

With most of the candidates yelling at each other, talking over one another and completely ignoring the time limits (the moderators were about as effective as substitute teachers at Rock ‘n’ Roll High School), precious few moments of substance made it past the din. In short, they’re going to make the economy a whole lot better than it is now (with record low unemployment and 90% of Americans happy with their lives) but they’re not specific on how…They’re going to provide us with everything free and it will pay for itself…And Trump is very bad; very, very bad indeed, and they’re going to be a lot better than him.

The closest they came to discussing a real issue came after they’d all attacked Trump for allegedly failing to stop the spread of the coronavirus, and Amy Klobuchar was asked if she would block people with the disease from the entering the US. She dodged the question, presumably because it would have forced her to side with Trump and suggest that not everyone in the world has a right to waltz across our borders. Then she might have had to concede Trump is right that we shouldn’t let people with exotic Central American diseases bring them here, either. By dodging the question, she signaled that Democrats, for all their bluster about Trump’s handling of the coronavirus, would rather let it become a pandemic in the US that secure our borders against anyone.

A few other “highlights” included Bernie Sanders claiming his massive, budget-busting socialist ideas aren't "radical" at all, and Mike Bloomberg committing a “faux pas,” which I’ve defined before as a politician accidentally telling the truth. He was bragging about how he’d given $100 million to help elect the new House Democrats who voted to impeach Trump, and added, “I bought--- I got them.” No wonder he thinks he can buy this election; he figures he already bought quite a few, so what’s one more?

Elizabeth Warren went after Bloomberg over a claim that he once told a pregnant employee to “kill it.” She also reminded us that she lost a teaching job for being pregnant (the records show she was offered a new contract, but turned it down, but who are you gonna believe, her or some old employee records?) This was stunning, considering she and everyone else on that stage is a staunch promoter of abortion right up to, and in some cases beyond, the moment of birth. And incidentally, a baby isn’t an “it,” it is a “he” or a “she.” Sorry, but that’s binary.

(On that subject, CNN seems to believe there’s a yuuuuuge difference between a baby and a “fetus that was born during an abortion.” If the “fetus” survives, how long will they call it a “fetus”? Will “it” still be a fetus when it graduates college?)

Joe Biden actually had a pretty good night, by his standards. Supporters were concerned because he often goes off talking gibberish, and on the eve of the debate, he told voters he was running for the United States Senate, and if you don’t like him, “vote for the other Biden.” No, really…

But be fair: is that any worse than the stuff said by all the others on stage last night? That was a lot of gibberish, too; it was just glib gibberish. It was glibberish.

Joe didn’t get many words in, but at least he appeared more adult than the others by actually observing the time limits. He even had the best moment of the entire debate when he stopped in mid-rant when his time ran out, then asked, “Why am I stopping? No one else stops. It’s my Catholic school training.”

Unfortunately, he undid a lot of that good will with an epic Bidenism, by claiming that since 2007, 150 million people have been killed by guns. I have a feeling we would have noticed that, since it’s about 40% of the entire US population. That’s almost as many people as Thanos wiped out in “Avengers: End Game.”

In fact, there are about 30,000 gun-related deaths in the US per year. Of course, that’s 30,000 too many. But about two-thirds are suicides, and removing guns likely wouldn’t prevent them. Many of the rest are gang-related shootings in deep blue cities with strict gun control laws.

This debate is being called the last primary debate that will matter, since the rest fall after Super Tuesday on March 3rd, and the frontrunner will likely be set. Ordinarily, that might be true, but with the field so fractured, candidates hanging on even after the media declare them dead, and voters seemingly looking for “None of the Above” (Bloomberg obviously hopes to fill that slot, although Hillary might be dreaming of swooping in to take it herself), this could stay up in the air all the way to a brokered convention. Which, sadly, means my staff and I will probably have to watch the final debate on March 15th.

Although scheduling it on the Ides of March, the day when Julius Caesar was knifed in the back by a bunch of politicians, could be an omen of what might happen to whoever the frontrunner is at that point.

A P.S. on Tuesday’s Democratic debate: having just spent the past week in Israel, allow me to say the following on that subject…

1. No, Prime Minister Netanyahu is not a “reactionary racist,” and anyone who says that is demonstrating either vicious slander or gross ignorance. Looking at you, Bernie.

2. Yes, it IS up to us to decide where our Embassy in Israel will be located. President Trump had the courage to finally put it in the correct place, after other Presidents had long promised to and failed to act. Elizabeth Warren obviously disapproves, but doesn’t even have the courage to say so. Which one sounds more “presidential” to you?

On the very day Harvey Weinstein, Honorary Lifetime Member of the Casting Couch Hall of Shame, was finally convicted of rape, I have to admit I have incredibly mixed feelings about the #MeToo Movement.

Harvey Weinstein is a sexual thug who as a matter of course coldly abused women just starting out in their chosen profession. Throw the book at him. I wish the same book could be thrown smack in the faces of those who covered for him, as well as the low-lifes who did the same things he did and those who covered up for THEM. This sort of thing is as ubiquitous as plastic surgery in the entertainment business, Weinstein being just a particularly heinous example. Predation happens to both men and women in the acting field, though I’d guess more often to women, who are lucky if they escape the producer in the bathrobe. I’d love for the stereotype of the Hollywood mogul preying on aspiring movie stars to become a relic of a bygone era, like smoking sections in movie theaters.

On the other hand, I heard today that my best-male-friend-other-than-my-spouse has just been tossed out of a local business/community organization because of complaints from women about his behavior. There was no warning, no discussion, just...goodbye. His understanding is that certain women had complained to the leadership that something about his behavior made them uncomfortable.

This man is just about the last person anyone would expect to face an accusation like this. He is deeply religious, has four young-adult daughters he would protect with his life, and respects women so much he won’t even let his language go beyond PG-13 around them.

To show how bewildering it must be to be on the receiving end of such a complaint when one has not knowingly done anything wrong, I’m reprinting, with permission, an excerpt from the letter my friend sent to the group whose leadership has ousted him. I’ve edited out anything that could reveal identities, as that is not the point. This letter illustrates how someone feels who has been wrongly accused. My friend was first notified of his ouster last week, and he responded assuming it was some kind of mistake. Today he officially learned it wasn’t, and he sent the following reply...

Greetings Loved Ones,

This email is a follow-up message to one that I sent last week regarding leaving the Thursday morning group. The reason I sent that message was out of ignorance. I thought it was a mistake. Now I know better.

Today is my birthday. Also today, Harvey Weinstein was convicted of very bad behavior. Additionally, I spoke with *******, who explained to me that I’m being terminated from membership in the ******* because it is alleged that I have had inappropriate behavior and touching with several ladies in the group. Since the only thing I do with ******* is Thursday group, I have to assume that the ladies who’ve accused me are reading this letter. I categorically deny the behavior which I myself abhor. I’ve raised four daughters to adulthood, am a 20 year charter member of *******, have been working with ******* for forty years and been associated with the ******* for four years. Whatever you perceived that I did, it would have been so much better if you’d have just talked to me and given me an opportunity to fix whatever the problem was. I’m sorry if I hurt you in some way. Certainly, it was never my intention.

This kind of problem has the effect of seriously damaging an otherwise good reputation...Since I don’t know who my accusers are, I will never know who will speak badly of me whenever I go anywhere or do anything.

I don’t live or die by the Thursday morning group, and I’ve made some very good friends there, with whom I’ll continue to do business and referrals. As I leave, please don’t turn your back on [the children helped by a charitable organization they support]. They depend on you to be able to live. It’s amazed me that I’ve not had more sponsors come out of the group over the many years I’ve been a member...

God speed to all of you, may your businesses prosper, and may you always remember to love.



As you can see, the irony of having this happen to him the very day Harvey Weinstein was convicted is not lost on him. (It was also, sadly, my friend’s birthday.) Now, you don’t know this person and can only take my word, but believe me, he would never intentionally make a female colleague uncomfortable. I’ve seen him in social situations many times; he’s naturally friendly and outgoing and might offer a casual hug (with others around) or compliment someone (man or woman) for a stylish dress or cool tie. But this wasn’t a workplace situation; there’s no HR, no posted behavior code for employees. Within hours of sending this letter, he’d already received numerous letters of support from both men and women in the group.

I spoke with him at length about this today, and he understands that perhaps because of past experiences, a woman might be easily made uncomfortable, but he just wishes he could have been made aware, either by the woman herself (“Eh, I’m not really a ‘hug’ person”) or by leadership (“I thought I’d better tell you, there’s been a complaint about you being too outwardly friendly”). He would have respected that and behaved accordingly.

The way this was handled is just wrong, and, as a woman, I’m flat-out embarrassed by it. In the post-feminist age, are we capable of navigating interpersonal situations (at least in cases not involving a job or other power play) or are women fragile little flowers? I can see not wanting to confront one’s boss or attacker, but this innocent, friendly care-bear? Get real. And if the woman is, for whatever reason, too uncomfortable to talk to the person directly, can’t the leadership of this relatively small, local group bring members together to resolve such issues? As disappointed as I am by the women in this situation, that’s nothing compared to the way I feel about how the organization handled it.

So, where does my friend go to get his reputation back? He has no idea who accused him and has no recourse. He’s well aware of how word gets around, and since he’s a member of other, similar groups in the area, he wonders if he’ll be dropped from them, too. Will he be known as “the guy who got kicked out of *****”? Will false rumors spread that he groped women or propositioned them? Will it hurt the very worthwhile charity he supports? Honestly, the longer I go on about this, the madder I get --- probably much madder than the man this happened to, as he’s more forgiving than I am.

Harvey Weinstein is finally going to prison, and that’s a great consequence of the #MeToo movement. But my innocent friend deserved, at most, a heads-up to just be a little more reserved. He did not deserve what happened to him. And that’s a terrible consequence of the #MeToo Movement.

I have been working from Israel this week, where I gave a speech on Monday promoting the reelection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I described him, I think quite accurately, as not just a leader of Israel but a leader of the world, a Churchill in a world filled with Chamberlains.

Video of that speech has now been posted on Facebook, and I hope you’ll give it a look. Outside of our own elections, this is one of the most important elections to the US, since it will determine the future of our greatest ally in an area of the world where we need a strong ally like Israel to keep the peace. Netanyahu will insure that Israel remains strong.

And as a timely reminder to American voters, one of the Democrats’ leading Presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish himself, refused to attend next week’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) conference. He accused Israel of “bigotry” against the Palestinians for acts that amount to nothing more than basic self-defense.

Just hours after Sanders made those comments, Palestinian terrorists launched a rocket attack in the Israeli city of Sderot near the Gaza Strip. The rockets narrowly missed a Jewish school and damaged a playground just a few yards from the classrooms. Several people were treated for shock, but miraculously, no one was injured as there were no children on the playground. Not that the people who fired those rockets cared, since they would have celebrated any injuries to or deaths of innocent Jewish children.

I think Bernie Sanders and I have a very different definition of “bigotry.”


Many stunning photos have appeared from the President and First Lady’s tour of India, and as usual, there have been comments about Melania Trump’s fashions. She’s a former model and incredibly stylish, so I think she always looks fantastic, but there are also the usual catty, snotty remarks from liberals.

Some people complain that there’s too much coverage of how Mrs. Trump dresses, that it’s either too laudatory or demeaning and sexist. So Fox News did a poll. They found that the public is split, with 37% saying media coverage of her looks and styles has been fair, 35% saying it’s been too negative and 9% saying coverage of her fashions has been “too positive.”

Here’s my question: who are the 9% who think that coverage of Melania Trump by the fashion media is “too positive”? Fashion magazines are so lockstep leftist that three long years into her tenure as one of the most beautiful and fashionable First Ladies in history, I can’t think of a single major women's or fashion magazine that’s put her on its cover even once. It’s absolutely shameful, and a perfect example of how the editors of these magazines prioritize leftist politics over fashion or fairness to the point of acting like a gaggle of high school mean girls with big expense accounts. They’d rather put Lena Dunham on a fashion magazine cover than Melania Trump. And that’s “too positive” for some people?

I just want them to know that we all know that has nothing to do with fashion. We are well aware that if Melania were married to a liberal Democrat President, they’d be worshiping her like she was the second coming of Princess Diana. When they attack her fashion choices or act as if she doesn't exist, they aren't fooling anyone other than themselves.


There are two prominent names in this morning’s obituaries. Hosni Mubarak, the former strongman leader of Egypt who rule for 30 years before being deposed in 2011, has died in a Cairo hospital at 91 after undisclosed surgery.

And former NASA mathematician Katherine Johnson has died at 101. She was one of a group of African-American women whose genius at math helped build the US space program. Their contributions went unrecognized for many years until their story was finally told in the book and 2016 movie, “Hidden Figures.” A big Huck’s Hero salute and the gratitude of all Americans to Katherine Johnson, and our prayers and condolences to her family.


Pot, Meet Kettle: While Elizabeth Warren was blasting Mike Bloomberg for having female employees sign non-disclosure agreements, the Democratic Party was trying to keep the media from learning about any potential disasters in the Nevada Caucuses by requiring volunteers to sign…non-disclosure agreements!


Okay, I said I wasn’t going to run all of these “foaming-at-the-mouth leftists attack innocent Trump supporters” stories every day because there are so many of them, it would be all we ever got done. But to that anonymous Internet commenter who started this by claiming that most politically-motivated violence was perpetrated by people on the right, I can’t help adding this one.

Two details worth highlighting: there have been about 400 politically-motivated violent incidents against Trump supporters since September 2015 (those are just the ones that were reported; and it doesn’t take into account how many people have felt too threatened even to wear a MAGA cap or put a Trump sticker on their car or a sign in their yard, which is a blatant violation of their right to free speech.)

Also, note that this cowardly assault took place back in July but is only now coming to light because it took three months for Snapchat to turn the video over to police in response to a search warrant. Funny how when a Trump supporter posts a joke or meme that a leftist doesn’t like and they claim to feel “threatened” by it, social media sites somehow manage to take action overnight.

Bernie's dangerous ideas

February 25, 2020

It’s easy to dismiss Bernie Sanders’ grandiose pie-in-the-sky socialist ideas, but now that too many people are actually voting for him, let’s take a look at just how high in the sky his pie is flying (take that, Cole Porter!)

Bernie has been notably vague about how much his socialist transformation of America would cost or how it would be paid for, but like all purveyors of questionable, overpriced goods, he assures the suckers that they will pay for themselves in the long run. Greg Re at Fox News reports that Sanders released a “fact sheet” (quotation marks intentional) Monday night on the financials, and both the costs and his plans for paying them make the mind reel. It’s a ruinous cocktail of massive spending and government expansion into every corner of your life, paid for by a mountain of new taxes, mandates, lawsuits, deep cuts in defense, and wishful thinking.

For instance, he claims that the “Green New Deal,” which has been estimated to cost more than $90 trillion over ten years, would actually save $70.4 trillion over 80 years by averting climate catastrophe. No figures are given to back that up, but as Re notes, “the Trump administration's National Climate Assessment found that it was possible climate change could reduce the size of the U.S. economy by 10 percent by the end of the century, assuming no substantial changes in technology (including carbon-reducing innovations) or policy occur in the meantime.”

Aside from stressing the word “possible,” I’ll note that the end of the century is 80 years from now. Do you think there will be no policy changes or substantial changes in technology by then without massive government intervention (incidentally, in socialist nations, that always stymies technological advancement.) Think back to 80 years ago. How many changes in technology have there been since 1940? Today's young people laugh at the technology they see in reruns of "Friends"! And how many of the tech advances since 1940 have been led by the government? Sure, we learned a lot from the space program, but it was the private sector using that data that gave us home computers, smart phones, etc. It was only five months ago that the government finally updated the computers controlling our nuclear weapons systems so they no longer use floppy discs.

Elsewhere, Bernie seems to think there’s an endless supply of super-rich people just waiting around like cows to be milked by the government. Like a communist Old McDonald, he plans to have a wealth tax here and a wealth tax there, oblivious to the fact that people don’t get rich by letting the government take all their money. They will simply shelter it or send it overseas, which will pull it out of productive investments and kill US job creation, reducing federal revenue. But never fear: he’ll stop people from doing what they want with their own money by expanding and empowering the IRS and having a lot more audits (does that make you feel more secure?)

Some other “revenue enhancements” include suing and taxing the daylights out of oil companies (goodbye, affordable gasoline!)…a range of taxes on everybody to pay for “Medicare For All” (but don’t worry, he says this will replace what you currently pay for insurance – but it will also replace the choices you currently have with a one-size-fits-all government health care program)…and a “modest” tax on Wall Street stock and bond transactions that would not only hit everyone with retirement accounts, it also adds up to five times the average online brokerage fee. Ironically, the federal government won’t let brokers charge that much because they’d consider it to be ripping off consumers. But socialists always believe that when the government rips you off, it’s for your own good.

PS – This article also mentions some more blowback on Bernie’s praising of Fidel Castro for implementing a literacy program. Critics say that literacy was already rising in Cuba before Castro’s revolution, and the program he instituted was largely to indoctrinate Cubans by making them read communist propaganda. I wonder if Bernie’s response to that will be “So what’s wrong with reading nothing but communist propaganda?!”

And here’s a little more about what really happened to education in Cuba under the benevolent Castro regime…


Sotomayor dissents

February 25, 2020

I told you yesterday about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing a much-ballyhooed dissent in the “public charge” immigration ban case. Her major gripe was that the Trump Administration calls on the SCOTUS too often to make emergency rulings rather than let challenges to its policies work their way through the courts. Trump defenders (myself included) pointed out that this is because so many liberal activist judges keep imposing unconstitutional nationwide stays that are beyond their jurisdictions, in a politicized attempt to thwart policies that the President has the Constitutional power to impose and hog-tie his Administration. The problem here is not an out-of-control White House, but an out-of-control judiciary.

Now, as you knew he would, Trump himself has weighed in on Twitter. He said Sotomayor was accusing some of her fellow Justices of being biased in favor of him and trying to “shame” them into voting her way, but she never criticized Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg when she publicly made anti-Trump comments during the campaign. Trump said both Sotomayor and Ginsberg should recuse themselves from cases involving him, since they’ve both publicly expressed bias against him.

I’m sure this will spark the by-now ritualistic cries of “outrage” from Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself.) That would carry a lot more weight if we didn’t just go through an impeachment process where the same people were demanding that Mitch McConnell recuse himself from voting because he’d publicly supported Trump. Frankly, I assume that in today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere, nobody who isn’t forced by law to recuse him- or herself is ever going to do it.

Hey, speaking of that, Roger Stone’s Obama-appointed judge who praised an outrageously biased juror and accused Stone of things he wasn’t even charged with while sentencing him, just refused to recuse herself and let him have a new judge. Quote:

"If parties could move to disqualify every judge who furrows his brow at one side or the other before ruling, the entire court system would come to a standstill."

I don’t think there’s enough Botox in the world to hide a brow that furrowed.

AOC's double standard

February 25, 2020

“If It Weren’t For Double Standards…” Dept: A few years ago, before entering politics, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez bragged on social media about somehow being able to get her goddaughter into a good charter school, something that liberals like her want to abolish because they think private education alternatives to public schools undermine the power of teachers’ unions. Needless to say, they also undermine the school’s ability to indoctrinate students with leftist curricula because they empower parents.

I have never understood why anyone would think that the public school system should prioritize protecting teachers’ unions over the good of the students (but then, I don’t belong to a political party that’s heavily dependent on money and campaign volunteers from teachers’ unions.) The only purpose of a school should be to give the students the best education possible, and if it’s failing to do that, then something needs to change.

As hypocritical as this story makes AOC sound, though, I have to cut her some slack. I don’t blame her for wanting her goddaughter to have the best education possible. In fact, I want that child to go to a good charter school with a real economics class that won’t teach her to be a socialist. And AOC is hardly the only liberal politician to preach public schools for everyone else while sending their own family to expensive private schools. Frankly, I can’t think offhand of any liberal politicians who did send their kids to public school (you’re welcome to list them in the comments section if you know of any. And Elizabeth Warren’s denials don’t count.)

It’s only natural to want the best education possible for your own family. I just wish they'd quit fighting so hard to deny that right to other people's children.

Just as the Democrats have started in AGAIN, this time for 2020, with their frantic cries of “Russia, Russia, Russia!,” Lindsay Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has announced the formal start of his investigation this coming week into FISA abuse and the origins of the “Trump/Russia” hoax.

Sen. Graham told Maria Bartiromo on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES that he doesn’t “have jurisdiction” over the whistleblower (you know, ERIC CIARAMELLA) --- which would belong to the Senate Intelligence Committee, I suppose because of highly classified material --- but in light of the current DOJ’s decision that the last two FISA renewals to spy on Carter Page were illegal, he plans to call a long list of people to determine what Andrew McCabe and James Comey knew about the fictional nature of the Christopher Steele “dossier,” and how early in the process they knew it.

We still don’t have determinations on the legality of the original FISA warrant application and the first renewal; those are pending. But we know for sure that way back in January of 2017, Steele’s primary Russian “subsource” told four members of the DOJ and FBI that the dossier was nothing but “bar-talk and hearsay,” as Graham put it. For an investigation so important –- into a major-party nominee for President, no less –- how could the director and deputy director of the FBI not have known about this? (Answer: THEY DID, but they’ve already lied so much, I wouldn’t expect the truth from them about this, either.) Yet they kept pursuing their bogus investigation, to the point at which the whole issue was handed off to Robert Mueller’s special counsel. The four people who heard directly from the subsource are at the top of the list Graham intends to call.

Recall that the first FISA application was made after a previous effort to get a warrant, in July of 2016, was turned down by the court. On Sunday, Sen. Graham mentioned something quite interesting: It was McCabe, at that time the deputy FBI Director, who then advised the FBI Washington, DC, office to go to the New York office, saying “they have something” that might help them get a warrant. That “something” was the Steele dossier.

So….how did McCabe know about the dossier? Who had been in touch with McCabe about it? (We know that stupid dossier was being floated around by then-CIA Director and known liar John Brennan; if I were investigating this, I’d focus on him.) Also, did Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on the last FISA renewal, know that the dossier had already been debunked? How could he possibly not have known that?

The interviews with McCabe and Comey won’t be happening right away. Before Graham calls them, he needs to lay the groundwork. So his staff will be interviewing other witnesses first to assemble the necessary foundation.

We know they kept renewing the FISA warrant after they knew the dossier on which it had been based was a pile of trash. Why did they keep going –- not just within the FBI but two more years with a special counsel, when there was no evidence of any underlying crime? In Sen. Graham’s words, “This whole thing is fishy as hell.”

Over in the House Judiciary Committee, they’re supposedly looking at the FISA issue as well and are scheduled to work this week on a “markup” of new legislation. But under the control of impeachment-mad Jerrold Nadler, the focus has not been on determining what is wrong with that process. Ranking member Doug Collins wanted to have Inspector General Horowitz come in and give testimony about the problems he found with the FBI’s use of the FISA court, but that hasn’t happened. It’s no surprise that Nadler isn’t going to get into all that. “And now,” Collins said, “we’re going to put forward a bill that, really, I don’t think is going to address the issues. We’re gonna have some say about that; wait for what we’re gonna be putting forward. I think we’re gonna find ways to understand it. We need to restore the American people’s trust in [FISA], and if that cannot be done, then people will not have confidence that our intelligence communities are doing what they need to be doing and being able to use this court properly.”

Attorney General Bill Barr goes before the House Judiciary Committee at the end of March. Rep. Collins wants to know, as we all do, why Andrew McCabe was not charged. He also wants to make sure that the Durham criminal investigation has all the resources it needs to go forward. There are questions for FBI director Christopher Wray as well. But Nadler and the Democrats will be too busy trying to trash Barr as someone just trying to protect the President to drill down on these important issues.

My take-away: ELECTIONS MEAN THINGS. If Democrats hadn’t taken control of the House in 2018, we already would have been able to look into all of this. Instead of FISA reform, we got Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and the ginned-up impeachment. It’s so important that the House be taken out of their hands with the 2020 election.

As for the renewed “Russia” hysteria, the media will cooperate at every step with Democrats trying to spread it. Adam Schiff likely leaked information –- somebody did, and he’s the most likely suspect –- from a classified briefing to THE NEW YORK TIMES, who grabbed on to the old “Trump is an agent of Putin” idea” with no supporting evidence at all. Why would it surprise anyone that big-time leaker Schiff would leak classified information? Likewise, why would it surprise anyone that the Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese or anyone else might try to interfere with our elections, in 2016 or 2020 or any year, past, present or future? It would be weird if they DIDN’T. We know that Russia –- along with Ukraine and surely other foreign entities –- “meddled” in 2016 to create chaos (which we got), but keep this in mind: Foreigners may have “meddled,” but Democrats in our own government helped them when they “peddled”...the Steele dossier. And now they’re peddling the same garbage.

The media are ready partners in that effort, and this “Russia” story lingers and spreads like a political coronavirus. Here’s a piece from last December that seems even more significant now in light of what we know…

Now here’s a new story on the latest “peddling,” and it should surprise no one who is leading the charge…

Who was Philip Haney and why did he die?

I can offer some information regarding the first part of that question but none, at least yet, on the last part. “Brilliant, dedicated, devout” are some of the words being used by his stunned friends to describe Philip Haney, a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security who, according to one online tribute, “was characterized by tireless, intrepid, and in certain quarters unwelcome research and analysis about...Islam’s totalitarian code known as sharia and the supremacists who seek to impose it on all of us.”

Haney co-authored a book with Art Moore detailing the challenges of his work during the Obama administration called “SEE SOMETHING, SAY NOTHING: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.” His job was to identify individuals and organizations with terrorist links, and he made it clear he saw people promoting sharia law within this country as America’s “enemy within.” He was self-taught in Arabic and had spent many years studying the Koran and other sacred and judicial texts.

"We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for his life and innumerable contributions to the cause of freedom,” the tribute continues, “many of which will never be publicly acknowledged or otherwise made known to his countrymen and women whom he did so much to secure.”

This DHS “whistleblower” apparently did not receive whistleblower protection when he exposed some intricate ties inside the Obama administration to the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic groups they called their “outreach partners.” It might come as little surprise that for his efforts, Haney was reportedly subjected to various job actions, investigations and threats. Rep. Louis Gomert apparently helped him clear his name and retire with full benefits; Gomert’s glowing review of Haney’s book, in which he calls Haney “a modern-day hero” and “an honorable, truthful patriot,” can be found on Amazon.

Haney’s wife Francesca died last year after a long struggle with her health, but Haney had gone on with his life and was planning to be married in about a month.

Early unofficial reports said that Haney had been found on the ground next to his vehicle, killed by one gunshot to the chest, near the intersection of two highways in Drytown, California, not far from his home in the San Francisco area. The story is developing, with few details so far and some conflicting reports, but at the time of this writing neither suicide nor foul play can be definitively ruled out. National security specialist Ilana Freedman, who had worked with Haney, said in an interview Sunday with The Gateway Pundit that she was very surprised and that people who knew him wouldn’t believe he committed suicide. “He was a very religious man who believed suicide was a sin," she said. "A fellow associate I know said Philip stated several times that if he was accused of suicide not to believe it. He said that to a lot of people.”

She said he was working on a project involving some very serious allegations that was going to be published later this year. I’m passing this information along just to let you know this is what his friends are saying. But, as I said, no one can get inside someone else’s mind, and I would not want to come to a conclusion at this point based on speculation. I’ll have more information to share when this story passes that stage.

In the meantime, check out the interview Haney gave in June of 2016 with Sean Hannity.

Bernie Sanders wins in Nevada

February 24, 2020

Bernie Sanders notched up a decisive win in Saturday’s Nevada Caucuses. At this writing (early Monday morning), with 88% of precincts reporting (and why is it taking so long to count these votes? Do they let Bernie's economic advisers handle the math?), Bernie has 47.1% (13 delegates) with Joe Biden a distant second at 21% (2 delegates), followed by Buttigieg (13.7%, 1 delegate), Warren (9.6%, no delegates) and everyone else below 5% (Bloomberg didn’t participate.)

This sets up Bernie Sanders as the Democrats’ definite front runner. Biden is calling his second-place win a comeback, but he was leading in Nevada polls until recently. He’s hoping that South Carolina will bring him back into the lead, but it now seems harder than before, since Biden was counting on strong African-American support, and Nevada proved that Bernie is drawing a lot of that. Bernie also got the lion’s share of Latino support, which is surprising, since you would think Latinos would have friends or relatives from places like Nicaragua, Venezuela or Cuba who would warn them not to fall for the siren song of socialism.

In fact, they’re trying. In case you missed it, try this…

Or this…

If Sanders can keep his momentum going through Super Tuesday, it will be hard for anyone else to overtake him, since the Dems have no winner-take-all states. So even if Sander loses a state, he’ll still likely add to his delegate total (as with “doing away with the Electoral College,” the Democrats are always changing the rules to give themselves an advantage in the last election without thinking ahead to what it might do to them in the next election. Here’s a story from back in 2018, warning them that they were setting themselves up for a fiasco in 2020, but did they listen?...)

So now, Democratic Party leaders are panicking and their press agents in the “news” media are in meltdown mode over the possibility that the Party’s Presidential nominee won’t even be a Democrat but instead a ranting Socialist with fiscally ruinous policies, and a severely misplaced admiration of such communist Utopias as the USSR and Cuba.

Lest you think I’m slandering him, “60 Minutes” ran an interview with Bernie just last night, in which he praised Castro’s murderous, oppressive dictatorship, saying this, which echoes the praise of Mussolini, that at least he "made the trains run on time"...

“We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but it’s unfair to simply say everything’s bad. When Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program.”

On Twitter, Charles C.W. Cooke noted that “came into office” is a “euphemism for the ages,” while Cory Morgan writes, “Literacy is always a good thing in a totalitarian dictatorship. You want to be able to read those 50-year-old books donated to the prison library as you do your 15-year stint for being critical of the state.”

As for Bernie’s attempts to deflect his genuine admiration of communist dictators by pointing out that Trump has said nice things about Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, I’d like to point out that that’s just a negotiating tactic when he was trying to get them to sign a deal. It was summed up well by Will Rogers, who said that “Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.”

Personally, I have to congratulate Bernie. He’s dangerously wrong about absolutely everything, but he campaigned hard, he fought for the votes, and he won fair and square, which must be a real novelty for him in a Democratic Primary.

But that said, as any American should be, I’m also appalled that an open socialist would ever come within a thousand miles of a major party Presidential nomination. Some people think this is great for Republicans because Trump would beat him so badly, it would harm Democrats all down the ticket. But as much as I want to see the House flipped, I’d like to see it done because Americans realize that Republican ideas work better, not because one of the two major parties committed suicide, or because vast numbers of Americans have been so misled and miseducated that they would actually vote away their birthright for socialism’s poisonous, empty promises of “free stuff.”

I have long said that neither party has a monopoly on good ideas, and the country is healthier when we have a strong two-party system with open debate. If we lose that, it will be because the Democratic Party leadership flushed away their own legitimacy. If they’re panicked by Bernie’s success, what did they expect? They created it.

First, their attempts to rig the last primary for Hillary insured that Bernie would start 2020 with a strong organization fueled by fired-up supporters who felt that the Establishment had ripped them off and who were dead set on insuring that it didn’t happen again (this is part of the parallel I made recently between Bernie and Trump.)

And in a larger sense, the Democrats spent decades taking over the schools so they could spoonfeed socialism and blaming-America-for-all-the-world’s-ills to generations of kids. Now, they’re surprised that their party is being taken over by young radicals who hate America and don’t know how horrible socialism is? They’re like Dr. Frankenstein being surprised that the monster he created turned on him. Unfortunately, now the monster is threatening the entire village.

Let us hope Democratic primary voters come to their senses. If not, then we can look forward to the starkest choice in Presidential election history, a choice that really will be “the most important election of our lifetimes,” since it could determine whether America remains America or not.

The annual Economic Report of the President was released Thursday, a massive 435-page compilation of government economic statistics. Here’s the entire thing in PDF form, if you’d like a little weekend light reading:

If you’d prefer a bottom-line summary, try this: This economy is hotter than Satan’s steam bath. And no, former President Obama, you did not build that.

Obama and many Democrats are trying to claim that Trump merely inherited a booming Obama economy, which makes me concerned that they might be suffering short term memory loss. The Obama Administration ended just three years ago. Most of us remember it quite well. Remember when economists used to be surprised by monthly jobs reports because they were LESS than predicted rather than MORE than predicted? That was the Obama years in a nutshell. Hope, but no change.

The White House is going all-out to crush that narrative, and using the numbers in the new report as a sledge hammer...

They quote a number of stats to argue that there has clearly been a major upswing from the end of the Obama years, when many economists were warning we were overdue for a recession (the previous one officially ended in June 2009, but many Americans hardly noticed for years; and when they complained about stagnant pay, anemic job creation and low growth, they were told it was the “new normal,” manufacturing jobs weren’t coming back, and to get used to it.) Here are five facts from the new report that show the Trump economy is outpacing Obama’s far beyond what the “experts” predicted:

“Real GDP is 1.4 percent—or $260 billion—higher than projected…Real wage and salary compensation per household is roughly $2,300 higher than projected…Total non-farm payroll employment is 5 million higher than projected…The unemployment rate is 1.4 percentage points below projections…The labor force participation rate is 1.5 percentage points above projections.” That last figure means many people who gave up looking for a job under Obama are now back at work, which also helps reduce the need for government assistance such as food stamps.

It also notes that there were “turnarounds or improvements in the pre-election trends for homeownership, prime-age labor force participation, manufacturing employment, labor productivity, and net wealth for the bottom half of American households.” That's right, despite what you keep hearing from Bizarro World (i.e., the Democratic debates), this economy is working for the poor and middle class.

Again, in short: the report confirms that areas that were trending downward or incrementally improving under Obama all took off like a rocket after Trump took office. There are a lot of charts and graphs in the report, but if you want to summarize them all, imagine a chart showing the acceleration of a powerful speed boat with its motor going full throttle. Trump’s Inauguration would mark the point at which someone cut the rope tying the boat to the dock.

Roger Stone was sentenced by Judge Amy Berman Jackson as originally scheduled on Thursday, despite revelations about the vicious anti-Trump views and Democrat activism of the jury foreperson.

Stone, who is 67, didn’t receive the stunningly punitive seven-to-nine year sentence recommended by his prosecutors, but it’s still pretty substantial, especially considering that numerous others who have lied to Congress are still walking around free, profiting off book deals and contracts with CNN and MSNBC. Jackson sentenced Stone to serve 3 years and 4 months, pay a $20,000 fine, spend 2 years in supervised release and perform 250 hours’ community service.

But because of the allegations of juror bias and misconduct, she did suspend the imposition of all those punishments pending her ruling on Stone’s request for a new trial. Of course, if she grants one, those punishments are voided. President Trump could also pardon him.

The backstory: Prosecutors recommended an outrageously harsh sentence for Stone –- seven to nine years, when typically it would be about three –- and the DOJ reduced that to something approaching that average. Four prosecutors responded by acting like babies and leaving their jobs in protest (good riddance). Democrats went bat-nuts and accused AG William Barr of doing Trump’s bidding, ludicrously calling for him to resign or else be impeached. Trump complained in his tweets about the excessive sentence, but Barr says the DOJ decided to intervene before hearing anything from him.

Tucker Carlson noted on Thursday that Jackson is the judge who placed both Paul Manafort and his former business partner Rick Gates under house arrest pending trial, though neither was a flight risk or had any criminal history. It was also Judge Jackson who revoked Manafort’s bail and placed him in solitary confinement.

In her courtroom Thursday, she lit into Stone, saying he was “prosecuted for covering up for the President.” She said Stone lied because he knew that public disclosures that he was in touch with WikiLeaks would “reflect badly” on Trump. The left cheered her for this, but what she said is a lie. First, unless she’s one of those “certified authentic psychics,” she can’t possibly have known this was in his mind. Second, Stone was NOT actually in touch with WikiLeaks. Third, Stone was not charged with helping Trump cover up anything; there was nothing to cover up, as nobody associated with President Trump has been prosecuted for “colluding” with Russia or any related crimes, let alone has been found guilty of such crimes. In fact, a two-year special counsel investigation found no evidence of anything on Trump’s part that needed to be “covered up.” Question: how much hate must a federal judge have for the President to say such a thing in her courtroom?

Carlson also told his audience that Stone “would be on this show right now to respond, but he can no longer speak in public. Amy Berman Jackson has revoked his First Amendment rights.” Stone can be defamed mercilessly,” he said, “but if he dares to express his own opinion, Amy Berman Jackson will send him to jail immediately --- she said that.” Jackson banned Stone from speaking publicly, in ANY forum, about his case, and no one else can speak on his behalf. “...What you’re watching is the capricious authoritarianism of a Democratic activist wearing robes.”

Predictably, just the fact that Stone received prison time is being used by the media to suggest Trump himself is a criminal. The words of this judge enable them to continue their phony “Russia collusion” narrative, which is well past its expiration date and beginning to stink. The President still “colludes” with Putin, they say, and if we just keep digging, we’ll eventually find some piece of evidence that confirms it.

At least Jackson knew she’d better defer to Barr’s more reasonable recommendation and scale back the sentence, but Stone shouldn’t have been sentenced at all. After learning about the horrendous bias of the jury foreperson, Democrat activist Tomeka Hart, this judge should have had no choice but to start over with a new trial for Stone –- and a change of venue from Washington DC –- or else let him go after all he’s been through. Instead, she praised the jurors for having “served with integrity under difficult circumstances.” Maybe some did, but not all.

And tell me, given Hart’s activism and social media history, how did she get a seat in the jury box in the first place? She was so invested in the outcome, she continued expressing interest in the prosectors and the sentencing even after the verdict was reached; this was none of her concern.

Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign advisor who suffered his own legal problems as a result, was on with Carlson to ask people to sign the petition at, asking for Stone to be pardoned immediately. That’s “immediately,” meaning “now, not after the election.” Trump has said he wants the case to “play out to its fullest,” as he thinks Stone “has a very good chance of exoneration.” He’d like to see it go through the system, although “the system” has failed Stone thus far.

So I hope he listens to the many thousands who have signed and will sign this petition, as opposed to people like Adam Schiff, who is desperate to continue the “Russia” hoax and who, interestingly, talked about Stone in almost the same words Judge Jackson used: “Roger Stone was found guilty of lying to Congress. He did it to cover up for pardon Stone when his crimes were committed to protect Trump would be a breathtaking act of corruption.”

Of course, the Grand Poobah of the Great Russia Hoax, former CIA Director John Brennan, will do all he can to preserve the false narrative. Thursday, he tweeted: “We are now in a full-blown national security crisis. By trying to prevent the flow in intelligence to Congress, Trump is abetting a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow’s interests, not America’s.”

THE NEW YORK TIMES is helping maintain this fiction, having just reported that Russia plans to “meddle” in the 2020 election. I like what Trey Gowdy had to say about that: “I don’t know anyone who really thinks that Russia prefers Donald Trump to win over Comrade Sanders.”

Roger Stone sentenced to over 3 years in prison as judge slams him for 'covering up for' Trump

Clean it up fast California

February 20, 2020

Los Angeles is supposed to host the 2028 Summer Olympics, but there’s concern that the city’s ever-worsening crime, filth and homelessness will cause problems and reflect badly on America. We don’t want the athletes having to compete in new events, like “Outrunning Typhus” and “Jumping Over Garbage Piles.” This week, President Trump warned the city’s liberal leaders to “clean it up, fast,” and if they can’t do it themselves, the federal government will take it over and do it.

This isn’t the first time Trump has pointed out the disgusting conditions in liberal-run cities such as Baltimore and Nancy Pelosi’s home district of San Francisco, and threatened federal intervention to clean up the filth. But if he does, he’d better send some federal troops to protect the trash collectors.

Recently, Scot Presler, who started a group of volunteer Trump supporters who clean up filthy, neglected neighborhoods in leftist-run cities, led a clean-up effort in San Francisco. He noticed two things different from every other city they’ve helped to clean: 1. He’d never seen so much human feces on the streets. 2. It was the only place where Antifa thugs showed up to threaten, curse and protest them. Presler said, “I never thought I would see the day I’d be protested for picking up trash.”

Try to think of the people who keep voting to reelect politicians who allow crime, homelessness, trash and disease to get worse and worse the same way you think of elderly relatives who become hoarders and get enraged if you try to throw out their old pizza boxes or stacks of newspapers from 1987. You have to tread carefully with them because even though you can see they’re living in dangerous, unhealthy filth, they can’t, because they have a mental disorder.

Not long ago, I observed that the move was on in the media to discredit three people: Attorney General Bill Barr, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and investigative reporter/opinion writer John Solomon. These are all now in full swing.

THE HILL, where Solomon’s work used to appear, has just reported on an internal review of his columns they began in November of last year, after U.S. State Department officials in Ukraine criticized them during the Trump impeachment hearings. The review was quite a project, with working groups formed to look at each of 14 pieces Solomon had written for They “analyzed and discussed them at length, looking at possible corrections and/or context that could have been added at the time of the writings. They also “reviewed congressional testimony and other public documentation related to Solomon’s columns, as well as related media reports, to add editor’s notes to the columns regarding what has been learned since the columns were posted by THE HILL.” They also included some of Solomon’s “relevant public remarks” that were in response to critics.

Solomon was hired by THE HILL on July 10, 2017, as vice president for digital video (to launch Hill.TV), and wrote numerous news articles for them in 2017 and 2018. An editorial decision was made to label his work “opinion” after May 14, 2018. He left THE HILL on October 4 of last year.

When they announced that Solomon would be categorized as an opinion writer, I said that might actually be a good thing, as it allowed him freedom in connecting dots that a straight news writer doesn’t have. (If only more “journalists” who write their opinions were similarly labeled –- but that seems to happen rarely and only with conservative opinion writers.) Here at, we’ve continued to use his findings as we work to put the puzzle pieces together at our end as well.

THE HILL’s review focused on columns Solomon had written about Ukraine that reported on Joe and Hunter Biden and also members of the U.S. diplomatic corps there. Solomon was appearing frequently on Sean Hannity’s TV show, so his work had a wide reach. My staff and I often refer to his findings –- of course, our work is “opinion” as well, but we stand behind the facts we have used from his reports.

Of course, the issue of corruption in Ukraine, including the Bidens, is what led to “the phone call” between Trump and President Zelensky, the fake “whistleblower” report by ERIC CIARAMELLA, and the whole impeachment charade. (Note: since this is “opinion” and it’s my site, I’ll say that if I want to.) THE HILL followed a vetting process for his columns just as they did with the work of all their opinion writers, involving at least one and often two opinion editors. Solomon had to provide them information about his unnamed sources, identifying them and offering their relevance to the topic, and he had to supply copies of documents he’d referenced as fact or used in the formation of his opinions and conclusions.

No source cited by Solomon ever contacted THE HILL to demand corrections or clarifications –- with one exception: Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the George Soros-funded Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC). She wrote a column strongly rebutting Solomon’s criticism of AntAC and the U.S. embassy’s role in fighting corruption in Ukraine.

It seems to me that THE HILL’s report on Solomon actually compliments his work –- perhaps unwittingly –- when it says people might be confused into thinking it was news and not opinion because it’s long and detailed, contains a lot of facts and caveats and reads like a real news report! Imagine that. Most of what we read today is labeled “news” and reads like opinion; Solomon’s work is labeled “opinion” and reads like news.

Also, a couple of Solomon’s Ukrainian sources have been deemed unreliable by some State Department officials (remember that crew from the impeachment hearings?). Then-Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko had told Solomon he’d opened an investigation into alleged attempts by Ukrainians to interfere in the U.S. election in 2016, and also that then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovich had given him a do-not-prosecute list. “State Department officials, U.S. national security agencies and the Senate Intelligence Committee have concluded that Ukraine did not meddle in the 2016 presidential election,” THE HILL’s report asserts. “Russian government officials, who have denied meddling in the 2016 election, have pushed the narrative that Ukraine interfered in that U.S. election.”

This again. It’s verboten to say Ukraine was involved in the 2016 election, as there’s this odd premise that it had to be EITHER Russia OR Ukraine, not both, and it was Russia, so therefore it couldn’t be Ukraine. The candy mint/breath mint argument. Anyone who even entertains the notion that Ukraine tried to interfere is a heretic, a crazy conspiracy theorist. (By the way, I’m not so sure that everyone on the Senate Intel Committee is on board with the conclusion that Ukraine wasn’t involved.)

Also in the report: due to a translation error, it may not have been that Yovanovich had an actual written list. She may have “voiced” the list. And Lutsenko offered Solomon slightly different details in his “list” story than when he told it to a Ukrainian newspaper.

Solomon continues to stand by his columns on Lutsenko, Yovanovich and Ukraine meddling. He also denies allegations that he “smeared” Yovanovich, noting that supportive remarks about her by State Department officials were included in his columns. (Note: The same allegation about smearing Yovanovich has been used to damage Giuliani.) In testimony during the impeachment hearings, these stories were cited as part of the attempt to oust Yovonovich, an official who, in my OPINION, really needed ousting.

The report goes on to discuss Solomon’s columns about the Bidens, noting that “there has never been any proof of legal wrongdoing by the Bidens.” Sorry, but that observation belongs in the same category as “Ukrainians didn’t interfere in the 2016 election.”

One thing that should have been disclosed by Solomon but that has since been clarified is the fact that Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, who both have been involved with some of the key players in Ukraine, even representing the oligarch Dmitry Firtash, are also Solomon’s own longtime lawyers.

After reading the full report, I find nothing that should cast doubt on what Solomon has written. Editors at THE HILL were concerned that their policies regarding the “hybridization” of investigative reporting and opinion writing were causing confusion among their readership, as there are certain rules for reporters regarding full disclosure that Solomon hadn’t followed. My staff and I never had any problem understanding that Solomon’s writing was in the “opinion” category.

But they’ve revised their policies; the new rules are at the end of their report. And one of these is that “opinion” pieces aren't to read like news stories. Personally, I think Solomon’s fact-packed way of writing his “opinion” –- really an ongoing investigation –- is much more useful to someone wanting to understand the complicated goings-on in Ukraine than a run-of-the-mill opinion piece would be. It’s fortunate that he’s gone on to continue investigating and writing on his own.

The Hill's review of John Solomon's columns on Ukraine

About that Democrat debate

February 20, 2020

Mike Bloomberg’s deliberately vague campaign slogan is “Mike Can Get It Done,” and give him credit: last night, he did. He managed to finally make a Democratic debate entertaining just by showing up. (Also, to get this out of the way up front,: no, Bloomberg did not stand on a box. Lucky for him; if he had, Elizabeth Warren probably would have set it on fire.)

That’s not to say that it did his presidential aspirations much good. In fact, you could argue that his appearance in the debate was the most disastrous strategic misstep since Michael Dukakis said, “I’d love to ride in a tank, but do you have a helmet that’s 10 sizes too big?”

Bloomberg has been trying to sell himself like an “As Seen On TV” product, by blanketing the airwaves and Internet with wall-to-wall commercials. But by avoiding the essential steps of debating and campaigning (which teach candidates to listen to voters and assert and defend their positions), he made what his first big national appearance as a Presidential candidate hopelessly unprepared. Voters who’d been swayed by his ad onslaught must’ve felt like consumers who were considering paying $99.95 for a “miracle anti-aging cream” only to learn it’s just a can of Crisco.

Bloomberg proved that you can buy up all the airtime, consultants, social media “influencers” and zinger writers in the world, and it’s still no substitute for political experience, empathy or personal contact with working Americans. Campaign events and townhalls are where bubble-dwelling politicians (and billionaire wannabe politicians) who think they know how to run your life better than you do discover that, say, farmers, actually know more about a lot more important things than they do.

But Bloomberg didn’t just self-immolate his own campaign. He may have helped burn down whatever crumbling walls of the Democratic Party were still standing. Viewers, many of whom I assume were Democrats hoping to see any reason to convince them to stick to their party, instead saw a shoutfest in which all the candidates savaged each other when they weren’t attacking Bloomberg. Here are just a few of the things we now know about the candidates, and bear in mind, this is what they said about each other:

Amy Klobuchar prosecutes possibly innocent black youths, doesn’t know who the President of Mexico is, and her health care plan is a “Post-it Note.” Pete Buttigieg has billionaire contributors and is an unqualified small town mayor who’s memorized a lot of talking points and has a health care plan that’s a Powerpoint presentation. Bernie Sanders has scary crazy followers and is a famous socialist with three houses, as well as ruinous, commie economic and health care plans. Mike Bloomberg is a sexist who calls women "fat broads and horse-faced lesbians” and makes them sign non-disclosure agreements (he claimed that’s just because they didn’t like jokes he told, not realizing he was addressing a crowd who routinely destroy people’s lives for having told a politically incorrect joke a decade ago.)

There was much more, but that’s enough. You can see why Stephen Green at PJ Media compared this debate to the “food fight” scene in “Animal House.” Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit observed, “Everyone on the Dem debate stage seems unbalanced — they look so angry that they’re about to either hit someone or burst into tears. It’s bizarre.” (Actually, that sounds to me like the entire Democratic Party ever since Election Night 2016.)

The only thing they seem to be able to agree on is that Donald Trump must go, even though they also claim to want to help the poor and minorities, who are finally getting good jobs and raises under Trump. Also, Gallup recently found that 90% of Americans are happy with their lives, but don’t worry, these Democrats have a plethora of plans to reverse that.

As for Joe Biden, he started out strong but slipped into word salad mode as the evening wore on, but the relative lack of attacks on him to focus on Bloomberg was a sad, unspoken verdict on how far he’s fallen in the other candidates’ eyes, from frontrunner to “candidate not worth attacking.” Elizabeth Warren probably “won” the debate, but only because she did so much damage to Bloomberg, the political equivalent of cleaning your house by burning it down. Also, she seems to be locked into a single attitude: “righteous fury.” She claims to have posed for over 100,000 “selfies,” but I wonder if she’s scowling in all of them.

Even worse for the Party was when Bloomberg actually scored a few points, and they only illustrated how far off the rails the Democrats have gone. Like when he asked if he was the only one on stage who’d ever started a business, and the others could only stand there in silence. But easily the most cringeworthy moment came when Bloomberg slammed the other candidates for attacking capitalism, saying, “We're not going to throw out capitalism. We tried that, other countries tried that. It was called communism, and it just didn't work."

And the crowd audibly groaned and booed!

Imagine being a moderate Democrat voter and actually hearing your fellow party members boo someone criticizing communism. Is Donald Trump starting to look good yet?

Commentary continues below advertisement

Other Voices:

Naturally, President Trump weighed in on the Democrats’ debate…

And if you think I’m biased in my assessment of the debate, here are a few comments from the Democratic side. At the New York Times website, Times readers said this:

“I am finding this unbelievably troubling. The worst debate I have ever seen”…“I turned it off after 10 minutes, horrified”...“Too hyperbolic, too inaccurate, too gratuitously damaging, too much intentional misrepresentation, too much waffling when the opposite was called for”… “Horrid, debate tonight. This food-fight format is just awful. All the candidates should be forced to watch this in its entirety, so they don't repeat this ugly debacle”…“This is sickening, a real slug fest with everyone shouting at the top of their lungs as if the world needed a hearing aid. I almost wish I needed one so I could remove it. If these are the survivors of 9 debates, we're in worse trouble than I thought.”

Democratic political analyst Mary Anne Marsh ranked the winners and losers and finds only one winner, Warren. I think she forgot the big winner: Donald Trump.

My friend Van Jones, with whom I have very little in common politically, compared Bloomberg’s performance to the Titanic, with Warren as the iceberg. He astutely noted that “he just wasn’t ready. He was tone-deaf on issue after issue, and the reason why: he’s not been in those living rooms, he hasn’t been doing those town halls.”

And Justin Baragona of the Daily Beast may have had the best line on Twitter: “Bloomberg brought a wallet to a gun fight tonight.” Well, he is Mike Bloomberg; you can’t expect him to bring a gun to a gun fight.

On Tuesday night, the WASHINGTON POST reported that Attorney General Bill Barr “has told people close to President Trump --- both outside and inside the White House --- that he is considering quitting over Trump’s tweets about Justice Department investigations, three administration officials said...”

The spokesperson for the DOJ, Kerri Kupec, tweeted this in response: “Addressing Beltway rumors: The Attorney General has no plans to resign.”

We don’t know what’s really going on, as WAPO has often gotten stories wrong –- especially when they involve Trump –- and this is another one of those “anonymously sourced” stories. But no matter what the stresses are, Barr has got to hang in there. He is the Last Great Hope for reform in our justice system. If he goes, for whatever reason, I think we may as well pack it in and say goodbye to America as we once knew her. The two-tier justice system is still very much alive and well and must be leveled.

As Constitutional scholar John Eastman said on Tuesday’s THE INGRAHAM ANGLE, “The tensions may be high, but...the WASHINGTON POST is a bit of a propaganda tool, trying to create a wedge or [throw] gasoline on the fire of what might have been a minor tension, and trying to blow it into a major tension. I don’t think it’s a major tension, [judging from] President Trump’s comments today and Attorney General Barr’s spokesman as well. Look, the President is extremely frustrated with what’s gone on, and the unequal treatment under the law --- you know, the President’s friends ought not to get special favorable treatment, but neither [should] they be targeted for special UN-favorable treatment, merely because they’re the President’s friends. And that seems to be what was going on out of the Mueller investigation [and] the indictment of Roger Stone, [with its] grossly excessive sentencing recommendation...”

Eastman thinks Stone’s sentence recommendation “quite frankly, was a set-up,” citing a report that the night before they filed it, prosecutors falsely told their DOJ superiors that it was going to be relatively modest. So what happened? Seven to nine years in prison for a 69-year-old nonviolent offender is not even close to modest. Naturally, Trump was going to Tweet about this. Eastman suspects WAPO is trying to “fuel the fire” on this story.

He described the line a President has to walk: “The President is right; he has the Article II power. He is the head of the Executive Branch. But there’s a reason every President normally stays out of individual cases, because of concerns about interjecting politics in the normal functions of justice. And speaking of “interjecting politics,” he pointed out that “twenty to one, the Department of Justice lawyers backed Hillary Clinton over President Trump with their [campaign] contributions.” He also pointed out that the DC jury pool is “90 percent hostile to Trump.” Yes, there’s good reason for the President to be frustrated, but according to Eastman, “the President needs to redirect that frustration away from Twitter tweets in particular cases.”

In other words, if the President’s running commentary really is causing problems for Barr, he’s got to rein himself in a bit. There's too much at stake, and Barr needs some space to do his job. On the other hand, the media are surely blowing this up into much more than it might actually be. President Trump has acknowledged that his commentary has made Barr’s job harder, and he seems to support Barr one hundred percent.

But the Swamp and its accomplices would like nothing more than for the rumors that Barr might leave his job to be true. That’s the story they want to tell, so it’s the story they WILL tell. Barr is their worst nightmare. We don’t know if there will be accountability for those who abused their power, but if Barr goes, chances of that are slim-to-none.

Just look at what we have going on at the moment. In the Roger Stone case, even though the jury foreman at his trial has revealed herself as an outspoken anti-Trump zealot, presiding Judge Amy Berman Jackson has announced that he will still be sentenced on Thursday as scheduled. That is stunning; Roger Stone absolutely deserves a new trial, as there is just no valid argument that his conviction resulted from a fair trial. It’s hard to believe the judge didn't dismiss the case entirely or at least order a new trial for Stone. Unless she’s planning to offer him probation --- which seems very unlikely --- this is a travesty of justice that Stone’s lawyers surely will appeal.

Then there’s the Michael Flynn case. As we reported yesterday, Barr has appointed federal prosecutor Jeffrey Jensen to review it, and on the heels of that, Flynn attorney Sidney Powell has just filed a new brief to dismiss the case “for egregious government misconduct.” Here are the details of this breaking story.

We also had the story yesterday about Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz’ claim that he has evidence President Obama personally directed the FBI to open an investigation at the request of leftist/globalist billionaire megadonor George Soros. (In his Tuesday podcast, Dan Bongino speculated that the “someone” was a Ukrainian oligarch named Dmitry Firtash, a business rival of Soros.) So it seems some investigators are finally sniffing around the Top Dog (Obama, of course --- or is that Soros?).

Barr has noted that the intelligence agencies have come to identify “the national interest with their own political preferences.” No kidding. We knew that for years they were wary of Michael Flynn because he wanted to limit and downsize them (and we’ve seen what happened to HIM). The problems are bad enough that some are even recommending abolishing the CIA and the FISA court entirely. Here’s one very detailed article about that, for when you have some time…

Abolish CIA & FISA

Going through the letters I get, it’s dismaying to see readers giving up on ever seeing accountability. I think we’re going to see it eventually, and possibly some tremendous changes in the system. YES, it takes a long time; the wheels of justice have to slog through vat after vat of molasses. Resistance will never let up. And along the way, it’s hard to see things like Judge Jackson’s latest decision on Roger Stone and the ruthless pursuit of Michael Flynn when serious liars and abusers of power go unpunished. It’s maddening and discouraging.

But as responsible citizens of a republic, we have to make ourselves look. The biggest take-away for all of us has to be this: “Elections have consequences.” The judge in Stone’s case was appointed by Obama. Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder were appointed by...Obama. Most of the State Department holdovers worked under Hillary. Congress is majority Democrat and will NEVER stop its insanity and compulsive impeaching until they are drop-kicked out of the Capitol building and down all those steps. Most importantly, if President Trump doesn’t get a second term, things will go right back to the way they were in the summer of 2016 when Hillary Clinton was the “anointed one.” Business as usual.

We can’t let that happen.

Trump uses his pardon power

February 19, 2020

Unlike other Presidents, President Trump isn’t waiting until his last day in office to issue pardons so he can avoid the political heat. Instead, he’s taking advantage of his boost in approval ratings from the failed “impeachment” stab at him to issue several pardons seemingly designed to make his opponents have a meltdown (but since they have a meltdown every day, who cares anymore?)

Trump commuted the 14-year sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat who’d served seven years already for trying to obtain favors in exchange for appointing someone to fill Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat (Corruption in Illinois politics?! Say it ain’t so!) He also pardoned former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty to tax crimes and lying to the White House; financier Michael Milken, who spent two years in jail in the early 90s after prosecutors alleged his tactics were "criminal schemes," and who has since devoted himself to philanthropy and medical research; and former San Francisco 49ers owner Edward DeBartolo Jr., who pleaded guilty in a gambling scandal. More details are here…

Here’s a story about the former NFL greats who came to the White House to thank Trump for pardoning DeBartolo…

(FYI: Elsewhere in San Francisco sports, former Giants pitcher Aubrey Huff claims he was banned from a 10-year reunion of the World Series team for supporting Trump. They’d better hope their team owner never needs a pardon.)

And here are some comments from Andrew McCarthy about why Trump might have chosen to pardon some of these people, and the message it sends. One message: it’s a perfect way to spotlight the stunning disparity in justice between the way people like Blagojevich, Kerik and Milken were pursued without mercy by the DOJ, while DOJ insiders like Andrew McCabe and James Comey (who actually pressed their prosecutions) were allowed to walk away scot-free from their dishonest actions.

If Comey and McCabe ever do face justice, I wouldn’t count on Trump for a pardon, so that means they won’t be out until at least 2025. As for all the liberal talking heads screaming about Trump’s OUTRAGEOUS abuse of Presidential pardon power, I suggest they Google the name “Marc Rich.”

At this link, a California CPA and lifelong Democrat writes an open letter to her state government about AB5, the new law that’s putting up to 2 million contract workers out of business (for their own good, of course) and forcing businesses to send those jobs out of state. She lays out the problems and asked incredulously, “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?” This is based on the groundless assumption that California's current political leaders are capable of thinking. Since she seems to believe this will be resolved in a one-party state, and she gives no hint of ever considering any other way of voting than reelecting Democrats, I have to ask, “What are YOU thinking?”

Meanwhile, across the nation in that other blue paradise, New York, the recent legalization of crime by abolishing bail continues to yield completely predictable consequences. This idiotic law has a new poster child, Charles Barry, who’s served six terms in state prison but now knows all the cops can do is hold him for 36 hours, then let him go. So he’s allegedly gone on a one-man subway crime wave, including charges of snatching cash from people trying to use Metrocard machines.

Barry is up to 139 arrests (at this writing) and is completely unfazed. As he was recently led away by cops, he shouted at a New York Daily News reporter, “I’m famous! I take $200, $300 a day of your money, cracker! You can’t stop me!...Bail reform, it’s lit! It’s the Democrats! The Democrats know me and the Republicans fear me. You can’t touch me! I can’t be stopped!”

Of course, he could be stopped, just as California’s government could be stopped from passing insane laws that destroy people’s jobs and strip them of their rights. But that would take the people who are writing these stories and suffering these horrible consequences to make the mental connection between the awful policies that are making their lives miserable and their habit of voting for anyone a (D) after their name. What do you think the odds are of that?

Double Standards Department

February 19, 2020

From the “If It Weren’t For Double Standards, They’d Have No Standards at All” Dept: Byron York at writes about all the people who demanded, promoted, cheered on and participated in constant investigations of Donald Trump and all his associates, claiming that was a vital function of protecting our precious democracy. But now that those investigations have been exposed as politically-motivated, illegally-conducted and shadily-sourced, and the people who launched them are themselves under investigation, suddenly, investigations are a horrible partisan assault on our precious democracy.

The very same people who put other people and their families through an expensive ordeal are also now complaining about how unfair it is that they’re being put through an expensive ordeal. As Rhett told Scarlett in “Gone With The Wind,” “You’re like the thief who isn’t the least bit sorry he stole, but he’s terribly, terribly sorry he’s going to jail."

The Potomac River is in danger of being flooded with crocodile tears over AG Barr’s legitimate and justified investigations, but as York points out, none of the people doing the crying were the least bit concerned when the DOJ was targeting their political opponents with frivolous, partisan and unfounded investigations for the past three years.

And why go back only three years? Does anyone seriously think that the political weaponizing of the federal bureaucracies only started when Trump was nominated? At The Federalist, House Oversight Committee member Rep. Chip Roy gives us a little history lesson on the politicizing of the Justice Department, and reminds us of eight major examples of it under Obama alone.

Joining the transparently self-serving calls for Attorney General Barr to resign was Joe Biden, who calls Barr’s recommendation (not an order, just a recommendation that the judge is apparently going to ignore) for a lighter sentence for Roger Stone “the greatest abuse of power I have ever seen.”

I think we’ve all noticed that Joe has a very hard time keeping historical events straight in his memory, so maybe he should read the article by Chip Roy for a refresher course on what real abuse of power looks like, as exercised by the Administration he was recently a part of.

It’s also recommended reading for the editorial board of the Washington Post, which recently denounced Barr by describing him as Trump’s “wing man,” apparently forgetting that former Attorney General Eric Holder once proudly described himself as Obama’s “wing man,” and they apparently thought that was pretty cool.

Since Holder has also recently been denouncing Barr over false accusations that he’s doing what Holder bragged about actually doing himself, maybe he should read that Chip Roy article, too.

I think we need an investigation to see if someone dumped some sort of amnesia tonic in the DC water supply.

Mike Bloomberg is learning every day that no matter how much money you have, you can’t hide behind a barrage of commercials and dodge the ritual vivisection of your past. That just comes with the territory of being a Presidential candidate. His latest verbal landmines to bob to the surface:

In 2011, while promoting an initiative to help minorities in the workplace, Bloomberg opined that there’s “this enormous cohort of black and Latino males” who “don’t know how to behave in the workplace” and “don’t have any prospects.” Also, if you’re elderly and get cancer or some other bad disease, he thinks you should just die instead of expecting any expensive medicine.

Lucky for him that blacks, Latinos and seniors aren’t important parts of the Democrats’ voter coalition.


Least Surprising News of the Day! A Pew Research Center study found that Democrats who use Twitter are far to the left of Democrats who don’t use Twitter. Gee, what was their first clue? Was it when Democrats on Twitter called them racist, homophobic, transphobic, white supremacist Nazis for conducting the study?


In a hopeful sign for Virginia, a Senate committee voted to spend a year studying a so-called “assault weapons ban” passed by the House rather than advance it. Maybe the Democratic state government is finally sensing, from the giant angry mob outside the door, that they’re pushing their radical agenda too far too fast. Naturally, this didn’t stop the bill’s sponsor from declaring that without the ban, he fears “mass murder” with these weapons, despite the following facts: 1. Weapons such as AR-15s account for a small fraction of all gun deaths…2. A national assault weapons ban was allowed to expire because there was no evidence that it made any difference in crime rates…3. This bill would have done nothing but make law-abiding legal gun owners into felons.

At the link is more on this story, along with some comments that offer similar responses to the bill’s sponsor in even more colorful ways.


I know that socialists think everyone’s property belongs to them, but Bernie Sanders’ campaign is putting a new twist on it. They’re urging people to join “the largest grassroots campaign in the country — Operation Win at the Door,” to help elect Bernie. One problem: the reason “Operation Win at the Door” is such a large grassroots campaign is because it’s already been around since 2018. It was started by Young Americans for Liberty, a nonprofit student Libertarian group, which says it’s knocked on over 1.5 million doors and helped secure 56 election victories, and I’ll bet none of them were for socialists.

The YAL sent Sanders’ campaign a cease-and-desist letter threatening a lawsuit. Hey, don’t think of it as intellectual property theft, think of it as redistributing your intellectual property to them. If that excuse doesn’t work, the Bernie people will need a new name for their door-to-door campaign effort. I’d suggest “All Your Stuff Belongs To Us,” but feel free to offer your own suggestions in the comments.


In a good sign for civil discourse, rock singer/songwriter Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders wrote an open letter to President Trump, asking him to stop the extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to the US. Surprisingly, it was a respectful letter that mentioned her father’s love of Rush Limbaugh for her letting him use “My City Was Gone” as his show theme for years, citing that as an example of how it’s the American way for people who don’t see eye-to-eye to disagree “without having your head chopped off.”

Whether you agree with her defense of Assange or not, she deserves applause for the respectful and civil way in which she stated it. Her fellow liberal celebrities could certainly take a lesson from her, as could her angry fans on social media who probably want to chop her head off for opposing chopping your political opponents’ heads off.

Here’s my open letter to Chrissie Hynde: if you really believe in having civil discussions with people of different political views, you have an open invitation to be my guest anytime on “Huckabee” on TBN. I promise you a friendly welcome and a courteous conversation about whatever issues are important to you. Of course, you’ll also have to sing “My City Is Gone” and let me play the bass part. Deal?

“I’m gonna try to make sure that the public knows that ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ was not designed to help protect the Trump campaign, as it should have been. It was designed to destroy it.”

So said Lindsay Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Sean Hannity’s Monday night show. “It reeked of political bias,” he added.

“[As for] the four front-line Mueller prosecutors who are asking for a seven-to-nine-year sentence [on Roger Stone] that was totally unjustified, there was no threat to a witness that would justify increasing the three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half-year recommendation from the guidelines. So the four prosecutors were the ones who were overzealous, and [Attorney General] Bill Barr rightly corrected that.” He said Barr stepped in and stopped what he thought was “unjust sentence enhancement.” (So that’s what it’s called!)

Graham noted that Barr also has a separate outside person looking at Trump’s original national security adviser Michael Flynn, who “was abused here.” (We’ve followed his case from the start and agree wholeheartedly.) Graham hopes the judge will void Flynn’s guilty plea. But now Andrew Weissmann, former lead investigator on the Mueller special counsel team, is muddying the waters, reportedly claiming that the Flynn review being undertaken by Barr is really a cover to look into Comey, McCabe and Strzok as well. Of course, this was blown up into a big negative story on MSNBC, but if it’s true it’s fine with me –- the review SHOULD cover them. These people are all part of Flynn’s story.

“I want to find out how far up the chain it went,” Graham said. “I want to make sure that no FISA warrant is ever issued again like it was against Carter Page. That system will have more checks and balances.” He considers “Crossfire Hurricane” to have been a danger to democracy and said Weissmann needs to explain why it took two years to complete the Mueller investigation when “he should have figured it out in the first week. There was nothing there.”

“To the people who want Barr to resign,” he said, “we know your agenda. You’re not trying to uphold the rule of law. You’re trying to take a good man down because you hate Trump.”

Precisely. Sen. Graham has started the probe he promised into the “Russia” investigation, requesting interviews with pertinent DOJ and FBI officials. He says he trusts Barr “as much as anybody I’ve ever met” to get to the bottom of what was done, and he doesn’t want to interfere with the process. And Graham knows enough about “Crossfire Hurricane” to want to make sure nothing like it ever occurs again.

The outside attorney Barr has named to look into the Flynn case is Jeffrey Jensen, the top federal prosecutor in St. Louis --- ah, good to get out of the DC swamp --- and he’ll be working alongside the lead prosecutor in the case, Brandon Van Grack. According to an official at the Justice Department, Jensen has been brought in “to get a complete and thorough understanding of the facts and the record in a complicated case.” It was just one month ago that Flynn, through his powerhouse attorney Sidney Powell, told the judge he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, and if anyone had good reason to do that, it’s Flynn.

But now, the ruthless Weissmann, who is almost certainly the real author of the “Mueller” report, is using his current position of (surprise) NBC legal analyst to defend the FBI and raise concerns about the appointment of Jensen as a “ploy” by Barr. This appears to be part of a concerted effort to discredit Jensen –- and continue the push to get rid of Barr –- before they get too close to proving what actually happened with Flynn and others who were spied on.

Weissmann noted that the judge in the Flynn case rejected claims that Flynn was set up by the FBI after seeing the facts in the underlying investigation. Judging from what we know about the underlying investigation, which certainly does seem set up, I think there must be much more to it than that.

As for Andrew McCabe, being part of The Swamp, he’s been notified through his attorney that he won’t face charges on the leaking and related lying we all know he did. Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker told Tucker Carlson on Monday night that the IG’s report “lays out the factual basis” for a case against McCabe; in fact, the IG even referred him for criminal prosecution to the U.S. attorney in Washington, DC.

But that was then and this is now. Roger Stone and Andrew McCabe represent the two tiers of the justice system. While McCabe avoided prosecution for clear violations, Barr had to step in (before the President tweeted, I should add) and modify the DOJ’s ungodly recommended sentence for Stone.

Knowing how hard it is to bring cases and charge people with crimes, Whitaker trusts Barr and knows “that these difficult decisions are being well considered and being made for the right reasons.” Still, while he doesn’t want to second-guess Barr, he finds it difficult to understand why McCabe hasn’t been charged.

And he hears the same thing from Americans wherever he goes. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s getting hard for Americans to have confidence in the system, which I would add is a side benefit for “progressives” who want to tear that down along with Trump and those who support him.

Speaking of Trump supporters, Alan Dershowitz isn’t exactly one of those, but he’s objective enough and loves the Constitution enough that he can see the horrendous damage being done by “his” side, the Democrats. He gives Trump credit for being out-in-the-open about any contact he makes with the Justice Department. And, in a move that will absolutely get him banned from the guest list for every high-tone cocktail party on the Upper West Side, he gets to the subject of Obama, contrasting him negatively with Trump. (Oh, my.)  To paraphrase: “Trump tweets about the DOJ; Obama whispers about it.”

And now, Dershowitz claims that he’s in possession of documents that will show President Obama asked the FBI to investigate an unnamed person on behalf of --- yikes --- George Soros. He’s planning to disclose it down the road as part of a lawsuit. The material is “about how President Obama personally asked the FBI to investigate somebody on behalf of George Soros, who was a close ally of his.”

I’m reminded that Barr has reportedly set up a process for vetting information from Rudy Giuliani; perhaps he’s doing the same for Alan Dershowitz. Neither of them get invited to those cocktail parties, anyway –- not anymore –- but something tells me they don’t much care.


President's Day

February 17, 2020

Happy Presidents’ Day! This is a day when Americans celebrate all Presidents, but in a larger sense, we celebrate the system by which we pick our national leader. The Founders devised a brilliant system that gave a say to all the individual states, with their vastly different cultures and interests. We also celebrate our unprecedented history of respecting the vote of the people and the peaceful transfer of power. It’s too bad that many people now are so eager to trash the Electoral system, disrespect the voters’ choice and resist the peaceful transfer of power in the name of preserving their own political power. But they can at least pretend to respect those traditions for one day, then go back to observing “NOT My President Day” the other 364 days of the year (or 365 in leap years like this.)

I wrote an essay about Presidents’ Day in 2018, and I think it bears repeating, since nothing really has changed since it first appeared…

Monday was Presidents Day, and this year brought sobering new evidence that not only are Americans sadly ignorant of US history, but our historians aren’t exactly setting the woods on fire in that department, either.

A number of polls were released, asking the public to rank the greatest Presidents of all time. Overall, the highest vote-getters were John Kennedy, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. JFK had some major accomplishments, like the space program, but his term was tragically cut short after less than three years. Obama’s #1 ranking is similar to those Internet lists of the “all-time greatest movies” that include nothing made before 1995 (“Wow, ‘The Last Jedi’ is #1!”) They’re more a testament to the youthful ignorance of the rankers than the quality of the films. And while I take a back seat to nobody in my admiration for Reagan’s accomplishments, even he would likely protest that Washington and Lincoln should have been on top.

I don’t think most people these days appreciate the unprecedented service Washington performed by refusing to rule as a king and voluntarily stepping down from power to rejoin the people. Without his example, the presidency might not even be recognizable today. Well, at least George and Abe made the top 10 in most polls, but I suspect it’s less because of their historical significance than the fact that young people know them from the money. We’re lucky they didn’t name Alexander Hamilton as the best President, because he’s on the $10 bill and he starred in that rap musical.

But it’s easy to pick on the choices of the general public, who will naturally name things that are most recent and fresh in their minds. But what excuses do alleged experts have for their biased and uninformed choices? For instance, the 2018 Presidents & Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey is based on responses from current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association. They ranked Lincoln #1 and Washington #2. Their top 10 also includes Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. But LBJ at #10? (I get it: they love big government). Reagan only made it to #9, and at #8: Barack Obama (it goes without saying that they ranked Trump dead last, despite him presiding over the destruction of ISIS, a tax cut that’s firing up the economy and the rollback of executive overreach, all in his first year -- yet he’s ranked lower than William Henry Harrison, who died of pneumonia 31 days after being sworn in. He must’ve had one heck of a month.)

I think all you need to know about the “expertise” (or the bias) of these particular Presidential experts is that their top 10 includes Obama but not, say, James K. Polk. Polk oversaw the winning of the Mexican-American War; the reestablishing of the independent Treasury system; the annexation of Texas; the Oregon Treaty that set the border with Canada and won more of Oregon from the British than anyone expected; and the Mexican Cession, which added territory that included the current states of California, Nevada and Utah, most of Arizona, half of New Mexico, and some pretty sizable chunks of Colorado and Wyoming. He even tried to buy Cuba, which would have prevented a lot of grief down the road, but Spain wouldn’t sell. And Polk did all that and more in just four years because he kept his promise to serve only one term. For that alone, he deserves to be in the top 10 (They rank Polk at #20, seven places below Bill Clinton).

In comparison, Obama’s eight years gave us…Obamacare? A record stretch of low GDP growth? The spread of ISIS? Michelle’s school lunch program?

I can’t help wondering how many of these alleged “presidential history experts” who lionize Obama live in states that wouldn’t even be part of America if it weren’t for James K. Polk.

Parsing Mike Bloomberg

February 17, 2020

If you thought that Mike Bloomberg’s old comments about minorities and crime were bad news for his presidential campaign, then these resurfaced comments could explain why he opted to skip the Iowa Caucuses.

Speaking at Oxford University’s business school in 2016, Bloomberg described the job of farming like this: “I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It's a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn.” In contrast, he said today’s information era jobs require people to learn “how to think and analyze, and that is a whole degree level different. You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter.”

(FYI: his comment about the low mental difficulty of factory workers’ jobs was hardly any less dismissive.)

Naturally, this is not going over too well with the agricultural community, who, surprisingly, know how to access information on the Internet and how to read. As one commenter put it, you couldn’t ask for a better example of a clueless New York bubble dweller quote – short of saying that ranching is easy because meat comes on little Styrofoam trays so you just have to put plastic wrap over it. I could just as well reply that it’s easy to learn to code because all you have to do is “learn to code.”

There’s an entire literature of jokes built on farmers outsmarting arrogant city slickers, and those stretch back to long before farmers were using advanced technology to plan and time crop rotations, calculate yields, track weather patterns and run giant, Internet-connected farming equipment like this:

I’ve said before that running for President these days is like undergoing a particularly thorough colonoscopy without anesthetic. Bloomberg’s billions can’t insulate him from having all his past statements dug up and parsed. And apparently, there are a lot more to come. His own employees even compiled a book of them, which shows that minorities and farmers aren’t the only people he doesn’t have much respect for (warning: some rough language at the link):

And his reported comments to female employees, particularly about pregnant employees, aren’t likely to endear him to women voters.

Maybe Bloomberg mistakenly thought running for President is easy: you just buy billions of dollars’ worth of ads and order your reporters not to say anything bad about you, only about the other guy. If so, he should’ve had more gray matter than to think that.

A final Huck’s Hero salute to a true American hero: Saturday in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Donald Stratton passed away in his sleep at age 97. The Navy veteran was one of the last survivors of the Pearl Harbor attack on the USS Arizona. 1,177 of his shipmates were killed when Japanese planes bombed the USS Arizona. But he and at least five other sailors survived when another sailor threw them a lifeline from a nearby ship. They struggled hand-over-hand for about 70 feet, with the other sailor calling, “Come on, sailor! You can make it!”

For decades, Stratton never knew the identity of his rescuer. But during a reunion of Pearl Harbor survivors in 2001, he learned it was Chief Petty Officer Joe George, who had died in 1996. Stratton and fellow USS Arizona survivor Lauren Bruner then took on another urgent battle: to get official recognition of George’s heroism. They even traveled to Washington to meet with President Trump. Thanks to their efforts, in 2017, the Navy finally awarded George a posthumous Bronze Star with valor.

There’s more at the link, including photos and video I know you’ll want to see. Rest in peace, George Stratton. A grateful nation thanks you for your duty and sacrifice. And our prayers and condolences to his family and his wife of nearly 70 years, Velma Stratton.

Last week, three female high school runners filed a federal lawsuit to overturn Connecticut’s policy of allowing biological males who “identify” as girls to compete in girls’ school sports. As the story notes, “since 2017, two males have been allowed to compete in girls’ high-school track events in Connecticut. They have collectively taken 15 women’s state championship titles, all of which were previously held by females. ADF reported that these males have taken 85 advancement opportunities from female athletes in the last three seasons.”

It’s ironic that the “social justice” crowd demand an “equal playing field” while they are literally denying that right to female athletes and turning Title IX protections for girls on their head.

In a very related story, two extremely brave university biologists have written a lengthy piece for the Wall Street Journal urging biologists and medical professionals to stop knuckling under to political correctness and stand up for the empirical fact that there are two sexes, male and female, that sex is binary (truly intersex people are extremely rare and “are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a 'spectrum' or a 'social construct'"), and there is no such thing as a sex “spectrum.”

The biologists write that the notion that people can choose "to identify as male or female," regardless of their anatomy, is irrational and has "no basis in reality…It is false at every conceivable scale of resolution." They argue that the time for politely pretending it’s true has passed because this is harming women, gay people and children, declaring, “When authoritative scientific institutions ignore or deny empirical fact in the name of social accommodation, it is an egregious betrayal to the scientific community they represent. It undermines public trust in science, and it is dangerously harmful to those most vulnerable."

The full article is behind the WSJ’s paywall, but here’s a link to a story about it on PJ Media with another link to more included in it. This may be the latest indication that Americans are finally fed up and starting to fight back against the PC/group think/mass delusion/cancel culture mob. I think we owe President Trump a lot of the credit for showing people that you can speak your mind, stand up to all the phony outrage, fight back and win.