Okay, I admit it: I was wrong. I thought nothing could make the Democrats look worse than their disastrously incompetent Iowa Caucus debacle on Monday (it’s Wednesday, and we still don’t have final results.) But then came their behavior Tuesday in front of the entire world during President Trump’s State of the Union Address. I stand corrected.

Any independent voters who might still have been remotely considering putting them in charge of anything more complicated than a snowcone machine had to be shocked and repelled by their ugly, divisive, nasty, childish behavior that not only expressed visceral hatred of the President but of everything he does, no matter how much it helps America or the people or causes they claim to support.

But before we get into the reaction, a few words about the speech itself, which I thought was magnificent. (If you missed it, you can watch it here in its entirety, and you definitely should):

Many conservative pundits are calling it the best defense of conservatism since Ronald Reagan, but that’s not accurate. It’s the best speech since Reagan, but unlike many conservative speeches, it wasn’t a defense. Why should a system that works everywhere it’s tried need to be defended, especially when the alternative is a system that’s brought nothing but poverty, misery, starvation, oppression, corruption and death everywhere it’s been tried? Too many conservatives approach the subject from a defensive posture, thinking they have to respond to the blatant distortions of conservative beliefs (“Sexist! Racist! Hater!,” etc.) that the left hurls because they have no other arguments to stand on.

No, in addition to the inspiring language of Trump’s speech, it was so effective because he went full-tilt on offense. He didn’t enter the Chamber showing any weakness or understandable exhaustion after the three-year failed “impeachment” jihad against him that should meet its long-overdue demise today. Instead, he launched a forceful, unapologetic case for conservative principles because they WORK. He backed that up with one undeniable fact after another, from the booming economy and job creation that’s helping every demographic group to the drop in illegal immigration to the rout of terrorists and the reclaiming of American leadership in the world. To make it even more explicit, he called out the failed philosophy of socialism to the faces of those who seek to make it chic, and even introduced the man who’s trying to save Venezuela from its deprivations, that nation’s legitimate elected President, Juan Guiado.

And on the subject of guests, that recent tradition has never seen a more moving and inspiring selection of guests, including 100-year-old military hero and Tuskegee Airman Brig. Gen. Charles McGee and his great-grandson who wants to join the new Space Force; a military family being surprised by the return of their dad from deployment; and an emotional Rush Limbaugh, fighting stage 4 lung cancer, being presented with (and apparently very surprised by) the Presidential Medal of Freedom from First Lady Melania Trump.

Best of all, Trump made his speech about America more than about himself (when one commentator said Trump never used the "I" word, referring to "impeachment," I assumed he meant Trump didn't say "I" repeatedly, like Obama) He made it clear that while he cares about the world, he sees America as the exceptional nation it is (the “shining city on a hill,” to quote Reagan), he loves America and will always put American interests and the American people first. Trump sees himself as a proud American, not a “citizen of the world.” It’s something we used to expect of every President, but after years of American politicians badmouthing their own country and bowing to the UN or some other global governance movement, it now appears downright revolutionary. And incredibly refreshing.

In recent years, the term “fact-checker” has come to mean “partisan spin doctor pretending to dispense objective truth.” But President Trump made their job very hard with his SOTU Address. While Democrats are accusing him of lying from force of habit, he made a point of couching his accomplishments in verifiable statistic form, such as saying that the unemployment rate is the lowest in over 50 years, and that we’ve added 12,000 new factories after losing 60,000 under the last two Administrations. So when this fact-checking team looked into his claims, they had to admit he was telling the truth.

In fact, surprisingly, he actually understated one accomplishment: "Since my election, the net worth of the bottom half of wage earners has increased by 47%, three times faster than the increase for the top one percent." Actually, according to the latest numbers from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the wealth of the bottom half has increased by 55.86%, which is 3-1/2 times the increase for the top one percent.

Of course, this didn’t prevent Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in the Democratic response from claiming that the economy is only “strong for the wealthy who are reaping rewards from tax cuts they don’t need” while it “doesn’t work for working people.” Those tax cuts helped fuel the economic boom that created the job creation that led to low unemployment that’s forced employers to increase wages and benefits to attract good workers. Electing Democrats who’ll raise taxes would undo all that. Besides, it’s an objectively false claim (see paragraph directly above.) But claiming that Republicans only care about the rich and want workers to suffer is all that Democrats know how to do, so they’ll just keep doing the same thing despite what Trump does or what those lying research numbers say.

Sadly for them, for once, fact-checkers verify that (to quote “Seinfeld”) Trump’s accomplishments are real, and they are spectacular. He wasn’t just bragging. Besides, it’s not bragging if you can really do it.


Some Democratic Iowa Caucus results are finally starting to trickle out. With 71% of precincts reporting, Pete Buttigieg is narrowly leading Bernie Sanders in the delegate race by 26.9% to 25.2%. Warren is trailing at 18.4% with Biden at 15.4%, barely edging Amy Klobuchar. Sanders leads in the popular vote. So the top two Democratic contenders for President of the United States so far are a small town mayor and an elderly socialist, with Joe Biden a distant fourth. Biden’s also not strong in the next two states, but hopes to win in his “firewall” of South Carolina. However, recent polls show his support is falling there, too.

One of President Trump’s first reactions, when he was accused of trying to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens because Biden would be his opponent in 2020, was to say he never thought Biden would be the nominee. It would be ironic indeed if the one person who actually got anything right in the Iowa Democratic Caucuses was Donald Trump.

PS – While the media are trying to make Republican reactions to the Democrats’ debacle in Iowa the story instead of the debacle itself or the rise of open socialist Bernie Sanders, political strategist James Carville has been around long enough to know not to believe your own blather. And he’s straight-up terrified at the suicidal impulses of his own party.


The Department of Homeland Security has announced travel restrictions on six new nations due to their failure to provide security criteria to prevent terrorists from entering the US. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted the move, claiming it was “discrimination disguised as policy” and would bar 350 million people from predominately African nations from entering the US. DHS fired back that the actual number of people affected is approximately 12,400. If 350 million people wanted to come here, that would mean the entire populations of all those nations coming to the US and more than doubling our present population. Which I’m sure would be fine with Nancy, as long as they all vote Democrat.

The conservative satirical news site The Babylon Bee had a story on Monday’s Iowa Democratic Caucuses that I think fits this situation perfectly as well.


Tweet of the Day! Former Obama official and MSNBC analyst (natch!) Richard Stengel tweeted about the Dems’ Iowa Caucus fiasco, “The two guys happiest with the Iowa results are Donald Trump and his pal Vladimir Putin. Please don't subscribe to conspiracy theories launched by either one of them. Simple human incompetence is almost always the right explanation.” Putting aside that Stengel cited the debunked Russian collusion conspiracy theory to denounce conspiracy theories, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto offered the perfect response:

“’Simple Human Incompetence.’ Now there’s a campaign slogan.”


Super Bowl Post-Script: Jay-Z denied that he and wife Beyonce were making any kind of political statement by sitting during the National Anthem. He says they co-produced the show and were just absorbed in making sure everything was running smoothly (the mics, camera angles, etc.)

However, he added, "I didn't have to make a silent protest. If you look at the stage, the artists that we chose, Colombian (Shakira), Puerto Rican, J-Lo…we were making the biggest loudest protest of all." So in case you thought they forgot to add a lot of politics to an inappropriate place, rest easy. And here I thought the halftime show was just a protest against good taste and public decency.


Finally, Mitt Romney buys the load of Schiff. He's still upset he choked against Obama & begged for Sec of State but was passed over by President Trump(thank goodness!). He makes a fine Democrat Senator for Utah. I sure miss Orrin Hatch who was a statesman. Utah deserves better. We all do.

(Note to Alexa from the Gov: I assume you mean Mike Bloomberg IDENTIFIES as a 5'8" man. Or maybe that's his height if you include the box he's standing on.)

From Betty:

Last evening, my husband and I were talking about the possibility that Mike Bloomberg requested a box to stand on for the debate. I asked Alexa how tall Bloomberg was, and she immediately replied 5'8". I then asked how tall President Trump was, and she replied 6'2". A few seconds later, Alexa said she found another item that I might like. She then started repeating the news item about Trump saying "the great state of Kansas" when congratulating the Chiefs on their Super Bowl win. I interrupted her and asked why she was quoting stories to trash President Trump. She said something like "I'll take note of that." We were stunned that Jeff Bezo's Alexa is providing unsolicited commentary on President Trump.

From the Gov:

Thanks, Betty. I'll take note of that! It doesn't surprise me at all. I wonder if Alexa ever volunteers news about the record-low unemployment rate or the latest lie from James Comey or Adam Schiff. I also wonder if Alexa will fit down the garbage disposal if you shove really hard.

The Democratic Response…

February 5, 2020

I don’t mean the official response by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. She gave a well-presented speech, thankfully short on partisan bile and long on standard Democratic boilerplate about helping the struggling workers and making health care more affordable – both of which would be great if (A.) I thought they meant it, and (B.) they had any idea how to do it. She didn’t respond to any specifics in Trump’s speech, but then, I’m sure it was written before his was released. You can see why Whitmer is a rising star in Democratic circles, if she isn’t sunk by the angry radical left.

No, the Democratic response I’m talking about, the one that’s getting the most attention and blowback, was the childish, rude, self-defeating reaction in the Chamber (some members, such as rabid Trump haters AOC and Al Green, boycotted the speech, and were likely not missed by anyone on either side.)

Reactions in the House to previous Presidents’ SOTU Addresses have often been partisan, but they at least showed respect for the office. A President’s fellow party members might cheer wildly at his accomplishments while the opposition sat quietly or offered polite, tepid applause. But remember the shock and outrage when one Republican shouted, “You lie!” at Obama? Democrats thought that was outrageous (he was later reprimanded.) Well, last night, Trump was interrupted by dozens of Democrats in a pre-planned heckling chant. But amazingly, that was not their worst misbehavior.

That act of self-immolation was repeated over and over, when they angrily sat on their hands and glowered as Trump listed accomplishments that they’d be doing cartwheels over if a Democrat had managed them. Record low unemployment for minorities, women and the disabled? Silence. Blue collar jobs returning and wages rising? Silence. Working on a cure for AIDS? Silence. A little African-American girl being granted her life-changing dream of choosing a good school to attend? Silence. Most refused even to show support for killing terrorist mass murderers or not killing late term babies, two things they oppose largely because Trump supports them. To them, any good news for America is bad news, since it lessens their reelection chances. They even managed to look as if they’d just swallowed castor oil when Trump called for planting a trillion trees. (“Trump likes trees? Then I hate trees now!!”)

I generally refuse to stoop to the now-common practice of ascribing the worst motives to people who disagree with my political views. I don’t assume someone who sees things differently from me is stupid, racist, evil or whatever. But with last night’s sickening display, the Democrats in the House made it crystal clear that they place expressing hatred of Trump and opposing everything he does above every other issue, no matter how positive it might otherwise be. They would honestly rather see Americans suffer and fail, even groups they claim to champion such as minorities, women and the disabled, than see Trump succeed in helping them. It was partisan politics in its rawest, most selfish form, and it was repulsive.

But wait: it actually gets worse. To cap off the blatant display of disrespect for the President and anyone who supports him (or who has benefited from his policies), Nancy Pelosi made a show of ripping her copy of the speech in half behind his back on live TV.

(This followed an hour’s worth of strange facial contortions, eye-rolling and gesticulations that made it appear she was teaching a seminar in bad silent movie acting.)

Pelosi’s stunt sparked a range of heated reactions. I think law professor Jonathan Turley, who recently tried unsuccessfully to teach the House Democrats what an impeachable offense was, put it well on Twitter: “Pelosi's act dishonored the institution and destroyed even the pretense of civility and decorum in the House. If this is the Speaker's ‘drop the mike’ moment, it is a disgrace that should never be celebrated or repeated. In a single act, she obliterated decades of tradition.”

Newt Gingrich also tweeted that Pelosi’s ripping up of the speech disgusted him and wasn’t clever or cute but a childish insult to American traditions, and she deserves to be censured.

The White House response was the most brutal, since they pointed out what was actually in the speech that she was showing utter contempt for. They tweeted, “Speaker Pelosi just ripped up: One of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen. The survival of a child born at 21 weeks. The mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller. A service member's reunion with his family. That's her legacy.”

But perhaps the best reaction was from several commenters who pointed out that today, Mitch McConnell will be ripping up her “articles of impeachment.”

As Newt pointed out, Pelosi certainly deserves to be censured, but she won’t be as long as Democrats control the House. Thankfully, due to their lack of any accomplishments, their deranged obsession with a doomed impeachment crusade, and their stunningly small-minded misbehavior before the world last night, they might have helped bring the end of that lamentable era to a close very soon.

In the aftermath of closing arguments in the Senate impeachment trial, House manager Adam Schiff has not come off well.

True, Barbra Streisand tweeted that “Adam Schiff is so impressive. His knowledge of the law...his passion...his articulateness. His sincerity! He speaks the truth and would make a great president.” Personally, I think the best reason of all NOT to vote for someone for President is that Barbra Streisand said he’d make a great President.

But there has also been quite a bit of this: “...Schiff is not just dumb, he’s so deluded it’s bordering on the very kind of insanity Einstein spoke about.” And it continues: “Schiff is obsessed with Donald Trump. I don’t just mean he’s got a bit of a problem with him; I mean he’s pathologically demented in his absolute detestation of all things Trump. Every day since Trump was elected, Schiff’s been plotting to try to get rid of him…The impeachment has been about Adam Schiff, his ego and his career.”

And how about this: Adam Schiff, with his “curiously smug bug-eyed smirk” is “a man whose stratospheric ego is matched only by his astonishing superciliousness...”

Who do you think said all this? Some wild-eyed far-right-wing conspiracy theorist? Was it Dan Bongino? Sean Hannity? Maybe Devin Nunes? Me?

No, it was Piers Morgan, in a February 3 opinion piece for the Daily Mail. (If it had been me, I would have included the word “weasel.”)

According to Morgan, Adam Schiff “put his own gigantic ego and steely political ambition ahead of his party” and, with this monumental failure, helped his political nemesis get re-elected as President this coming November. He notes that the polls have been moving up for Trump throughout this impeachment process, especially on his handling of the economy, with its record low unemployment and overall stock market performance. I would add that thanks to Schiff and those in cahoots with him, Trump is coming across right now –- for the most part –- as the adult in the room, the man who’s keeping his head while all about him are losing theirs and blaming it on him (thank you, Rudyard Kipling). The same goes for his outstanding legal team, who acted like professional adults while the House managers were lying outrageously and calling names.

Adam Schiff has campaigned incessantly to get rid of Trump, Morgan says, though I would add that “The Squad” and others in the far-left, “impeach the **” crowd have pushed just as hard and deserve similar condemnation. Schiff, though, was and is the face of this impeachment. He’s the one who led the way with lie after demonstrable lie and who shoved through those horrendously unconstitutional committee rules that called for secret hearings in a secure basement “skiff” and completely shut out the President’s defense. He will go down in history for that.

It wasn’t just that Schiff conducted the impeachment improperly; Morgan thinks he was insane for starting an impeachment in the first place. Morgan didn’t like Trump’s phone call --- he thought Trump did something “stupid” --- but he’s never thought it rose to the level of an impeachable act. And with Republicans in the majority in the Senate (thank God), his efforts were destined to fail. Everyone knew that.

From a political standpoint, it was indeed stupid to hand the President another big win, as he’d already beaten Robert Mueller and the whole bloodthirsty, relentless special counsel team. In Morgan’s words, the Russia collusion allegation “was all bullsh*t.” He goes on to say that with Schiff’s D.O.A. impeachment, “they pulled the trigger on a hyper-partisan political gun that was only ever going to fire bullets into their 2020 election chances.”

It seems Schiff has attracted condemnation from both sides. Leftists and other anti-Trumpers hate him for giving the President a victory that will help propel him into another term. Trump supporters can’t stand him for his many shameless lies, his attacks on the Constitution and the damage he’s done, plus the huge waste of everybody’s time. If he thought he was going to further his political career, he may have done just the opposite. On the other hand, he does represent California --- and he at least can be assured of Barbra Streisand’s vote.

And remember my commentary from yesterday about how Alan Dershowitz is being trashed in order to delegitimize the President’s acquittal? Some legal “experts,” including Michael Gerhardt, who was on the panel of impeachment witnesses on “legal expert day” in the House, are saying the entire White House defense team could be brought up on ethics charges. Not the lying house managers Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler –- the WHITE HOUSE lawyers. He says THEY were lying. I kid you not.

But Jonathan Turley, the law professor serving on that same panel whose argument “helped” Trump by sticking to constitutional principles (even though, like Dershowitz, he’s not a Trump supporter) struck back with an excellent commentary, saying “The White House team were effective advocates for their clients and we do not disbar lawyers for making arguments or defending individuals that we do not like.”

Gerhardt, a legal analyst for CNN (big shock), said this to host Poppy Harlow: “I think what we are that the lawyers who presented [Trump’s] case in the Senate basically misled or lied to the Senate. And some point, we are going to see ethics charges brought against these lawyers for making false statements, which we all know are false.” But he is never specific about what statements are false, and Turley admonishes him by saying, “It is incumbent on an attorney to be specific about the false representation” when calling for ethics charges. In fact, he even warns Gerhardt that impugning the conduct of other lawyers without sufficient support can, in itself, be an ethics violation.

Turley gives the White House lawyers credit for showing that it was the House managers who misrepresented facts that were in the record. He points out that Adam Schiff was given four Pinocchios by the WASHINGTON POST for his denial of any contact between his staff and the “whistleblower.” Schiff still maintains the ridiculous farce that he doesn’t even know who the “whistleblower” is. I’d say that if we’re going to start throwing around ethics charges, Schiff should be at the top of the list.

“Lawyers often present one-sided views of the record that the other side views as unfair or unsupported,” Turley says of Gerhardt. “We do not declare on national television that the entire opposing legal team ‘will’ (not even ‘may be’) called before the bar.”

As for Schiff, I thought it was funny that after delivering piles of unsubstantiated drivel on the Senate floor on Monday, he said this: “He is who he is. Truth matters little to him. What’s right matters even less. And decency matters not at all.” It was funny because even though I knew he was talking about Trump, he was actually describing himself.

Schiff's Folly

February 2, 2020

For all intents and purposes, Schiff’s Folly, the crime-free, evidence-deficient impeachment of President Trump, is dead.  The plug was pulled Friday night, and we’re just waiting for the corpse to stop twitching.  It happened when the Senate voted 51-49 to refuse the request of Democrat House managers to call more witnesses.  The vote was mostly along party lines, with only Republican Sens. Susan Collins and (prepare to be shocked) Mitt Romney voting with the Democrats.
I don’t blame Sen. Collins, since she’s facing a tough reelection in a liberal state (Maine) and is already taking flak for her brave vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.  I assume Majority Leader Mitch McConnell probably told her that her “no” vote wasn’t needed.  I also assume that Romney voted with the Democrats for the same reason that the scorpion stung the frog that was giving it a ride across the river: “It’s in its nature.” 
In announcing the vote, McConnell stated the exact argument I made in my open letter to Senators: that having claimed to have proven their case with “overwhelming” evidence “beyond any doubt,” the House managers now demanded to set a dangerous precedent of making the Senate engage in a protracted round of new testimony, document searches and executive privilege appeals that it was the House’s job to do, if they needed that evidence to prove their allegedly “overwhelming” case. In short, if the prosecutors fail to find convincing evidence of a crime, they shouldn’t ask the jury to go hunting for it for them
Lindsey Graham said the same, in even sharper tones:
As expected, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went on one of his patented pompous, scolding lectures, calling the vote a “perfidy” (for Democrats, they sure hate democracy) and “a grand tragedy. One of the worst tragedies that the Senate has ever overcome.” He said, “America will remember this day, unfortunately, where the Senate did not live up to its responsibilities, where the Senate turned away from truth and went along with a sham trial.”
 I think it’s more likely America will remember a couple of weeks ago as the day the Senate started going along with a sham trial.  Friday will be remembered as the day they ended it.
To prove the game is well and truly over and the fat lady has sung, even CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin admitted that what people will remember about “impeachment” is that Trump won.

We’ve followed the Michael Flynn story from the beginning and have been hoping the best for him, praying for him and his family after he was swept up in the effort to take down President Trump and pressured to plead guilty to lying to the FBI when he (and even his questioners) knew he hadn’t.

Flynn needed a fighter and he finally got one. His fortunes started to turn when he replaced his original legal counsel with firebrand attorney Sidney Powell. I tell you, if you ever need someone in your corner, she’s the one to have. And she’s got a lot more to work with now that the IG report on FISA abuse in the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign, “Crossfire Hurricane,” has shown horrific misconduct that stomped all over the rights of Americans such as Flynn.

Powell has just submitted a white-hot 27-page addendum to her previous motions, in which Flynn formally asks Judge Emmet Sullivan to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. Powell is talking tougher than ever, and her demand that the charges against her client be dropped is now based on previously withheld government documents and, importantly, the IG report on FISA abuse. In response, prosecutors have said they will consider no jail time for Flynn (mighty nice of them) and would offer probation instead.

Um, I don’t think they quite heard her. And when they don’t hear her, she gets louder. Powell is telling them Flynn is INNOCENT. She says, “The IG report is replete with exculpatory information that, had it been known to Flynn, he never would have pled guilty.” She wants the charges DROPPED, citing “government conduct dishonestly wielded to destroy the National Security Adviser to President Trump as part of their larger anti-Trump scheme.”

Flynn himself is speaking up, too. He has connected the dots and can see, looking back, what was done to him and why. In the supplemental motion, he wrote, “In truth, I never lied. My guilty plea rankled me throughout this process, and while I allowed myself to succumb to the threats from the government to save my family, I believe I was grossly misled about what really happened.”

Victoria Taft at has more on the story, including some background for those who haven’t been keeping up:

A few amusing "impeachment" side notes: the Iowa Caucuses are tomorrow night, so by stretching this through Wednesday, Mitch McConnell forced Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar to spend the entire final weeks when they should have been campaigning in Iowa sitting in DC, listening to Adam Schiff lie.

One hilarious moment came when the Democrats’ final chance to speak during Q&A came and, for possibly the first time in his life, Jerrold Nadler sprinted to the microphone, ignoring Adam Schiff’s panicked cries of “Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!” Nadler gave the expected bad and off-putting answer, although to be fair, it was probably no more annoying than Schiff would’ve been. And at least it gave us this hilarious viral moment.

When the vote to call more witnesses predictably failed, several hundred anti-Trump protesters outside the Capitol let out with screams of anger and outrage. Have you noticed that leftists endow sounds with magical powers? They think that words they disagree with cause them physical harm. They believe that talking about a problem means they’re solving it. They elect candidates based not on qualifications or experience but on rhetoric that makes their legs tingle. They think that calling something “debunked” or “proven overwhelmingly” means that it is, even when it clearly isn’t. And for some reason, they seem to think screaming at the sky conveys some actual political power, when it just makes them look emotionally unstable. They’re like roosters who think their crowing makes the sun come up. Go ahead, scream at the sky. Who cares, other than people who are trying to sleep?

To be fair, I can understand why they screamed at the sky: they were being forced to relive the first traumatic time they did that, on Election Night 2016. Once again, they were hysterical with rage to discover that even after going to all that trouble to rig the system, they still lost to Trump.

First, this from Martha S:

Great questions as usual, Mike. But you forgot to ask Schiffty about his connections to the identical twin Vindman boys, Lt. Colonel Alexander and Lt. Colonel Yevgeny. Interesting to know that they have offices across the hall from each other at the NSC and they both have connections to the impeachment proceedings, albeit behind the curtain.

From the Gov:

Great idea, Martha, though I certainly haven’t forgotten that. There’s plenty more that Schiffty could be asked. The developing story about the identical twin Vindmans is fascinating, and I’ll be writing about it as more details are clear. In the meantime, let’s bring everybody up to speed…

NSC aide handling book approvals is twin brother of Lt. Col. Vindman: Report


Alas, my list of suggested “fun” questions for Adam Schiff did not get asked on the Senate floor, but I would have loved to watch his face during one particular Q&A that did take place. It could go down as the Question Of The Day, as it opened the door to questioning by senators concerning the unnamed “whistleblower” (ERIC CIARAMELLA) and the activities surrounding the suspicious origin of the impeachment “inquiry” within Schiff’s House Intel Committee.

It was posed to Trump’s legal counsel by Republican Sens. Lee, Cruz and Hawley: “Is it true that Sean Misko, Abigail Grace and the alleged ‘whistleblower’ were employed by or detailed to the National Security Council during the same time period between January 20, 2017, and the present? Do you have reason to believe that they knew each other? Do you have any reason to believe that the alleged ‘whistleblower’ and Misko coordinated to fulfill their reported commitments to ‘do everything we can to take out the President’?”

Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin calmly and matter-of-factly tackled this one, saying the only knowledge his team has comes from public reports. “I don’t want to get into speculating about that,” he said. It seemed for a moment that this was all he might say, but then he went on: “It is something that, to an unknown extent, may have been addressed in the testimony of the inspector general of the intelligence community before Chairman Schiff’s committees, but that testimony --- contacts with the ‘whistleblower,’ contacts between members of Manager Schiff’s staff and the whistleblower --- are shrouded in secrecy to this day.

“We don’t know what the testimony of the ICIG was; that remains secret, has not been forwarded. We don’t know what Manager Schiff’s staff’s contacts with the ‘whistleblower’ have been and what connections there are there. It’s something that would seem to be relevant, since the ‘whistleblower’ started this entire inquiry, but I can’t make any representations that we have particular knowledge of the facts suggested in the question. We know that there was a public report suggesting connections and prior working relationships between certain people –- not something that I can comment on other than to say that there’s a report there. We don’t know what the ICIG discussed. We don’t know what the ICIG was told by the ‘whistleblower.’ Other public reports about inaccuracies in the ‘whistleblower’s’ report to the ICIG, we don’t know the testimony on that. We don’t know the situation of the contacts, coordination, advice provided by Manager Schiff’s staff to the ‘whistleblower’ --- that all remains unknown, but something that, obviously, to get to the bottom of motivations, bias, how this, uh, how this inquiry was all created, could potentially be relevant. Thank you.”

Thank YOU, senators and Trump attorneys, for finally getting a discussion of this into the public record. The message was subtle but crystal clear to House managers: WE WILL GO THERE. DO NOT DOUBT US. Mr. Philbin was referring to the mysterious 18th transcript --- the one transcript from the House “inquiry” that Schiff will not release. (The House even refers to “the 17 witnesses,” when there were really 18.) Intel Committee IG Michael Atkinson gave his testimony inside the SCIF (“skiff”), and since that time, not even anyone on Schiff’s committee has been allowed to look at it outside that elaborately secure room in the basement of the Capitol building. We know, of course, that if it were helpful to their case at all, they would have not only revealed it, but trumpeted it.

It was bad enough that the President’s legal counsel were denied any presence during the House “inquiry” hearings. (Incidentally, I always use quotes around “inquiry” in this context because it wasn’t an inquiry at all, as the outcome had obviously been pre-ordained.) If Trump hadn’t been denied due process, his deputy counsel would have been present during the questioning of Atkinson and would have been able to ask questions himself; as it was, they didn’t even provide him with a transcript when it was done. Now, after all the other transcripts have been released, Schiff is STILL keeping Atkinson’s testimony from them.

It’s Atkinson who received the initial “whistleblower” complaint, AFTER Ciaramella had gone to Adam Schiff’s office and consulted with his staff on what to do with it. We’ve gone all over this: it was in Schiff’s office that Ciaramella was put in touch with his anti-Trump “whistleblower” attorneys. Ciaramella’s close friend who had worked with him at the National Security Council, Sean Miklos, was on Schiff’s staff. Ciaramella and Miklos were the two White House national security staffers overheard just two weeks after Trump’s inauguration loudly commenting that they would take Trump out.

Schiff probably thought he could keep the lid on the contrived origin of his phony “inquiry,” but his lies have caught up with him. He no doubt has a legal argument prepared to try to keep himself out of the witness chair if witnesses are called, but that is highly unlikely to work, and if it does, the truth will still come out through Ciaramella, Miklos, Atkinson and perhaps others on the House staff. I have a feeling it’s already been decided on BOTH sides of the aisle that witnesses won’t be called, as Schiff actually doesn’t want witnesses to be called now. Given the Pandora’s box that would be opened if Ciaramella and/or Schiff were called, I think House managers may just be pretending to demand witnesses so that when it doesn’t happen, they can complain forever about the “lack of fairness.” Yes, they are that disingenuous.

The idea that John Bolton would be a helpful witness for the House has been destroyed by a video clip of him being interviewed for Radio Free Europe in August, a month before he left the White House. In the clip, there is no hint of frustration with Trump concerning Ukraine; he even describes the two phone calls between Trump and Zelensky as “very warm and cordial.” Bolton says, “...the success of Ukraine maintaining its freedom, its system of representative government, a free-market economy FREE OF CORRUPTION (emphasis mine)...are high priorities here, obviously, but high priorities for the United States as well.”

Say, if witnesses are called after all and the Democrats decide not to call Bolton, can we have him?


By the way, here’s a great question suggested by reader B. Drinkwine:

Many are wondering and would like an answer to this question: How can four Democrat Senators who are running for President in 2020 vote to impeach their opponent, Donald Trump? Is this not a conflict of interest or illegal?

From the Gov:

To my knowledge, no one has challenged this legally, but obviously they do have a huge conflict of interest and cannot possibly be unbiased. On the other hand, who among them is unbiased?

It does seem they had ample cause to recuse themselves, and you know they wish they didn’t have to be there. They've probably been driving around with bumper stickers reading “I’d Rather Be In Iowa.” Fortunately for all, the way things are looking as of this writing (early Thursday), they will get their wish in a matter of hours.


There’s a reason why I increasingly hold the mainstream media in contempt.  It’s because they have destroyed the art of journalism and have replaced it with biased advocacy for the left.  There was a time they at least concealed their partisanship, but not anymore.  The number of true journalists whose stories and reporting don’t tip their hand as to their own political leanings is a very shortlist.  I’ll give you a simple way to determine if a person in the media has crossed the line from journalism to commentary.  If the story is about you or something or someone you like and you can tell whether the writer or reporter likes or despises the person being discussed, that’s commentary.  When after reading or viewing the story, you honestly can’t tell what the opinion of the writer or reporter is, that is journalism.

We need a fair and objective news media.  It’s vital to our great Republic.  The press is supposed to like the referees in a ball game, who may privately have opinions, but keep those subjugated so as to simply state the facts and let the consumer determine what they mean.  They are essentially like the guys wearing the striped shirts, trying to keep the game fair by insisting everyone is playing by the same rules,  But when the guys in the striped shirts wear a team jersey and openly cheer for one side against another, the game is rigged.

A little over a week ago, President Trump signed the USMCA trade agreement, a historic trade deal that replaced the job-killing NAFTA and which was so profound that it was actually passed by an 89-10 vote in the Senate.  Think about that.  It was a truly bipartisan bill that had overwhelming House and Senate support from both parties.  USMCA stands for United States, Mexico, and Canada and it fulfills a YUUUGE promise made by Donald Trump when he was a candidate.  He pledged to get rid of NAFTA and replace it with a trade plan that puts everyone on the same level and stops so many American jobs heading across our northern or southern border.  But how much time did NBC, CBS, ABC, AND CNN and MSNBC devote to this truly major deal that will have great impact on American farmers, manufacturers, and consumers?  ZERO.  Not one second.  Nothing.  They never mentioned it.  They were frothing at the mouth about impeachment that by any reasonable standard is based on political bias, utterly manufactured charges pulled from the blue sky, and carried out exclusively by Democrats as an attempt to overturn the 2016 election that Donald Trump won. 


So how can you get information that is trustworthy?  I offer you a few tips:


1. Never take the first “breaking news” as the story.  Too many reporters and networks had rather be first than right.

2.  Discount or even disregard stories based on anonymous “sources” or “high-level officials,” or “senior advisors.”  So-called whistle-blowers are more often smoke-blowers.   And let me be clear—I don’t care where you get your news and information. Even if it’s Fox News where I’m still contributor if they are touting “unnamed sources,” or “my sources close to the President,” don’t fall for it.  It may even be true, but demand better. 

3.  If the story doesn’t include a credible and knowledgeable named source to balance or counter the story, toss it in the trash.  It’s where a lot of modern “journalism” belongs.  In the meantime, the media sure is missing some real important news.  And that means you are too. 


And if we ever see real journalism again, I’ll quit talking about the New York Slimes, The Washington Compost, CNN, the bottom-feeding Catfish News Network, or BSNBC….

March for Life

January 24, 2020

Today is the 47th annual March For Life.  The big gathering is in DC, but there are hundreds of local events, and at this writing, it’s not too late to join in.  You can find info on events closest to you at

This year’s March will also be historic because President Trump plans to become the first sitting President ever to address the crowd in person.  I’ll share a link to that video once it’s available. With nearly 62 million babies being killed since Roe v. Wade, let’s hope this marks a turning point. The media are so pro-abortion that they routinely give little or no coverage to the massive annual pro-life march.  Trump’s appearance will force them to cover it, which is one of many reasons why it’s so appreciated by the pro-life movement.

It’s shocking that well into the 21st century, there are still people defending the cruel abomination of abortion, despite seeing their longtime arguments destroyed by advances in science. And with pro-life pregnancy centers that help arrange adoptions outnumbering abortion clinics 5-to-1, the abortion industry’s only hope of survival is to keep people in the dark about what abortion really is and what their options are.  By showing up in person, President Trump is forcing the liberal media outlets that keep him under a glaring spotlight 24/7 to drag that spotlight to where it will do some good.  

We’ve had so many reader comments on the Senate trial, it will take days to go through them. Thanks so much to all who are writing. Most everyone is expressing the same disgust I feel while trying to watch this, or at least some of it. Others aren’t watching at all, as they know it will just make them furious. But here’s a particularly moving letter from someone who just feels heartbroken.

From Lindsay (with slight editing):


...I was born and raised in Arkansas and am a great fan of yours. I now live in Texas.

Actually, yes, I am watching. And how do I feel? Heartbroken. It is so obvious what they have been trying to do to this man since the beginning. They hate him and they want him out! Hatred is a powerful emotion, and the more you don’t deal with it the more it stirs up. It’s like a cancer you ignore.

I don’t want to use the term “witch hunt,” but that truly is what it is. The thing that really gets to me is the power they have. Seeing [Pelosi] gloat all over TV about Trump’s forever title “impeached” shows the truth of her heart. It speaks volumes of what her motive was from the beginning.

Our country needed Trump. We still need him...and my husband, Steve, and I are 100% behind him. I pray for him every day and pray that the hatred will leave these people’s hearts. Although this is the type of heart-issue [for which] the individual has to stop and look inside. So I don’t hold out a lot of hope. All I can do is pay and give my support.

Much love to you and your tremendous family. We love Sarah. She is meant for greatness!

Trump Train 2020,


From the Gov:

Thanks so much for writing, Lindsay. Incidentally, did you mean to type “pay” or “pray”? It seems we can do both: definitely pray, but also give to campaigns that might make a difference in November. The best thing we can do to make a difference is show what these people have been up to and defeat them at the polls. We would never have had this sad circus if the Democrats hadn’t re-taken Congress in 2018. We’re not likely to see a wholesale change of heart among them, so they must be stopped at the ballot box!


Prepare to put on your shocked face: Turns out most Americans are finding better things to do with their time than watch eight hours a day of House Democrats repeating the same lies about their impeachment “evidence” over and over again in the Senate.

Despite being carried on 10 broadcast and cable networks, day one of the opening statements pulled only 8.9 million viewers, their total audience just about equaling the number of viewers who watched “The Voice” on NBC (And let me point out, that was day one. By day three, I could easily imagine the number being 89 viewers.) By contrast, the Kavanaugh hearings drew 20 million, and Robert Mueller embarrassing himself in front of Congress drew 13 million and was considered a ratings flop.

I can only assume that the Democrats’ strategy is to bore Americans so much that by the time Trump’s attorneys present their defense, nobody will be watching at all.


Must-See Video: At a campaign event that's being described as Sen. Elizabeth Warren's "Joe The Plumber" moment (you kids Google it), a father confronted Warren about her plan to spend $1.6 trillion in tax money to pay off everyone’s student loans. He told her that he worked double shifts and saved to put his daughter through college without taking out any loans, so will he get his money back? Warren replies, “Of course not.” Dad: “So you want to help those who don't save any money, and the ones that do the right thing get s*****d?”

Watch to see her response (or lack of response.) So far, millions of people have watched it online.

It is an excellent question: why should the government pay the college costs of people who took out loans they couldn’t repay, but not reimburse those who worked hard to pay for college without taking out loans? Even more infuriating: image killing yourself to work your way through college, then getting a big tax bill to pay for someone else who just borrowed the money. Or being too poor to go to college, so you went straight to work, and now your paycheck will be docked to pay off your boss’s kids student loans to attend Brown or Yale.

For people who talk about “fairness” so much, I don’t think liberals quite understand what it means. Frankly, I wish they’d just come up with some way to give me back all the time I had to spend watching Democratic debates


We’re sad to report that journalist Jim Lehrer died peacefully in his sleep at 85, after years of heart problems, and we extend our prayers and sympathies to his wife Kate and his family. As co-host of PBS’ “The McNeil-Lehrer Report” and later host of “NewsHour,” Lehrer presided over the kind of sober, in-depth reporting that’s seldom seen these days. This link has more details about his very long and fascinating career.

If you want to see a stunning illustration of how far the profession of journalism has fallen since Lehrer entered it, check out this link to a list he wrote called “Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism” and see if there are any of them that are still being practiced at most major media outlets these days.


For CNN’s sake, I suppose I should point out that this is a satirical story, even though it contains a much higher percentage of verifiable facts than most CNN stories. (If I worked for CNN, I’d just make up a number and say “It’s fake, but still 97% more accurate than CNN.”)


Twitter Exchange of the Day: CNN’s Chris Cuomo slammed Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin for suggesting that teen climate radical Greta Thunberg study economics. Cuomo tweeted, “Why do these trumpers think it is ok to go at a kid?“ Perfectly teeing up Sean Davis of the Federalist to reply, “Didn't your garbage network just settle a nine-figure lawsuit for defaming a Catholic child at a pro-life march?” Touché!


Great news: you don't have to suffer through weeks of Senate impeachment proceedings! I have a video that sums up the Democrats' case, their managers, and the inevitable verdict in less than 45 seconds. You're welcome, America!

In case you missed it: 

Rep. and Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has filed a defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton. Gabbard claims that Hillary harmed her campaign and American democracy by “publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent” asserting that she’s being groomed by the Russians to launch a third-party campaign and help reelect President Trump. Her campaign sent Clinton a letter threatening a lawsuit and demanding an apology and retraction, which Hillary ignored. Gabbard is now seeking damages and an injunction to prevent the media from continuing to repeat Clinton’s false accusation.

Gabbard’s lawsuit says she is running for the Presidency, “a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain,” and her lawsuit “seeks to hold Clinton, and the political elites who enable her, accountable for distorting the truth…” Clinton’s spokesman responded that the lawsuit is “ridiculous.”

He’s right: I can think of nothing more ridiculous than trying to hold Hillary Clinton and her enablers accountable for anything.

Today's Edition


The first day of the Senate “impeachment” trial finally wound down after 1 a.m., with tempers flaring and Justice Roberts having to warn both sides to restrain their anger and show decorum.

The shouting match came after Rep. Jerrold Nadler pulled the Democratic accusation for the umpteenth time that denying their requests to call more witnesses that they didn’t bother to subpoena before voting to impeach meant that Senate Republicans were conspiring in a cover-up. He declared that the “Senate is on trial here,” and that President Trump’s invoking his executive privilege rights was because “only guilty people try to hide evidence.” That “triggered” Trump’s attorneys Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow, who blasted Nadler for making false allegations against the Senate the way he’s made false allegations against the President and his attorneys, and for shredding the Constitution by claiming that invoking your due process rights is proof of guilt.

It was an appropriately explosive ending to a day when even the most patient man on Earth would’ve been tempted to pull an Elvis and shoot out his TV screen in frustration.


With gratitude,

Mike Huckabee


Commentary continues below advertisement



END OF DAY 1: The Gov. answers comment on Senate trial

By Mike Huckabee

While suffering through Tuesday's Senate trial "rules" hearing, I looked through some of the reader comments I've received on Tuesday's trial preview.  Most expressed the same intense sickness I feel at watching the outrageous sham our country is being put through, when the President was just exercising his constitutional authority.  But not all the comments were like that.
From William T:
Mr. Huckabee,
Two comments: 
1) President Trump’s successes e.g. on the economy, should not excuse and completely obliterate failings and abuses.
2) The perjury in the Clinton trial involved testimony around his personal sexual conduct and therefore did not involve political matters in my opinion.

From the Gov:

William, I simply don’t know why you wrote to me to make these two points, but as I like to answer people who disagree with me, I’ll respond.
First of all, no one defending President Trump during this attempt to void the 2016 election and remove him from office --- certainly not me nor anyone on my behalf --- has said that the President’s successes should excuse and obliterate his failings and (alleged) abuses. You have set up a “straw man” argument, and I’ve had just about enough of those after watching the House managers on the Senate floor on Tuesday, so your letter was the last straw.
There’s a point I’d like to make, though: I do think Trump’s stunning successes are one of the reasons Democrats are pushing this impeachment sham so hard. It’s really their only hope of hurting him enough to help their own election chances in the fall, and some of them have even admitted that. They had the nerve to come to the Senate with no direct evidence of misconduct by the President. This was after they refrained from issuing subpoenas during Schiff’s House “inquiry” because those requests would have had to go before the Supreme Court, where they almost certainly would have been denied, as “executive privilege” is and has always been a very real consideration. That denial would have ruined their plan to falsely say the President was involved in a “cover-up” when he was simply exercising his constitutional authority as President.
Now they’re trying to bury the Senate proceedings under a deluge of requests for the same witnesses and documents they should have asked for in the House. It’s all to damage the President as much as possible, at taxpayer expense, in the months leading up to the November election –- which they know Trump will likely win, given his lackluster competition and his amazing accomplishments in just a few years. Who needs Russia to “meddle” in the 2020 election when you’ve got these people to do it? But for what it’s worth, I have a message for them: Be careful what you wish for, because if you get witnesses and documents, so do the Senate Republicans, and they have some that would blow your already ridiculous case out of the swamp-water.
On your second point, William, President Clinton was impeached NOT over personal sexual conduct but for lying and suborning perjury in a civil suit brought by Paula Jones about his personal sexual conduct, towards her; there were eleven counts. As I recall, his sexual conduct had been ruled material to her case. (Clinton later made a deal that ended up with him paying a fine and being disbarred by the State of Arkansas.) His impeachment was not for his personal behavior, even though some of his sexual misconduct (of which there was a great deal) took place inside the Oval Office with an intern on the White House staff. I find it curious that in this age of #MeToo, Bill Clinton is generally excused for this behavior, which created a hostile workplace for women and, in doing so, ignored a policy that he had personally signed.
If this had been a Republican President, I guarantee he would be a nonperson now, in this age of PC shaming and “cancel culture.” They’d be taking down his portraits and renaming all the “President William J. Clinton” public buildings. But he was a Democrat, and the standards are completely different. In fact, I wonder why you speak of Trump’s “failings” –- I assume you mean personal failings, given the second point in your letter –- when Trump has never been credibly accused of any sexual impropriety during his time as President, let alone in the Oval Office. Maybe he’s reformed; I doubt that Clinton has, but that’s neither here nor there.
Finally, as long as we’re comparing Bill Clinton to Donald Trump, I’d like to remind you that when Bill Clinton was impeached, the House gave him all the due process considerations and basic constitutional rights that they have refused to President Trump. The resulting trial in the Senate certainly is “the fruit of the poison tree.”  I feel as if I've been poisoned myself, just listening to hour after interminable hour of it.
That’s about all I have for you right now, William. If I seem cranky, it’s because of already having to listen to so many “straw man” arguments and outright, demonstrable lies from the likes of Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nader and Hakeem Jeffries. And all the whining about “fairness,” good grief. After the way the House conducted their impeachment.  There’s only so much a person can take.  And this was just the first day!
As a palate cleanser, I'm going to leave all my readers with these words from Trump attorney Pat Cipollone that came near at the end of Tuesday's hearing (actually Wednesday morning), after a particularly atrocious stream of lies and false accusations from Nadler.  Mr. Cipollone did NOT let that stand, and called Nadler out:  "We came here today to address the false case brought to you by the House managers.  We've been respectful of the Senate.  We've made our arguments to you.  And you don't deserve, and we don't deserve, what just happened.  Mr. Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team.  He made false allegations against all of you.  He accused you of a cover-up.  He's been making false allegations against the President.  The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you, for the way you've addressed this body.  This is the United States Senate.  You're not in charge here...Mr. Nadler, you owe an apology to the President of the United States and his family.  You owe an apology to the Senate.  But most of all, you owe an apology to the American people."
As do all the House Democrats.  Thank you, Mr. Cipollone --- well said.


Commentary continues below advertisement


I wanted to make sure you also read these comments:

One of the many outrageous demands made by the Democrats during the Senate impeachment trial was that White House counsel Pat Cipollone be removed from Trump’s defense team because he is a “fact witness.” (This means they want to go on another fishing expedition and try to force the President’s attorney to reveal confidential conversations with him.)

Sen. Ted Cruz had the perfect response: while the President is protected by his Constitutional rights, it’s Adam Schiff who should be disqualified from being an impeachment manager, since this whole thing started with an unnamed whistleblower whom we now know coordinated with Schiff’s staff. So Schiff would definitely be a “fact witness” whom Republicans might want to force to testify. And you can’t be both the prosecutor and a material witness.

That view might be more popular than you’d think. After having to listen to Schiff spend much of Tuesday gassing on at great length, repeating unsubstantiated allegations and known lies as if they were fact, I have to think even some Senate Democrats might jump on any excuse to tell him to shut up and go away.

Incidentally, about that “whistleblower”…Paul Sperry at Real Clear Politics has a new investigative piece quoting a source as saying the “Ukraine whistleblower” was “popping off” about how he was going to get Trump removed from office as far back as early 2017.


I know you won’t want to miss this: in March, Hulu will debut a four-hour documentary called “Hillary,” all about Hillary Clinton. Hey, wait! Come back! There’s actually something about it you might want to hear!

In the documentary, Hillary blasts her 2016 rival, Bernie Sanders, saying, “He was in Congress for years. He had one Senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.” When a Hollywood Reporter interviewer asked if that still holds, she said yes.

It’s interesting to see the blind spot on display here. Hillary can recognize Bernie’s problems as being that he’s a career politician and nobody likes him, yet continue to blame her own defeat on Russian bots, the FBI, sexism and everything under the sun other than that she’s a career politician and voters didn’t like her.

This is similar to the blind spot that so many Democrats and media members (pardon my redundancy) are exhibiting about the corruption issue with Joe and Hunter Biden. They seem to think that if they can just prove President Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, his supporters will realize that’s an impeachable offense and turn on him.


They haven’t come anywhere near proving that’s what Trump did, but even if he was trying to get Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden, I think most Trump supporters would assume he was just doing his job. Anyone who can look at a corrupt energy company paying $80,000 a month to the totally unqualified, crack-smoking son of the federal official in charge of that nation’s billions in US foreign aid and not smell a rat must be like the teenagers in Febreze commercials who’ve gone “nose blind” and can’t smell their own filthy sweat socks.

Many Americans can’t figure out why being a Democratic Presidential candidate should amount to a “Get-out-of-jail Free” card, or why Trump should be impeached merely for allegedly suggesting we investigate the apparent corruption of the guy they want to replace him with. I tried to warn them in my book, “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy,” that Americans outside the media bubble were fed up with the double standard whereby the rich, powerful and connected skated on things that would end anyone else up in prison. A large part of the appeal of Trump was that he was an outsider, and he vowed to hold the insiders accountable at long last.

In that way, Hillary might be correct that the FBI investigation helped cost her the election, but she still doesn’t understand why. It’s not the fact that she was investigated that turned off so many voters. It’s the way that she was…”investigated.” You know: the way that none of us peasants would ever be.

If Democrats are really so upset that anyone would investigate their Presidential nominees for political corruption, there’s a simple solution: stop nominating corrupt politicians for President.

PS – Hillary’s slam on Bernie also went over with fellow Democrats like a hairball in the cole slaw.

Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet,
and a light unto my path."

- Psalm 119:105

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



By “Huckabee” writer/pop culture historian and lifelong Monty Python geek, Pat Reeder (

We are saddened to report that Terry Jones of the massively influential British comedy troupe Monty Python’s Flying Circus passed away Tuesday evening at 77 with his wife by his side. Jones had been fighting a long battle against FTD, a rare form of dementia. He was quietly slipping away over the past few days as his children, friends and family gathered to say their final goodbyes.

A throwback to the era of really intelligent humor, Jones studied English at Oxford, where he met his lifelong friend and collaborator, Michael Palin. The two worked on other comedy projects and shows before joining Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, John Cleese and the late Graham Chapman to form Monty Python. In addition to writing and performing, Jones also directed TV shows and movies, including Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” and “The Meaning of Life.” With Gilliam, he co-directed “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” often cited as one of the funniest and most-quoted movies ever made.

He wrote a number of acclaimed books, both humorous and non-fiction. He also created and starred in several TV documentary series about British history, earning a 2004 Emmy nomination for “Terry Jones’ Medieval Lives.” (Maybe that's why, for all its crazy jokes and plot elements, "Holy Grail" was praised for looking more authentic than many serious movies set in the Middle Ages.)

A biographer once said that if you spoke to him "on subjects as diverse as fossil fuels, or Rupert Bear, or mercenaries in the Middle Ages or modern China…in a moment, you will find yourself hopelessly out of your depth, floored by his knowledge."

But with all that on his resume, he will likely be best remembered as Brian's mom who scolded him for being a naughty boy, or Prince Herbert who lived in a swamp and just wanted to sing, or the wise knight who can tell someone’s a witch because she weighs the same as a duck. I like to think he would be perfectly happy with that unparalleled legacy.

Punching back

January 20, 2020

Earlier this week, I compared Arizona Sen. Martha McSally’s response to CNN reporter Manu Raju (“You’re a liberal hack, buddy”) to Rick Gervais’ blistering speaking-truth-to-powerful-liberal-hypocrites monologue at the Golden Globes.

From Dow H:

Does Flynn need funding now? Is there a way to donate to help him out? A little bit from a lot of concerned citizens to defend and fund this patriot would be worth advertising. I have been amazed at how much Flynn was pivotal in exposing the illegal acts by our government under the Obama administration. Without his integrity and commitment to stand up against criminal acts, I doubt we would have ever known about the FISA problem, or the NSA contractors.

From the Gov:

Thanks, Dow. From what I’ve read, Flynn saw his new job as Trump’s national security adviser as an opportunity to clean up the abuses and inefficiencies that had plaguing the intel community. He was instrumental in calling attention to them. That appears to be one of the reasons he was targeted. (Another was his strong opposition to Obama’s Iran deal.) How sadly ironic that he was taken down through those very tactics.

I don’t know if lead attorney Sidney Powell is working pro bono or not, but even if she is, it’s very expensive to go to trial. There’s clerical staff, research and possibly investigative help to pay, along with travel and much more. And Flynn's ordeal has been going on for three years.  For information on donating to the Michael T. Flynn Legal Defense Fund, here is their website:

American citizens and permanent residents only. And thanks for asking!

Nancy Pelosi is feeling the pressure right now. Even a growing number of Democrats are calling for her to be done with it and send the Impeachment Articles to the Senate at long last. Truly, the impatience with her is something being felt on both sides of the aisle, albeit for different reasons.

Recall that I posted an open letter to Madam Speaker not long ago, and many thousands of you added your names. Now, there’s a slew of stories and even a website called   

On Wednesday’s HANNITY show, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz and New York Rep. Elise Stefanik had a lively discussion about the move to light a fire under Pelosi's stylish pumps.

"I just hope to find a woman that’ll hold me as tight as Nancy Pelosi’s holdin’ onto those impeachment articles,” Rep. Gaetz said. We all wish him well in that endeavor.

He also dropped what I would consider a blockbuster: news that representatives –- especially the 31 who are in districts won by Donald Trump –- were told if they didn’t vote for impeachment, they wouldn’t receive party funding. As Gaetz put it, Pelosi “actually used political money as a weapon to threaten a lot of these folks to vote for impeachment.”

"They were told if they did not vote for impeachment, they could not expect funding from the DCCC in their races,” Gaetz revealed. “This wasn’t a sincere effort to abide by the rule of law. It was a political hit job by Democrats because they have no substantive argument against the Trump presidency.”

"...Pelosi has been exposed and the impeachment dam is breaking,” said Stefanik. “We need to continue to keep the pressure up because she has no authority over the Senate, so it was absolutely audacious and outrageous that she has been willing to withhold this, after urging the American people and Democrats forcing them to take this vote on an arbitrary schedule.

"The real reason why I think she’s holding back," Stefanik said, "is she does not want to expose the coordination that we know happened between Adam Schiff and the whistleblower.”  I think that with this comment, Stefanik nailed it.  The curtain is going to be pulled back, big-time.  Can't wait.

Jordan pointed out that Pelosi didn’t imagine when she started down the impeachment road that absolutely no Republicans would join her and that one Democrat would vote against impeachment, another would vote “present” and still another would vote “no” and then switch parties.

In a Wednesday interview with Laura Ingraham, California Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy reminded viewers that Nancy Pelosi, being from San Francisco, is actually Sen. Feinstein’s “hometown” member of Congress. And even Feinstein is getting impatient with Pelosi. “If we’re going to do it, she should send them over,” Feinstein reportedly said. “I don’t see what good delay does.”

Ingraham asked McCarthy what would happen if the House decided, independently, to subpoena John Bolton, in hopes of getting information from him after the fact and somehow “backfilling” the impeachment case. McCarthy stated what is now the obvious: that the House had the opportunity to subpoena any witnesses they wanted, but they seemed to think impeachment was so urgent that they went with the information they had. “They know their case is so weak,” he said, “it’s almost like she doesn’t want to send it, like she’s embarrassed [about] it.” Indeed.

Sen. Lindsay Graham has been talking about changing the rules in the Senate to allow for them to take up the impeachment without actually receiving the Articles. He’s also crafted a resolution calling on Pelosi to send the Articles to the Senate. “The refusal by the Speaker to transmit the Articles is a flagrant violation of the separation of powers,” he wrote. (Well, that’s debatable, but it sure is a flagrant violation of protocol and common sense.) He calls on Pelosi to immediately appoint impeachment managers and transmit the Articles.

If Pelosi doesn't do this, it would take a simple majority to change the Senate rules, according to Bob Barr, former Clinton impeachment manager. He told Ingraham that “the Senate can do that any time it wants to…and they can do that pretty much any time.” Still, there’s one factor he didn’t mention, though Ted Cruz has brought it up: the possibility of a filibuster, which can happen without 67 votes to end it. In effect, Cruz says, it would take 67 votes to get the Senate to move forward.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he has enough votes in the Senate to to begin the trial without calling witnesses. And though Democrats would like to see former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney testify, “My Democratic friends are losing patience,” McConnell said. The implication: some of those votes he has come from the Democrat side.

Former Whitewater deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg, also speaking with Laura, had an interesting take on the rules: that the Senate rules they have don’t even cover this situation, as they are supposed to be for handling the Articles of Impeachment once they’ve been delivered. Since they haven’t been delivered, they don’t apply. There are NO rules for this situation, in which the House has voted to impeach the President but hasn’t delivered the Articles of Impeachment. “In my opinion,” he said, “what are called the ‘impeachment rules’ in the Senate don’t cover the situation we’re in. And I believe that they could establish new rules by majority vote and say, ‘Look, this is what we’re gonna do in this situation, unprecedented, and we’re gonna move forward.”

Finally, just as Rep. Stefanik was saying, we can bet both Pelosi and Adam Schiff are nervous about Republicans calling witnesses in the Senate, because they’re afraid of what might come out regarding collaboration with the so-called “whistleblower,” a.k.a. Eric Ciaramella (yep, that’s him, and he's actually just a leaker who deserves no anonymity). This goes to the very reason for the investigation of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky in the first place. Schiff won’t release a transcript of Intel Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson’s closed-door testimony –- it’s the only transcript he refuses to release –- but Republican members of the House Intel Committee are now looking into Atkinson’s handling of the "whistleblower" complaint. According to Devin Nunes, they sent a letter to Atkinson on September 30, which was responded to “in an inadequate way” on October 8. This week, they’re sending another letter that will give him another week to respond. “Someone is not telling the truth here,” Nunes said to Laura Ingraham, “and that’s why they don’t want this testimony out.” There’s apparently more to this story; we don’t know it yet but Nunes does.

So what can the Republican minority do without subpoena power? Nunes says they have other means: getting other people to come in and testify, for one, and also hearing from other, REAL whistleblowers and informants who WANT to come in and talk to them. As for Atkinson, “essentially you have to either believe he’s in on it, or he’s incompetent.” The committee needs to see all the documentation and the changes made to the forms, rather than just taking his word that he made mistakes.

Here are more details; this article in AMERICAN THINKER is a must-read…

House Republicans are investigating the ICIG behind the Ukraine 'whistleblower'

All the caterwauling and hand-wringing from the media about President Trump standing up to Iran possibly setting off World War III suddenly reminds me of Groucho Marx's line in "Duck Soup": "We can't call off the war! I already paid six months' rent on the battlefield!"

And yet, World War III does seem to have been called off, since the severe retaliation promised by Iran was apparently all for show.  Word is that they even informed our intelligence agencies that the rockets they fired were aimed to do minimal damage, and now that they've "showed us" (and let that be a lesson to you, Trump!), they will go home now and seek no further escalation, oh, and, one other thing: please, please don't kill us!

Wait, so responding to an attack with overwhelming force DOESN’T make a bully want to fight you even more? It actually makes them back down and slink away?  So then, maybe it’s better for America to be feared by our enemies than to try to make them love us by appeasing them?  Why didn’t someone tell Obama, John Kerry and all those other exponents of “smart diplomacy” about this?!

Buck Henry, RIP

January 9, 2020

By “Huckabee” writer/pop culture historian Pat Reeder ( )

As a fellow comedy writer who greatly admired Buck Henry, I’m sad to report that he has died in a Los Angeles hospital at 89 with his wife Irene by his side.

Henry was a familiar face to the public for his many movie and TV comedy roles as a bespectacled, unassuming everyman, but he was most known to fans of the early days of “Saturday Night Live.” It became tradition that he hosted the final show of each season. His ten shows held a record finally broken by Steve Martin. In his most famous sketches, he played the customer trying to get some product or service from John Belushi’s Samurai butcher, tailor, etc.  In one notorious sketch, Belushi’s wild sword swinging accidentally nicked Henry’s forehead on live TV.  He had to do the rest of the show with a bandage on his head to stop the bleeding. 

But Henry was actually best known behind the camera.  He wrote or co-wrote a number of movies, including “Catch-22,” “What’s Up, Doc,” “The Day of the Dolphin,” and a terrific black comedy with Nicole Kidman that you should definitely check out called “To Die For.”  In his early days, he wrote for such classic TV comics as Steve Allen and Garry Moore, and the pioneering topical humor show, “That Was the Week That Was.”  His most famous gigs were his Oscar nominations for co-writing “The Graduate” and co-directing Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait,” and to me, the thing that will forever cement his place in comedy history: he co-created “Get Smart” with Mel Brooks. 

Rest in peace to one of the genuine major multi-talents of 20th century entertainment.