The Party of Tolerance

July 10, 2018

The Party of Tolerance 2018:  A mom was subjected to a blue wave of online hatred and abuse for thanking the President’s son, Eric Trump, for his support for the St. Jude Children’s Hospital where her nephew was treated for cancer.  She’s now joined the #WalkAway movement of people leaving the Democratic Party until it renounces the current insane orgy of leftist violence, hatred and intolerance. Yep, this is really going to help them win in November.


In a related story, Brandon Straka, the gay man who started the rising #WalkAway movement, was refused service by a New York City store when he tried to buy camera equipment.  The cashier demanded to know if he was going to use the equipment for “alt-right purposes.” Straka said it took his breath away and he was left shaking because that store had his personal information and he’d never before encountered such negative backlash. And I’ll repeat: he’s gay, and they’re liberals.   

Well, they certainly showed him that he’s wrong!  Actually, the only thing he got wrong was naming his movement “WalkAway” instead of “RunAway!”  


Question:  how do you make a political scandal go away?


Well, first you work out a sweetheart plea agreement that doesn’t even touch on the scandalous part of what took place.  Then you announce it in conjunction with a major holiday, preferably one in which most people are outdoors grilling hot dogs and not paying much attention to the news.  The Fourth of July is ideal for such a plan, as patriotic Americans who normally would be paying attention to politics are, ironically, the ones most caught up in celebrating with their families.


If you are the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, you sneak out a press release with a generic, blah-vanilla headline such as “Virginia Man Pleads Guilty to Making False Statements on Application for Home Equity Loan.”


That took some skill –- one can’t even tell that this headline refers to the resolution of the Imran Awan case.  Recall that Awan was the IT aide to Florida Congresswoman and former DNC boss Debbie Wasserman Schultz and about 45 other Democratic members of Congress, including members of the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees.  Though he’d never been officially vetted for a security clearance, he’d been given essentially unrestricted access to their email and other electronic files.  Numerous members of his family were mysteriously on the government payroll, too, also without security clearances or degrees in IT, some pulling down highly questionable salaries.  When allegations were raised, his wife went home to Pakistan; he wasn’t quite fast enough and was intercepted while trying to flee the country as well.


Astoundingly, the press release announcing Awan’s plea deal made no mention of Wasserman Schultz or of his IT work for the Democrats.


President Trump must have been consulting his crystal ball about a month ago when he tweeted, “Our Justice Department must not let Awan and Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the hook.  The Democratic I.T. scandal is a key to much of the corruption we see today.  They want to make a ‘plea deal’ to hide what is on their server.  Where is Server?  Really bad!”

 TRENDING:  Democrat insanity is coming

Trump was downright psychic with his reference to a plea –- they gave Awan one heckuva deal, even announcing that they had “uncovered no evidence” that he had “violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems.  The deal also specifies that he won’t be charged with any nonviolent crimes he might have committed in Washington prior to the agreement.  (I am not kidding.)  According to Luke Rosiak at the Daily Caller –- who has really been on top of this story –-  this benign conclusion is at odds with that of the findings of an IG appointed by Nancy Pelosi, the House’s top law enforcement official, its sergeant-at-arms, and the statements of multiple Democratic aides.  But that doesn’t matter; the allegations have been effectively buried.


Oh, and another thing you do to make a scandal go away is accuse the other side of bigotry.  In this case, Awan’s attorney, Christopher G. Gowan –- who happens to be a former aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton –- described the charge against Awan as “clearly a right-wing media-driven prosecution by a United States Attorney’s Office that wants to prosecute people for working while Muslim.”  Wasserman Schultz used the same strategy, keeping Awan on the payroll for six months after he’d been banned from the congressional computer system by Capitol police because, as she said, he was “put under scrutiny because of his religious faith.”


Commentary continues below advertisement

It also helps to have a sympathetic judge.  Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, appointed to the DC District Court by President Obama in 2014, was once a partner in the same firm that represented Huma Abedin in the investigation of Hillary’s email server.  She’s been a vocal opponent of Trump’s travel ban and ordered the Trump administration to provide abortions to two illegal immigrants.  She postponed Awan’s hearing in U.S. District Court six times.


Well, if you ever wanted to know how to bury a political scandal, now you know how it is done.  In case you were one of those patriotic Americans out grilling hot dogs last week and you happened to miss the Awan story, here’s Luke Rosiak’s detailed wrap-up.  If you’re like me, it’ll make you steamier than one of those dogs.



Today's Commentary: The Imran Awan Story, or How to Bury A Scandal -- Americans are fed up -- Martha Cothren's lesson -- Something you don’t see every day -- Compare the two parties -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse
Today's Commentary: Hucktown -- Americans are fed up -- Martha Cothren's lesson -- Deep in the heart of summer -- Interesting examination -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse

I hope you had a fun Fourth of July week, and I hate to break this to you, but it’s about to come to a jarring halt on Monday.  Not merely because we all have to go back to work, but because on that day, President Trump will announce his pick to replace Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court.  And I must warn you of what to expect from my expert, insider’s view.

Trump is about to nominate someone so terrifying, horrific and destructive to America that this person should not be allowed to appear in public spaces without being hounded back into seclusion by torch-wielding mobs, like villagers chasing Frankenstein’s monster in old black-and-white movies.  This person will be a radical, right-wing extremist whose views on various issues are so out of the mainstream that only 60 to 80 percent of Americans agree with them.  It will be a source of bafflement to the press how this outrageously unqualified pick was somehow able to rack up an impressive enough legal resume to earn the federal court confirmation votes of many of the same Senators who are currently quivering with outrage over the SCOTUS nomination.  This nominee might even unconscionably approve of the heartless and unconstitutional practice of ripping children from the arms of their illegal immigrant mothers and putting them into temporary foster homes, but not approve of the kindly and constitutional practice of ripping children from their mother’s wombs and putting them into dumpsters. 


In fact, if you can think of any evil, vicious, cruel, insane act that would turn America into a racist, sexist, blighted Hellscape, from reinstituting slavery to putting immigrants into concentration camps to forcing women into breeding programs until America is like – what’s the name of that book again? – oh, right: “The Handmaid’s Tale”, then rest assured that this terrifying ghoul will be in favor of it. 

And what is this horrible, awful, no good, very bad person’s name? 

Beats me.  It really doesn’t matter.  Everything I wrote above has already been put into the form of press releases, and the DNC is just waiting for Trump to announce the name so it can be inserted before clicking on “Send.” 


Commentary continues below advertisement

Is there any part of it that’s actually true?  Well, I did use the adjective “insane.”  I guess you could argue that whoever accepts the nomination, knowing the tsunami of slander that is about to ensue, might have to be just a little bit crazy.


-------------- --------------
Today's Commentary: Time to replace the income tax with a Fair Tax -- Remind me again why we haven't replaced the IRS with the Fair Tax?! -- "Yankee Doodle" -- Don't buy the "conventional wisdom" -- Interesting examination -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse


July 6, 2018

There are a lot of people these days who think government should do everything for us.  For many who are overworked and feeling burned out, that can be a very tempting idea.  After all, personal responsibility is a lot of work! 


But when you look at the staggering debt that’s threatening our grandchildren’s futures and wondering how that came to be, the answer is simple: a lack of personal responsibility.  People thinking up things they thought the government ought to do and expecting them to be paid for with somebody else’s money. Thomas Jefferson said, “The government is best that governs least,” but small, cost-efficient government requires a population that’s willing and able largely to govern themselves. 


To explain why government costs as much as it does, let me take you to a city that I’ll call “Hucktown” (Hey, it’s my story, so I get to name the town.)  In Hucktown, everyone is exactly like…well, me.  Nobody smokes or drinks or takes drugs.  We all obey the laws and try to watch our diets and exercise.  We stay married and teach our kids to respect other people’s property and do their homework.  Everyone gets up early and usually works late (they have to: since they’re just like me, they all have at least five jobs.)    


Because of all this, Hucktown’s government would save a lot of money.  It wouldn’t need a jail or a divorce court or drug counselors or rehab clinics or very many hospitals or police.  I can guarantee it wouldn’t need to hire anyone to scrub off graffiti.  So can you imagine how low the taxes would be in Hucktown?  That’s because when people govern themselves, by practicing civility and personal responsibility, they need less outside government to force them to behave properly.  


But before you start packing up to move there, I should point out that Hucktown is imaginary (although Branson is close.)  In reality, there will always be people who impose costs on society, either because of problems they can’t help, or because they choose not to be responsible.  For these folks, we’ll always need expensive social services, hospitals, rehabs, counselors and jails.  


But what if you lived in the exact opposite of Hucktown: a place where everyone decided that it would be easier to cede responsibility for every tough decision to the government?  After all, it’s hard work to choose a medical insurance policy, or plan for retirement, or decide what kind of car to drive.  Why not let the government take all those decisions off your shoulders?


Commentary continues below advertisement

Because you pay very dearly for it, in three ways.  First, if you don’t like the decision the government makes for you, tough luck.  Second, as Ben Franklin pointed out, when you trade a little freedom for a little security, you’ll soon have neither.  And third, there’s the staggering monetary cost of having the government do all those things for all those people. 


I imagined a town where people didn’t need a lot of government, so taxes could be very low and named it “Hucktown.”  Now, you imagine a place where people expect the government to do everything.  Then imagine how high the taxes and how big the debt would be.  I’ll let you name that place, but choose carefully. Unfortunately, there are so many places like that, a lot of names are already taken.  My suggestion: “Bernietown.”


When a lie gets repeated so often that everyone thinks it’s true, it’s called “conventional wisdom” – maybe because it happens so often at political conventions. These days, the conventional wisdom is that Americans are clamoring for European-style, cradle-to-grave Socialism Lite. Don’t buy it.
Today's Commentary: We should celebrate the mutual values of the United States and Israel -- Happy Independence Day America -- A terrific piece by Ed Driscoll -- Remind me again why we haven't replaced the IRS with the Fair Tax -- Moral standards are necessary -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse

Today's Commentary: Happy Independence Day America -- Keep government limited -- Remember Sybil Ludington -- Leadership 101 -- Moral standards are necessary -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse


The message you have just received was delivered by Mike Huckabee and includes advertising powered by PowerInbox.  These ads help bring this newsletter to you free of charge. 

Today's Commentary: The impact of low moral standards -- About that socialist Democrat -- New study -- The "OUTRAGE" card -- "The real President" -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse


If you enjoy the newsletter also, please forward it to a friend and tell them they can subscribe for free at


There are a lot of things people like to believe that are patently absurd if you think about it (much of the Obama Administration was based on making nonsensical declarations – “We can’t just drill our way out of an energy shortage,” etc. – in a somber tone that made them sound like unquestionable fact.)  One of the most common is that “the government can’t legislate morality!” 


But of course, they do it all the time.  We have millions of laws, just to enforce society’s consensus of what’s morally right or wrong.   Each law comes with loopholes that someone will try to exploit, so government adds more laws.  Plus police, courts and jails, because some people will always insist on doing the wrong thing anyway.  All this to legislate morality.


Self-government requires self-discipline, self-respect, and respect for others.  When people don’t follow the accepted standard moral code, government keeps passing new laws to try to force them to, which creates bigger government and more expense for everybody.  Maybe the national debt wouldn’t be sky high now if our behavior standards hadn’t sunk so low. 



Mike Huckabee



About that socialist Democrat...

By Mike Huckabee

Nancy Pelosi is trying to convince Americans that the huge upset win of a 28-year-old avowed socialist over a ten-term incumbent in a New York Democratic primary is just a one-district fluke, and not an indicator of the far-left tilt of the Party that it obviously is. It takes an act of almost willful ignorance to believe at this late date that socialism is still the cure for raising up the poor, when the shocking news from socialist Venezuela gets worse by the day. Meanwhile, a new study found that thanks to spreading capitalism, the number of people in the world who live in extreme poverty has plummeted from 94% to 9.6%. The only thing socialism can raise up is that second number.


New study

By Mike Huckabee

A new study found that grandmothers who babysit their grandkids are less likely to suffer a number of mental health problems, from dementia to depression.  I’m guessing the study was written by OMWNAB: “Overworked Moms Who Need A Break.”


The "OUTRAGE" card

By Mike Huckabee

Here’s how much the anti-Trump crowd has overplayed the “OUTRAGE!!!” card: I saw a story headlined “Comcast Dealing With Major Outage Nationwide,” and at first thought it said “Major Outrage Nationwide,” so I ignored it.


Commentary continues below advertisement


"The real President"

By Mike Huckabee

Memo to DNC Chairman Tom Perez: No, Barack Obama is not the “real President of the United States.” He’s the “former President of the United States.” Donald Trump is the real President. And despite what the media might lead you to believe, there are many millions of Americans who are thrilled about both of those titles.


Evening Edition - July 2

By Mike Huckabee

A wrap-up of all the news you might have missed yesterday!


Daily Verse

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!"

-Psalm 133:1

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

Today's Commentary: Moral standards are necessary -- Keep government limited -- Ben Shapiro debates Bill Maher -- 1728! -- Mexico's election -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse
If we want to preserve our freedoms, and keep government limited, maybe we should send more farmers to Washington -- and fewer lawyers.
We hear often these days that society shouldn’t have any absolute moral standards. Well, pardon me for pointing it out, but that’s…well, stupid.
I’ve been astounded recently by the way the left has been so successful at using “hate speech” and school shootings to convince young people to demand that their own First and Second Amendment rights be taken away.

Leadership 101

July 1, 2018

Endless effort and spin has gone into trying to explain why Hillary Clinton lost...
Today's Commentary: Leadership 101 -- Remembering history -- Be nICE -- Is my grandson a Democrat?!?-- Turning the tables -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse
Today's Commentary: Hollywood in focus -- Judge Ellis -- Don't blame Trump -- Mike Lee-- Billy Ainsworth and the Bands -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse
Today's Commentary: In public hearing, Rosenstein exhibits bizarre behavior and refuses to answer questions -- Radical protests growing -- Helsinki -- June 28-- End of the world for Democrats -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse

Hollywood in focus

June 29, 2018

After Chris Pratt stunned Hollywood by encouraging young people to be positive, work hard, pray, defend the weak and know that God loves them at the MTV Movie Awards of all place

Harlan Ellison RIP

June 29, 2018

One of the greatest and most prolific writers of our age, Harlan Ellison, has died in his sleep at 84.

Maryland tragedy

June 29, 2018

A big salute to the staff of the Gazette, who despite being traumatized and losing staffers to death and injury, vowed that the next day’s edition would come out, and they worked at home and got it out.
Today's Commentary: In his closed-door testimony, Peter Strzok is "full of it" -- Supreme Court Double Whammy -- A nuisance lawsuit fails -- Fake news-- Good line -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse

Nancy Pelosi's delusion

June 28, 2018

Nancy Pelosi is trying to convince Americans that the huge upset win of a 28-year-old avowed socialist over a ten-term incumbent in a New York Democratic primary is just a one-district fluke.

June 28

June 28, 2018

It’s said that those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it.
On Wednesday, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, the lead investigator for both the Trump/Russia probe and the Hillary Clinton email “matter,” will be questioned behind closed doors...
Today's Commentary: 20 Questions for Peter Strzok -- Leftist rage -- Roberts dissents -- SCOTUS upholds Trump travel ban -- Election polls tighten -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse

Election polls tighten

June 26, 2018

Weeks of shameful, misleading and overheated rhetoric and media coverage comparing US detention centers for illegal immigrants to Auschwitz doesn’t seem to be having the intended effect.
Today's Commentary: Assange could have destroyed "Russia" narrative, but Comey stopped it -- What happened at the Red Hen was nothing like the Christian baker case -- Tweet of the Day -- Schumer blocks the bill -- Harley hurting -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse

Immigration Poll

June 25, 2018

Judging by all the toupee-ablaze OUTRAGE at President Trump over his Administration’s handling of illegal immigrants, including the ever-popular comparisons to Hitler and slave owners, you’d think the vast majority of Americans want open borders and no enforcement of immigration laws.
Today's Commentary: Strzok to testify: what if he pulls a "Bill Clinton"? -- Visualize World Peace -- Bulletin- SC Candidate seriously injured -- Comey shames himself again -- Excellent piece -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse
Today's Commentary: Another "confidential human source" (SPY) approached Trump advisor -- New IRS form coming -- Charles Krauthammer -- Survey says -- South Dakota decision -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse
The news that an Islamic reform group had received an apology and a nearly $3.4 million settlement from the Southern Poverty Law Center for falsely branding them as “anti-Islam extremists” has emboldened more defamed groups to stand up to the SPLC.

I wrestled with whether to comment on this or not because I didn’t want to call more attention to the sick comments of a drug-addled former celebrity, particularly when they called for violence against my own daughter and grandchildren.  But since it’s become a major news story, I feel I have to say something.  For the record, this person whom I shall not name has apologized.  He should, but that’s not good enough.  I am a patient and forgiving man, but I am fed up with leftists launching sick, obscene attacks and calling for violence that could incite their unstable followers to harm innocent people -- and not just adults they disagree with politically, but now, their innocent children -- and then skirting responsibility.

 RECOMMENDED FOR YOU: A resposne to Laura Bush

Even though I have my own very firm political views, I try hard not to be partisan when it comes to issues of personal behavior.  I have criticized President Trump when I thought his rhetoric went too far or his policies were off-target.  I called for Roseanne to lose her TV show after she wrote an offensive tweet about Valerie Jarrett, even though I have no love for Ms Jarrett’s works and Roseanne at least had the excuse that she is self-admittedly mentally ill.  But the recent spate of reprehensible personal attacks and calls for violence on the left is inexcusable. 


The intern who shouted the F-word at President Trump during his Congressional visit should be fired immediately.  As should the DOJ employee who was found to be among the Democratic Socialists group that forced the Homeland Security director to have to leave a restaurant under threat.


Tweets such as those made by the ‘60s burnout actor referenced above should be dealt with as criminal actions, because free speech does not protect people who incite violence and make threats.  I don’t care that he’s since apologized and deleted them.  No decent human being would ever have even thought of writing them in the first place.  


Personally, I’ll not be satisfied until this aged, bitter, hateful, and violent creep gets arrested.  And I pray for him that NO ONE EVER encourages violence and criminal actions against his grandchildren.  But this kind of vile behavior will continue until smug, self-righteous, drug-addled losers like him are held accountable.


Sadly, he wasn’t alone in his disgusting calls for violence, as the leftist group Occupy Wall Street used Twitter not only to call for deadly attacks on immigration enforcement officers but to give instructions on how to do it (by the way, how does Twitter manage to police and ban every user who expresses a conservative opinion, yet these vermin still have Twitter accounts?)


Being “passionate” about some issue in the news that you don't even understand is not an excuse for inciting violence against innocent men, women and children.  That's not being “passionate,” that's being sick, childish, thoughtless and vile.


Commentary continues below advertisement

It’s especially ironic that this should come on the very same day that Rep. Steve Scalise was able to return to the baseball diamond for the first time, exactly one year since he was nearly murdered by a deranged leftist gunman, inspired by overheated political rhetoric to try to slaughter as many Republican Congress members as possible at a charity baseball game practice.  It was only due to the swift, heroic response by police that he didn’t accomplish his planned massacre, which has oddly become one of the few shootings that the media never seem to want to talk about.


And yet, even after that, some people still refuse to examine their own actions and words.


There is a character in the movie “Forrest Gump” who said something that’s become a meme on many conservative websites.  Wesley, the hippie boyfriend of Forrest’s love, Jenny, after beating her up, tried to weasel out of responsibility by saying, “Things got a little out of hand. It’s just this war and that lying son of a b**** Johnson.”  But of course, he didn’t beat his girlfriend because the President or his policies drove him to it.  He did it because he was a violent, immature, self-centered, hypocritical jerk.


Anyone who commits or foments violence against others and tries to blame it on the President or political policies they disagree with is no better than that scumball.  Shame on them.  They don’t belong on movie or TV screens or on social media.  They need to spend a long time looking inside themselves and reflecting on what they’ve said and done and what they have become.  Preferably during a stay in a federal prison.  




Today's Commentary: Hillary intended to break law, FBI intended to absolve her -- Major figures AWOL from hearings -- Congressional Democrats get what they wanted -- US withdraws from Human Rights Council -- Keeping up with the fallout -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse
We were right about the news cycle being dominated by the hysteria about crying children at the border for yet another day; hardly anyone other than FOX News covered the Inspector General’s testimony before congressional committees on Tuesday.
For those still contending that “there’s nothing to see here” in the investigation of the FBI’s handling of the Clinton and Trump investigations, please note that this week...
Today's Commentary: Horowitz hearing was Tuesday's REAL news story -- Good advice from Hollywood -- Obamacare nightmare -- Comey under investigation -- Democrats rush again -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse
Today's Commentary: Note to Horowitz: "Past department practices" could be rotten, too-- The Peter Strzok Files -- My Questions for IG Horowitz and Robert Mueller -- "They Never Learn File" -- SPLC fined and forced to apologize -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse

A response to Laura Bush

June 19, 2018

The wave of newfound outrage continues to roil among liberal celebrities, politicians and news media figures over the policy of separating children from their parents who try to cross the border illegally and putting the kids into detention centers.

Starting July 1, we will only send the Evening Edition to subscribers of that newsletter.  Please add your name here to receive these emails


Peter Strzok, the FBI agent whose opposition to Trump and support for Hillary were revealed in his text messages to his like-minded mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, pulled a surprise move over the weekend.  His attorney sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, saying that Strzok is willing to testify without immunity or invoking the Fifth Amendment and answer any questions.  The attorney writes, “Pete is central to this story. We should let the American people see who he really is.”  (I think the text messages gave us a pretty good idea of who he is, as did the transparent attempts to hide them for so long.)  Continuing: “He thinks that his position, character and actions have all been misrepresented and caricatured, and he wants an opportunity to remedy that.”


I assume we will hear more of the claim that those texts represented his personal, private political views and never influenced his professional decisions in any way.  We might also hear another excuse that’s been floated: that the anti-Trump texts were merely cover for the affair, so if his wife saw them, it would appear that he and Page were just talking politics.  Or that he was just saying those things to comfort his distraught girlfriend.  In other words, despite the obvious bend-over-backwards-to-exonerate-Hillary investigation and the bend-any-rule-to-ensnare-Trump investigation, we can believe that he was a completely honest professional of good character because the evidence that he wasn’t was a lie concocted either to cover up the affair he was having behind his wife’s back or to keep his mistress in a good mood.  That may require more bending than even the most flexible minds can handle without snapping.




A couple of updates to stories from last week: 


President Trump said he wouldn’t sign the compromise version of a House immigration reform plan, which threw GOP leaders for a loop after they put in a lot of effort to create a bill that would draw enough support to pass.  But the White House walked that back, with an unnamed senior official saying that Trump just misunderstood the question.  A statement was issued saying that Trump will sign either bill, both of which contain funding for a border wall.  More details here:


Also, I linked to an article by legal expert Paul Rosenzweig explaining why the witness-tampering evidence against former Trump campaign official Paul Manafort seemed awfully “thin.”  He’s written an update admitting he must have been mistaken, since the judge ordered Manafort jailed.  He notes that the judge said she “struggled” with the decision, and he doesn’t cite any details that he got wrong.  But he assumes the case must be stronger than he assessed it to be, at least in the mind of the judge.  Considering some rulings we’ve seen from judges recently, I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that the law or evidence had anything to do with it, but here’s the link to his update just the same.




If you listen to certain prominent news sources (or get all your news from social media in the form of Democratic Underground memes), you might believe that America is a horrible place, filled with violent, narrow-minded, Republican-voting bigots who hate immigrants, which is loosely defined as everyone who is here and wasn’t born here, whether they followed the law and actually became an immigrant or just came across the border illegally.  It’s no wonder all the more tolerant, welcoming countries like Germany and France lecture us so much about our shortcomings. 


If any of that sounds true to you, then prepare to have your mind blown by reality.  According to the Pew Research Center, America has taken in more refugees than any other nation on Earth: about 3 million since 1980.  In fact, that’s more than all the other nations combined.  And there were no cutbacks or biases during Republican Administrations; during a 10-year period beginning under Bush in 2002, there was an increase in the number of immigrants granted refuge from African and Middle Eastern nations.  There’s more at the link, all of it destructive to the popular narrative.




It was no surprise when “Saturday Night Live” was blasted and abandoned by Republicans because of its unfunny, relentlessly anti-Trump sketches.  But then, even liberal media outlets such as started to complaint that it wasn’t comedy anymore, just propaganda.  Former cast members, including Rob Schneider and Joe Piscopo, also weighed in on how the show had let its obvious bias kill the humor.  But its defenders dismissed all that criticism and scoffed that the older cast members were just out of touch.


Well, try this: the show has become so biased and predictable that even one of the current cast members has spoken up in hopes of changing it.  And that cast member is female and African-American, so if "SNL's" writers try to dismiss this criticism as “white male privilege,” it will be funniest thing they’ve come up with since the 2016 election.

Commentary continues below advertisement


A while back, when everyone was caught up in the debate over whether President Trump should sit down for questioning from Robert Mueller, I suggested a list of questions that Mueller should be asked by Trump.  Now that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is about to sit for questioning by congressional committees, I thought I’d be similarly helpful with a list for Congress to use.  Devin Nunes surely doesn’t need my help on this, but, just for fun, here goes...


1.  Soon after Peter Strzok was named head of the FBI’s Trump/Russia probe, he texted Lisa Page that Trump won’t be President and that “we will stop it.”  Did you infer that he meant they’d stop Trump from getting elected, or did you think he might have meant something else, such as, “We will stop meeting for five-hour lunches”?


2.  When some of the Strzok-Page texts were made public, Strzok was demoted and now works in Human Resources.  He also maintains his security clearance.  If his appearance of bias was so detrimental to the FBI that he had to be removed from his job, do you see any irony in the fact that he’s now in Human Resources?  And what about the “appearance” of his continued security clearance?


3.  How did you even get those Strzok-Page texts when the FBI told Congress they were not obtainable?  Did you hire a family of Pakistani IT professionals to hack them?


4.  According to the report, Hillary’s classified emails were obtained by foreign governments and intelligence entities.   How many consecutive life sentences would be given to a submariner whose personal pictures on board his sub were similarly compromised?


5.  Peter Strzok was in charge of the FBI’s investigation of Trump “collusion” for its first nine months. If bias is not to affect the eventual determination by the special counsel --- or the public's perception of that determination--- shouldn’t the work of the team led by Strzok be tossed out?


6.  You say that there is no evidence in your report that anyone’s bias affected the conclusions reached by the FBI.  Question:  Have you read the report?


7.  How did Peter Strzok get the job of lead investigator in the Hillary email case?  Was Hillary herself not available to run it?


8.  Will Strzok finally be fired from the FBI by Christopher Wray, or will he be kept on and offered the exciting new anti-bias “training”?


9.  When “Agent 1” texted “Agent 5” the message “I’m with her,” did you infer that he was talking about Hillary Clinton, or did you think he might have been talking about some other female presidential candidate, such as Carly Fiorina, Geraldine Ferraro or Roseanne Barr?


10.  Why was no recording or transcript made of Hillary’s FBI interview?  Given the large budget for the FBI, couldn’t they have laid in a supply of pens and paper or found just one recording device?  Will there be “training” for office supply managers?


11.  Why was Hillary never asked about Bill’s meeting with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac five days before her interview?  Were investigators simply hesitant to ask her about ANY private meeting Bill had with ANY woman?


12.  If Comey was acting entirely on his own in being “insubordinate” and deciding not to charge Hillary, why was his statement to that effect passed around for editing and tweaking by numerous other FBI officials before she was interviewed?  Do you see this as collusion against Trump or simply a commendable display of teamwork?


13.  As you know, the DOJ and FBI have refused to give Congress key documents related to the FISA applications and spying on Trump campaign associates, even though they’ve been under subpoena for many months.  We know you're looking into that now, so have they given you access to those documents?


14.  If so, have you read them?


15.  Um, what do they say?


16.  Please, can you print us a copy?


17.  If you saw Strzok’s “we’ll stop it” text a month ago, why did you keep it from Congress all this time?  Were you concerned we might somehow conclude Strzok WAS trying to stop it, before we could see from your report that he really wasn’t?


18.  You worked hard on this report, and it is very long.  But its conclusion is so preposterous that even Trey Gowdy has come back to life.  Have you thought about entering one of the healing professions?


19.  Since you have condemned James Comey for “insubordination,” and we know he has lied and leaked to the media, do you think he’s a good star witness in Mueller’s case against Donald Trump, or in any case against anyone at any time?


20.  You wrote, “We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice.”  May we at least conclude from that sentence that the prosecutors might want to plead insanity, as they can't tell right from wrong?


21.  (Bonus question)  When you wrote that sentence, were you high?