“The Red Hats are Coming! The Red Hats are Coming!”

“Jeff Flake is a fraud. Bob Corker is a fraud. …Only a progressive could say they’re going to quit the game – but not yet, later – and in-between trash-talk the ref! That’s what Flake & Corker are doing!” 

There’s no CRYING in BASEBALL!” That movie line has become part of our national vernacular because it’s funny and true and so widely applicable to any situation in which adults find themselves swinging & missing.

There’s been an awful lot of swinging & missing going on in our civic life of late. And it’s come with a heavy, damned near oppressive dose of sanctimony. Like a traffic-stopping blanket of fog, all commerce comes to a halt so you can watch this strange manifestation of nature envelope the ordinary, the mundane, and obscure it into something unseeable, unrecognizable.

Jeff Flake is a fraud. Bob Corker is a fraud. But to hear the garbage media tell it, they’re fcking Paul Revere, warning us “The Red Hats are coming! The Red Hats are coming!” What a NOXIOUS load of codswollup!

Jeff Flake & Bob Corker have both announced their intentions to not seek re-election then immediately went on to lament the leadership at the WH. Had these bastards done this when they were at risk of being called a racist, I might be impressed. My difficulties with Trump are well known. But I’ve come to appreciate the creative destruction he hath wrought. He’s ripping the scales off these bastards and they’re revealing themselves. Gleefully. Self-righteously. And they don’t even realize that they’re just confirming everything we’ve always known about them: THEY’RE PROGRESSIVE REPUBLICANS.

Only a progressive could say they’re going to quit the game – but not yet, later – and in-between trash-talk the ref! That’s what Flake & Corker are doing!

Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz column here – from August – is my primal scream. I can’t say it better. Please read it and know my political soul!

No, Jeff Flake, YOU are How We got Trump
August 02, 2017 by Daniel Horowitz via The Conservative Review

What do you call someone who lectures players on how to play ball but then grounds into a double play every time he’s up to bat? A Jeff Flake. Or maybe just a plain flake.

If Senator Jeff Flake would expend a fraction of the energy he spends on sanctimoniously promoting his work on giving a forceful vision for conservatism on the Senate floor, we would have a different party. Most ironic, if not for the disgusting posturing and vacuous vision of those like Flake, we wouldn’t have Trump as the leader of the Republican Party in the first place. Flake is the embodiment of the intellectually bankrupt party that gave rise to Trump. Flake is so worried now about the effect of Trump on the party he never had a vision for before. If he wants to know how we got here, he should look in the mirror.

This week, the GOP media machine has been promoting Jeff Flake’s new book, a smug and sanctimonious polemic about his concerns over the future of conservatism. Except it has nothing to do with the authentic concerns all of us have about the party — the party that has stood for nothing on social, fiscal, or national security issues while the left has marched on, more truculent than ever in its pursuit of cultural and economic Marxism.

Jeff Flake is the poster child for the frustrating dynamic many of us have been confronted with in the past two years — the false choice between the status-quo failed GOP establishment and Trump. For those who were seeking a true American revolution built upon the timeless principles laid out in the original “Conscience of a Conservative,” written by Barry Goldwater, the debate over Trump has been a distraction. Most traditional conservatives are neither for nor against Trump; we are for the same agenda we have always supported, always seeking innovative strategies and tactics to promote timeless ideas. This distraction has been allowed to consume Republican politics because the voters got fed up with people like Jeff Flake.

When Jeff Flake was originally confronted with his failure to abide by his term-limit promise, he joked, “ I lied … I don’t know what else to say.” At a later event, Flake explained that the term-limit movement was still alive when he took office and it was the thing to do. But, he said, he quickly realized that it would take longer to get things done and that limiting his time in office was a mistake.

This sounds similar to an excuse given by a recent pledge breaker, Markwayne Mullin, after he got promoted to a leadership position.

So what has Flake accomplished for us that was so worth breaking his term-limit pledge?

Flake fails his state

After spending too much time in Washington, rather than changing the Senate, Flake got changed by it. Rather than giving a vision for judicial reform, a workable immigration plan, a foreign policy that puts America first, or a health care system that functions like a healthy market, Flake served as a rudderless lord of his small fiefdom in the Senate, always operating within the policy universe set out by the Left. His only major accomplishment was joining the Gang of 8 open borders initiative, which was a colossal betrayal of his state and of the first responsibility of a public servant.

The first responsibility of an elected representative is to represent his constituents and his state. As of 2013, it was estimated that there were 630,700 illegal aliens residing in Arizona. That is a population of foreign invaders larger than the total population of any single colony at the time of our founding. Over 10 percent of the state’s public school population is composed of illegal alien children. When coupled with the fiscal strain of health care and incarceration, the total cost of illegal immigration is $2.4 billion a year. As a result, Arizona has become the drug capital of the country. Yet, instead of relentlessly advocating for the sovereignty of his state with at least as much gusto as the California senators advocate for sanctuary cities, Flake spent the lion’s share of his time putting the priorities of Mexico’s government ahead of the security and economy of his own state.

That issue alone encapsulates why so many people flocked to Trump in the primary and wouldn’t even hear some of the legitimate conservative concerns about the future president. The only alternative presented to them was people like Jeff Flake, who only assailed Trump from the Left. Voters figured, “Well, if he’s against Trump, I must be for him.”

Being a social liberal invariably leads to fiscal liberalism

From day one, even when he was a fiscal conservative in the House, Flake agreed with the Left on cultural issues. But as many of us have warned, when you operate exclusively within the universe of the Left on cultural issues, it’s only a matter of time before you throw fiscal issues overboard as well. Flake has proven the truth of that theory. He was an ardent opponent and saboteur of Cruz’s effort to defund Obamacare in 2013.

Ironically, Cruz was proven right in his premonition that failure to defund the law in its incipient stage would result in acquiescence to its expansion. Jeff Flake, and his utter silence on the issue, is living proof that Cruz was correct. While Cruz was doing everything possible to compromise with people like Flake to get some sort of repeal on the table, even to the point where many of us disagreed with him, Flake long ago gave up on that fight. Nor is he providing the sort of supply-side health care reform people like me have been championing in recent months. Nope, Flake is too busy selling books. And anyway, long ago he told us, “Obamacare is the law of the land.”

What about his work on the Energy Committee?

In 2009, Flake, along with Bob Inglis, became the first Republican lawmakers to introduce legislation imposing a carbon tax on producers and distributors of fossil fuels, which would lead to higher fossil fuel costs for consumers. The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, would have set a tax of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide produced in its first year in effect, with the tax rising to $100 per ton over three decades

Some fiscal conservative there!

What about Flake’s work on the Senate Judicial Committee? While people like Ted Cruz have been proposing judicial reform ideas, Flake sat idly by and rubber-stamped many of Obama’s liberal judges.

So what exactly does Flake feel passionate about, and why must I read his book to ascertain something that should be obvious from his six-year tenure in the Senate? This is true of some other senators who are busy selling books but have never gotten their fingernails dirty on a single major policy fight, as Cruz and Lee have. The rule of thumb is that if you haven’t shown us a vision when you are actually on the playing field, there is no reason you should be taken seriously when you’re shouting in the bleachers.

Recently, President Trump downplayed the role of Jeff Sessions in winning Trump the primary. In a future tweet he might want to upgrade the role Jeff Flake and his compatriots played in electing him. Without feckless Republicans, Trump would have never found an audience.

Many of us are concerned about Trump’s lack of a coherent vision for some conservative priorities. But even more disconcerting is that as much as he’s not a conservative, most Republican senators find a way to outflank him and “out-flake” him … to the Left. A party where a man like Trump has become the “right” flank is a party that will not last much longer.

Jeff Flake is why we have Donald Trump. The vacuum of leadership had to be filled at some point. Many of us caught in between are disappointed because we have always stood for bold ideas — ideas that have been overshadowed by the clown show — but the last person who has the right to complain about Trump is Flake.

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.

## end ##

Trump, Comey, & What America Saw

VDH is one of my favorite writers. He’s not a casual read. Every word matters. He can pack more in a sentence more than most writers can in an entire paragraph. I’d call him a poet but he’s aim isn’t feeling or beauty, it’s water for a thirsty brain.

What follows is what matters since January 20th. Not the garbage the media has been feeding you. This. THIS is what matters. Had he included the unmasking scandal, this would be 100% comprehensive. As it is, it’s still a masterpiece.


Beware of Narratives and Misinformation by Victor Davis Hanson
September 7, 2017 via National Review Online

Narratives surrounding the DNC hack & Antifa reveal media bias and government bureaucracy at their worst.

U.S. intelligence agencies said Russia was responsible for hacking Democratic National Committee e-mail accounts, leading to the publication of about 20,000 stolen e-mails on WikiLeaks.

But that finding was reportedly based largely on the DNC’s strange outsourcing of the investigation to a private cybersecurity firm. Rarely does the victim of a crime first hire a private investigator whose findings later form the basis of government conclusions.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is many things. But so far he has not been caught lying about the origin of the leaked documents that came into his hands. He has insisted for well over a year that the Russians did not provide him with the DNC e-mails.

When it was discovered that the e-mails had been compromised, then–DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz weirdly refused to allow forensic detectives from the FBI to examine the DNC server to probe the evidence of the theft. Why did the FBI accept that refusal?

That strange behavior was not as bizarre as Wasserman Schultz’s later frenzied efforts to protect her information-technology specialist, Imran Awan, from Capitol Police and FBI investigations. Both agencies were hot on Awan’s trail for unlawfully transferring secure data from government computers, and also for bank and federal-procurement fraud.

So far, the story of the DNC hack is not fully known, but it may eventually be revealed that it involves other actors beyond just the Russians.

There is not much left to the media myth of James Comey as dutiful FBI director, unjustly fired by a partisan and vindictive President Donald Trump. A closer look suggests that Comey may have been the most politicized, duplicitous, and out-of-control FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover.

During the 2016 election, Comey, quite improperly, was put into the role of prosecutor, judge, and jury in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state. That proved a disaster. Comey has admitted under oath to deliberately leaking his own notes — which were likely government property — to the media to prompt the appointment of a special counsel. That ploy worked like clockwork, and by a strange coincidence it soon resulted in the selection of his friend, former FBI director Robert Mueller.

Comey earlier had assured the public that his investigation of Clinton had shown no prosecutable wrongdoing (a judgment that in normal times would not be the FBI’s to make). It has since been disclosed that Comey offered that conclusion before he had even interviewed Clinton.

That inversion suggests that Comey had assumed that whatever he found out about Clinton would not change the reality that the Obama administration would probably drop the inquiry anyway — so Comey made the necessary ethical adjustments.

Comey was also less than truthful when he testified that there had been no internal FBI communications concerning the infamous meeting between Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, and then–attorney general Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac. In fact, there was a trail of FBI discussion about that supposedly secret rendezvous.

Before he fired Comey, Trump drafted a letter outlining the source of his anger. But it seemed to have little to do with the obstruction of justice.

Instead, Trump’s anguished letter complained about Comey’s private assurances that the president was not under FBI investigation, which were offered at about the same time a winking-and-nodding Comey would not confirm that reality to the press, thus leaving the apparently deliberate impression that a compromised president was in legal jeopardy.

There is also a media fantasy about the Antifa street protesters. Few have criticized their systematic use of violence. But when in history have youths running through the streets decked out in black with masks, clubs, and shields acted nonviolently?

Antifa rioters in Charlottesville were praised by progressives for violently confronting a few dozen creepy white supremacists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis. The supremacists were pathetic losers without any public or political support for their odious views, and they were condemned by both political parties. Yet Antifa’s use of violence was compared perversely by some progressives to American soldiers storming the beaches on D-Day.

Later, Antifa thuggery in Boston and Berkeley against free speech and against conservative groups without ties to white supremacists confirmed that the movement was fascistic in nature.

It was recently disclosed that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security had warned the Obama administration in 2016 that Antifa was a domestic terrorist organization that aimed to incite violence during street protests. That stark assessment and Antifa’s subsequent violence make the recent nonchalance of local police departments with regard to Antifa thuggery seem like an abject dereliction of duty.

Doubts about official narratives of the DNC leaks and the errant behavior of James Comey, and misinformation about the violent extremists of Antifa, illustrate media bias — not to mention entrenched government bureaucracies that are either incompetent, ethically compromised, or completely politicized.


What Did Obama Know & When Did He Know It?

This is a summary of a Hannity segment I came across in a blog I know nothing about – and honestly, looks a little weird – but it’s an accurate representation of what was said, and what was said is important – despite Hannity’s involvement 😉

The first guest, Sara Carter of Circa keeps showing up in my reading on this whole Trump/Obama Spygate affair and she seems to have some good sources or instincts or both.

The other guest, attorney Jay Sekulow, has been a great champion for those targeted and abused by the Obama regime. I’ve seen him speak & testify many times and he’s a bulldog.

As for Hannity… well… he’s not the brightest bulb and even if he were, he’s so far up Trump’s butt you’d never see the light, but Sara & Jay carry the segment anyway, so, enjoy.

Sara Carter and Jay Sekulow joined Sean Hannity as the anticipation for “smoking gun” revelations proving that Obama spied on President Trump mounts. Hannity notes that every day, everything Carter said is coming true. He asks her what she thinks about what Devin Nunes has said and also about a James Rosen article just posted.

She predicts it’s not going to be  “just one little piece of evidence but an accumulation of evidence that’s going to expose what’s been going on” with the Obama regime spying on citizens. She recognizes that after the information is delivered to chairman Nunes [Friday March 24, 2017] we’ll be much better informed. She notes the expansion by Obama of the intelligence sharing under executive order 12333, wondering why and what changed.

She asks, “If it was legal to collect all of this evidence, not the unmasking of all of these names, but if this was collected legally, was there something else that happened before this that we’re not aware of yet?” She felt Chairman Nunes was dancing around that question a little bit in his earlier interview with Hannity.

Sekulow talks about the statement by Chairman Nunes that some of this information was obtained prior to the expansion of executive order 12333 and that the implication is that this information could have been disclosed without any “perceived or claimed” legitimacy under that illegitimate executive order.

Sekulow says, “You know what I think we’ve got here Sean? I think we’ve got a Constitutional crisis of James Comey’s making. So this is a Constitutional crisis from Comey and Comey was an administration official also under ‘president’ Obama. And this idea that ‘president’ Obama did not order it does not answer the question of was the Obama administration responsible for this because the fact is, and this is clear, they were the administration in power.”

Carter thinks it goes past Comey to the highest levels of the Obama regime. “We need to find out who unmasked these names,” she says, “and it wasn’t just Director Comey. There were other people who had access to this and the NSA can unmask these names. So who requested that? That’s one of the most important, important questions here Sean, and why. And I think once those questions start to get answered, just like Chairman Nunes said, then we’ll know, was there political espionage? And if there was, Sean, this is the greatest civil liberties violations that we have seen in our country in a long time.”

Sekulow recommends subpoenaing Obama directly, compeling him to answer the questions directly. “You want to find out what he knew and when he knew it? Ask him, especially if this was not anything outside the scope of legitimacy. So if this was ‘a legal surveillance,’ but they unmasked this information, ask the ‘president’ directly.”

He also believes that Attorney General Sessions should impanel a grand jury. He added, “Number two, for the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, he needs to get the background data, because what he saw in those reports shocked him, obviously. Not just because it named President Trump potentially and his associates, but also the nature of the dissemination itself. And that dissemination, that unmasking can well be a crime, so they need to get the background data.”

Once again he stresses that President Trump can get the information they need to pursue this. He needs to get it “and Jeff Sessions needs to be working on it tonight.”

Hannity adds that James Comey now needs to come clean with the American people and tell us what he knows.” That is an area where Comey might opt to plead the 5th, Sean, like so many Democrats eventually find themselves doing. His conduct over the past year or so indicates that is a very strong possibility, once his Teflon of “an ongoing investigation” is removed.

*I made some extremely minor corrections to the text/punctuation for ease of reading.

### end ###


“When the president is not Barack Obama, the New York Times delights in holding presidents accountable for anything and everything…”  Yes. Sometimes they don’t even wait that long.

(The finger pointing down 👇🏻 in my tweet below is confusing. In the original tweet, as it appears on Twitter, the paragraph graphic w/the yellow circle was BELOW my text. When I embed it here, it’s ABOVE. Sorry for the confusion if you don’t use/understand Twitter, but I can’t help it!)

And for the entirety of the Bush Administration, if members of the Editorial Board at The New York Times got a warm salad fork at The Palm it was BUSH’S FAULT. They blamed him FOR EVERYTHING. No matter HOW INSANE. Yes, “the buck stops” there, with the president, but good grief. It was taken to absurd lengths. Then January 20, 2009 happened and the world was made anew. And somehow, magically, Black Jesus rose above it all. And there he remains, despite *FIVE AGENCIES * investigating Trump and ‘handing intel around the White House.’ Jeffrey Lord (shameless Trump* apologist) makes exactly this case below, in his Newsbusters article. Apologista aside, he’s right. 100% right. It deserves to be read in its entirety, so I post it here, in full, for your consideration.

By the NYT’s Own Standards, Paper Should Hold Obama Responsible for Spying

Words matter.

Fact: The administration of President Barack Obama surveilled the campaign associates of the President’s political opponent, Donald Trump. Then the classified information gained was leaked to the press – repeatedly. All of which furthered a liberal narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.

How do we know? Because the New York Times says so.

This week White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer went in to considerable detail – specifics – on press reports of Obama spying on Trump. Yet time after time after time the media across the board – yes, even Fox News – just blatantly ignored the evidence and, worse, insisted there was none. More astoundingly, Republican members of Congress are denying outright that the evidence that is right in front of them – presented in detail by the New York Times and others – even exists.

The irritating-to-the-media fact that talk radio’s Mark Levin broke through this media dam of denial was momentarily dealt with by the media – and dismissed. So, it’s time for a “for-the-record” listing of the specifics that the media is quite deliberately ignoring – specifics that show beyond doubt that, yes indeed, the New York Times has documented in chapter and verse that the Obama Administration – the very same administration that surveilled the e-mails of Fox correspondent James Rosen, tried to force New York Times reporter James Risen to reveal his sources for a CIA-related book – and, notably – had to apologize to an irate German Chancellor Angela Merkel for allegedly surveilling her cell phone – did in fact conduct surveillance of Trump associates. (Note: Reporter Risen called Obama the  “Greatest Enemy To Press Freedom In A Generation”.)

Here’s another fact. When the president is not Barack Obama, the New York Times delights in holding presidents accountable for anything and everything that goes on in their administrations. Especially if their name is Reagan or George W. Bush.

In the Reagan era, there was the Iran-Contra affair, which involved a convoluted scheme by some administration officials to trade arms for hostages and use the monies received from Iran to fund the anti-Communist Nicaraguan contras. The President had no knowledge of this. Yet he was pounded by the New York Times  – and many others – in the media to take responsibility for what happened. Examples:

The Times raged on in a December, 2, 1986 editorial about “President Reagan and His Operators,” which began thusly:

“Against news of a startling plunge in his popularity, President Reagan has gone from blaming the press for the Iran arms scandal finally to some constructive steps to end it.”

Got that? The Times is saying that instead of blaming the press for holding him accountable for something others in his administration did without his knowledge, Reagan needed to get on with “constructive steps” to correct the problem that he, Reagan, was responsible for as chief executive.

In a Times editorial from November 22, 1987, the paper was once again holding Reagan personally responsible for something he did not know about or authorize.  Specifically the paper said that Reagan accepted “nominal responsibility” for the actions of others but he was “the man who made it all possible.” He was specifically accused of abusing the public trust even though there was no proof – none – that he had authorized the arms for hostages enterprise.

Then there was this Times editorial from March 6, 1987, titled: “The President and the Quagmire.” Among other things the Times said – bold print supplied:

“President Reagan still cannot pronounce the word ''I'' in the same sentence as the word ''mistake.'' If his speech about the Iran-contra scandal Wednesday was intended as a confession of error, his heart wasn't in it. He sounded at times like a man who's sure he hasn't done anything wrong -and promises never to do it again.

But despite some grudging, fudging aspects, Mr. Reagan's appearance brought a welcome advance. With this speech he accepted, and demonstrated, responsibility.”

Got that? Reagan didn’t do anything wrong. He didn’t know what had been done in his name. But be that as it may, these were the actions of people in his administration and therefore he had to make sure he stood up in front the nation and the world and “accepted, and demonstrated, responsibility.”

Lest one think this was just the Times posture of always holding Reagan accountable for the actions of his administration even when he was unaware of them, the Times made it a point to apply the same standard to George W. Bush. On May 14, 2004, the Times, in an uproar over the discovery of the mistreatment of prisoners by American soldiers at the Iraqi Abu Ghraib prison demanded that “Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress should stop trying to evade responsibility by accusing those who want to ask tough questions of being disloyal to the troops and the war effort.”

In other words? While those soldiers in Iraq may have done the actual deed of mistreating prisoners without President Bush’s knowledge much less assent, the ultimate person responsible for Abu Ghraib was Bush himself – and he needed to promptly “stop trying to evade responsibility,”

Now come Times stories like the following, all of which took place during the Obama administration:

The New York Times, January 19, 2017. Headline:

Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates

The story begins as follows, bold print supplied:

WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump….

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”

Full stop right there. The Times is saying in plain English that “law enforcement and intelligence agencies” are conducting “a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump…”

Question: Who exactly do these “law enforcement and intelligence agencies” and the cited FBI, National Security Agency, CIA and Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit work for? Answer? Just as those involved in the Reagan-era Iran-Contra affair worked for President Reagan, and those soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison were the responsibility – per the Times – of President George W. Bush so too are all the people involved in the agencies listed above by the Times the responsibility of the sitting president of the day – President Barack Obama. Which is to say, members of the Obama administration were using, per the Times, “wiretapped communications” of  “associates” of Obama’s political opponent – identified by the Times as “President-elect Donald J. Trump.”

But the Times wasn’t done making this case that the Obama administration had in fact wiretapped or surveilled (and to be clear, wiretapping is a form of surveillance).

On March 1, 2017, the Times headlined:

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

This story began:

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.…

Question: Where did Obama “White House officials” get the “information… about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians” in the first place? The Times has already provided the answer: the Obama White House received this information from other Obama officials outside the White House. The information, received as the Times has noted, by Obama administration surveillance of the “associates” of candidate and President-elect Trump, was then used by Obama White House officials as they “scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government.”

Again? Who was the sitting President of the United States while all of this surveillance of Trump “associates” were being conducted? And reported right there in the Times? A paper presumably read by the White House staff at a minimum if not the President himself? That’s right: President Obama.

It boggles the mind that the media – not to mention Republican members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees – are saying they have found no evidence that the Obama administration was using surveillance to spy on President Trump. Let’s not play games and say that “associates” of the President somehow are not the President.

Note well the irony here. Already every word or deed from someone somewhere in the newborn Trump administration has the media holding President Trump himself responsible for whatever was said or done. When press secretary Sean Spicer appeared in the White House press briefing room to scorch the press for its inauguration coverage – the Timesblamed the President. It may be a high profile adviser – Spicer, Steve Bannon or Kellyanne Conway today or during the campaign Corey Lewandowski – or it could be some fringe supporter involved in some fracas out there  on the trail. It could be an unwated endorsement from David Duke.  No matter, the Times and the rest of the media hold and held Trump himself personally responsible.

But Barack Obama? The central figure in a blossoming scandal that had  – per the New York Times – members of his administration wiretapping or otherwise surveilling his opponent’s “associates”? Well, yawn, no big deal.

One can only wonder whether members of Congress read the Times reporting. Or whether Times reporters themselves have read their own work. One wonders what Shep Smith over there at Fox News has possibly been thinking when he says “Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the president of the United States was surveilled at any time in any way, full stop.”  Here’s a bulletin from the New York Times, Shep:

“ American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump…”

Those “intercepted communications and financial transactions” from Trump “associates” working for Obama’s political adversary were in fact reported by the Times as intercepted by the Obama administration.

Words matter. And the New York Times – which stands by the words in its reporting on this and refuses to back away – has produced something else besides words.

Memo to the larger media, Speaker Ryan and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees? That something else is called “evidence.”

I will leave you with this tweet which I have had **pinned to my Twitter home page since yesterday.

*If you’re new here, you should know I was hard core Ted Cruz and left the Republican Party the day after he lost the Indiana primary (making Trump the nominee.) I was, and remain, “never Trump” but like with all presidents, will support him when he acts in harmony with the Constitution. Don’t confuse my support of principles as they relate to the office he holds with support of him. They are two different things.

**Pins change. By the time you read this, it may not be there. Small point, but needed saying in case, again, you are unfamiliar with Twitter.



Via Breitbart (I know, I know… but it’s where I saw the transcript of her remarks. So down. Down!) As any of you who have ever had a black girlfriend know, the hands-on-the-hips slap-down is a sight to behold, as long as you are not on the receiving end of it. Sonnie’s hands were on her hips and a whole lotta smackdown was goin’ on!


NOTE: CPAC = Conservative Political Action Committee, BLM = Black Lives Matter

Sonnie Johnson at CPAC: ‘Systemic Racism and White Supremacy’ Belong to the Democrats

(Black female) conservative commentator Sonnie Johnson slammed progressive politics for hurting black business owners and wrecking families in a fiery Feb. 23 CPAC speech at the National Harbor.

“What if I told you I actually agree with Black Lives Matter? What if I told you institutionalized racism is real in America?” Johnson said, describing how progressive president Woodrow Wilson believed America would be better “if the races were segregated.” She continued:

What if I told you institutionalized racism was real in America and came through a president named FDR? What if I told you that minimum wage [laws] was to protect white jobs from black workers, through unionization? That actually happened in this country. What if I told you that price controls put out by FDR actually bankrupted black farms? People who worked for themselves their entire lives were now forced to go to government and beg for welfare? What if I told you excessive taxation and regulation took these people that were newly-freed slaves already… and crushed those businesses?

“What if I told you that white supremacy is real in America, and it came with the very first gun law? That black people had no right to protect themselves from the KKK?” Johnson said to applause and appreciative “amens” from the audience.

“What if I told you white supremacy was real in the form of Planned Parenthood?” Johnson continued to growing applause. Progressives put “Planned Parenthood centers right in black neighborhoods.”

“What if I told you white supremacism was real in the criminal justice system, because you have people that think they can change human nature by passing a law, and they realized that they could [bypass] the Thirteenth Amendment and still restrict you to slavery by convicting you of a crime?”

All of these factors “culminated in a campaign of a self-professed, Woodrow Wilson-era progressive,” Johnson said. “Who wants to push an FDR jobs program. Who loves Planned Parenthood. And who hasn’t met a gun law she didn’t like. And who ran on the Democrats’ side: Hillary Clinton.” (“Mmm-hmm,” the audience replied in unison.)

“Every single aspect of systemic racism and white supremacy they have pushed remains on the Democratic side,” she said, later adding: “They came from the Democrat side and they remain on the Democrat side.”

Johnson concluded that she had a message to deliver to “those black families out there that are listening.”

“You have an option. You have a choice. I am not telling you this administration. I am not telling you this president. I am telling you this conservative ideology is your choice. I’m not telling you it’s fun. I am not telling you it is easy. I’m telling you in the end, it is worth it,” she said. “Every single drop is worth it.”

“So, before I go, it’s a battle with Black Lives Matter. Can we build our own damn army, please?” she said to wild applause.

Amen, sister.