Democrat party filled with hard left authoritarians

By Kurt Schlichter

Think about this – a significant portion of our country, including a majority of its elite, thinks that it’s A-OK for a Democrat administration to spy on a Republican candidate. Think hard about that. And think about whether or not we can ever put the pieces of our shattered republic back together again if we can’t even agree that using government power against our political enemies is a bad thing.

But the terrifying truth is that liberals and their Never Trump enablers actually think this kind of tyranny is a good thing. You see, they think Normal Americans are so transcendently awful (and, even more importantly, that the elite’s power so precious) that all is fair in order to stifle their opponents’ collective voice.

Yeah, I know they have reasons and excuses and elaborate theories about why it was absolutely necessary for a Democrat administration to spy on its designated replacement’s Republican opponent. And it was also totally cool for the IRS to suppress uppity Tea Party groups because they were getting to successful.

Excuses are always garbage, and theirs are garbage on fire in a dumpster. They know it. Offering them is just going through the motions. They are willing to embrace these tactics because they can.

The question all boils down to this – is it acceptable for the party in power to use the intelligence and law enforcement communities against its rivals? Are these convoluted and often delusional explanations – RUSSIANS TREASON OK NO RUSSIANS THEN UH

Of course not. Even if Trump’s people sought to get the Russians to release the contents of the emails Hillary Clinton should never have had on her literally “password“ password-protected illegal server – and after two years, there’s zero evidence they did –was that enough to send spies into the campaign, to tap its phones, and leverage the power of FBI et ceterea to surveil them? Does the liberal elite have any concern that maybe, just maybe, it has to be about as serious a situation as you can get to do that? Is a coordinated campaign by the FBI backed up by the NSA and probably the CIA the proper remedy for the unauthorized release of Hillary’s yoga dates and wedding plans, because that’s all Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit said was on the 33K emails she deleted, right?

Who is the liberal who is shocked and appalled by all this? Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley seem upset, and former Clinton functionary Mark Penn, but that’s all. That’s it. Who is the single Democrat politician who stood up and said, “Hey, wait a second, we just can’t have one party’s administration spy on another party’s campaign?” And that doesn’t even address the deep state whitewash of Clinton’s email crimes that would have put any of us in jail.

No one objected. The Democrat Party is committed to the New Rules. And the New Rules are tyranny.

It can’t be a surprise. After all, the Democrat Party has bulldozed every norm, custom, and tradition out there in its quest for undisputed power. It spews hatred at its opponents – hey, everyone reading this is racist, sexist, and a denier of #science and so forth. The Democrats will happily deny you your free exercise of religion – put on your aprons people, because you can bake a cake or be bankrupted. They seek to suppress speech by encouraging fascism both in academia and by online tech companies, and if you think they won’t pass laws to limit speech given the chance, you’re fooling yourself. Hell, they tried to amend the First Amendment to overturn Citizens United, a case where the government tried to ban a movie critical of Hillary Clinton.

Let’s say that again, because it’s madness. The position of the left-of-center party in the United States is that the government should be allowed to arrest and imprison people for making a film critical of a politician.

As always, they have their excuses – “Let’s take the money out of politics (so that the only voices are the mainstream media which eagerly and slavishly suckles at our heaving liberal bosom)” – but in the end, they desire the consequences of the policies they support. They want to be able to arrest and imprison you for daring to make a film criticizing one of their icons.

Do you note the underlying premise, that they assume it is they who will be wielding the power to oppress?Good luck with that. We cannot have a functioning republic where about half of the population actively supports the trappings of tyranny. We can’t. No nation, especially one full of citizens who zealously guard their freedom, can tolerate a double standard for political behavior. It won’t be double for long. The New Rules, should they become ingrained in our systems, will inevitably go both ways.

They are going to hate the New Rules.

We need to return to the Old Rules, starting with the rule of law. It’s that or split our country in two, one free and one Democrat. Or it could be something even worse.

The United States of America cannot function where one of the two parties effectively recognizes no limits on the use of government power to impose its will upon the other half. We Normal Americans are woke, and we Normals are getting militant. We see what’s happening. But do the liberals and their Never Trump lackies? Do they really want to go down this road?

Mr. Sessions, Your ‘Extraordinary Circumstances’ Are Here

By Roger L Simon

In March, Attorney General Sessions wrote to three Republican congressman, declining to appoint a special counsel in the matter of the FBI, CIA, Obama administration and… and…  frankly, I don’t know what to call it, since there is so much from the Clinton Foundation to the emails to the FISA court to who knows what…. because, the AG said, a special counsel necessitated “extraordinary circumstances.”

I sympathized somewhat with Sessions at the time.  Special counsels do not have the best track records. Often they are appointed for dubious politicized reasons. In the Valerie Plame case, a special counsel put Scooter Libby in jail for outing the insignificant Plame as a CIA agent when she was already easily identified in Who’s Who (not to mention that the never-indicted Richard Armitage, not Libby, did the initial public outing anyway).

[UPDATE: As several commenters have correctly noted, Libby was indicted for the ever-popular “lying to the FBI,” not for outing Plame.  I knew this and apologize for being so sloppy.  But it’s worth noting that is even worse, virtually, as someone said, a “set up.”]

Now we have the interminable Mueller “Russia Probe,” so named because it was supposed to be looking into Russian involvement in the 2016 election but seems to be investigating everything but.  Democrat pollster Mark Penn isn’t the only one of his party to realize this has been one elongated farce and actually damaging to the Dems with FBI officials dropping like flies either through quasi-firings or potential indictment. The public is somewhere between bored and nauseated.  That Republicans are suddenly leading in the generic polls is almost certainly related.


Now we have a situation that qualifies as an “extraordinary circumstance” if anything does.  It is becoming increasingly clear that there was and is a plot at the highest levels of our government involving the FBI, the intelligence agencies, and the Obama administration to block and then undermine the administration of Donald Trump.

On top of that, we now learn there were spies — plural.  Spies! (I don’t mean to “trigger” the children at the New York Times who chose to call them “informants.”)  Not just this Halper dude (aka “The Walrus” — how Le Carré is that!) in Cambridge, whose identity everyone is pretending to hide, but now former Trump advisor Michael Caputo reports he was approached by multiple individuals.

Think about that again. Spies — in action long before James Comey said the investigation began —  paid (large amounts in at least one case) to spy on the political opposition.  Are we a Banana Republic or the very Russia we are supposedly probing? I can’t imagine how my liberal and progressive friends justify this.  Hold their ears, I guess, but this is a loud explosion. (I’ve already seen how James Clapper does.  He lies.)

The reaction to Watergate proved the strength of our democratic republic.  Thus far this does exactly the opposite. It threatens it as never before since WWII.

So, as much as I do dislike the method, I think we really do need a special counsel this time. Immediately.  It’s certainly going to slow things down and maybe, just maybe, Atty. John Huber, whose presence working on the case in Utah was announced by Sessions in that same March letter, will do the necessary job.  (And to do that he would have to be ruthless, willing to put a number of our highest officials, perhaps friends, in orange suits. Otherwise this will be much ado about nada.)

But you’ll excuse me if I’m a Doubting Thomas.  Perhaps I’ve seen too many films like the Italian Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion or seen too many plays like Brecht’s The Caucasian Chalk Circle with its rascally judge Azdak to be sanguine about police and intelligence agencies investigating themselves.  These are bureaucracies whose overwhelming interest is almost always self-preservation.

The confused, ambushed look on Christopher Wray’s — the relatively new FBI new director — face through all this is an illustration of this.  The man doesn’t seem to know what to do, although most of on the outside would say “get rid of them!”  Clean the place out.  What’re you waiting for?  But just by being there he has become one of them.

Well, Jeff, your turn. You said you wanted “extraordinary circumstances.”  Voilá.


What Changed? The Same Media Who Excuse Bob Mueller Abused Ken Starr

By Bill D’Agostino

Today’s journalists routinely assert that it is “extreme,” “dangerous,” and possibly even criminal for the White House – or anyone else, for that matter – to criticize an investigation into the President. But twenty years ago, Independent Counsel Ken Starr was savaged by the same liberal media during his investigation of then-President Bill Clinton. At that time, Starr was harangued as a “partisan” and “inept prosecutor,” and a “peeping Tom.”

On Monday evening, MSNBC host Chris Matthews shared his take on the Trump administration’s attitude towards Mueller while hosting Hardball: “President Trump is indicating today that he’s willing to go to extreme new lengths to discredit the Russia probe.”

“It seems extremely dangerous that you have investigators investigating the investigation,” intoned a deeply concerned Don Lemon. The CNN Tonight host continued, “You have a President who appears to be, by anyone’s standards, trying to manipulate the process.”

Chris Cuomo was similarly incensed on Tuesday, providing the following synopsis on CNN’s New Day: “The logic is clear. Attack the people who are attacking you, even if it’s just in perception. Bring down their credibility, and that will reduce the impact of anything they find…”

During a segment on ABC’s This Week, CNN Contributor and former Ted Cruz staffer Amanda Carpenter mounted a particularly tone-deaf defense of the Special Counsel. “One of the problems here is that Donald Trump has a strong PR machine giving his side of the story out, and the Department of Justice and the investigators do not,” she claimed – as if the media are not themselves a massive anti-Trump PR machine.

The liberal media-wide closing of ranks around the Mueller investigation has ramped up in recent days, but it is nothing new in the age of Trump. In March, MSNBC White House Correspondent Peter Alexander suggested that a tweet in which the President had criticized Mueller somehow constituted a criminal act: “Does this effort to sort of undermine and discredit this investigation… does this only add to this obstruction of justice effort by Robert Mueller?”

Back in December of 2017, Lemon confessed on his show that he found conservative media criticism of Mueller “embarrassing,” and “shocking to watch.”

Journalists sang a very different tune when it was a Democratic President under scrutiny. Accusations of Ken Starr’s supposed partisan zeal and incompetence were commonplace throughout the investigation, and as the probe dragged on, the cacophony of dissenting voices only grew fiercer. MRC analysts combed the archives for the most egregious clips of pundits tearing into the Special Counsel, which can be viewed in the compilation video below.

For a list of the quotes contained in the video, click “expand” below:

“There is growing controversy tonight, about whether the newly named independent counsel in the Whitewater case is independent or a Republican partisan allied with a get-Clinton movement.”
– Dan Rather on the August 8 CBS Evening News, 1994.

“What the Judge said plays directly into what the White House’s allies have been saying, that this is an over-zealous prosecutor over-reaching in a bid to bring down the President.”
– ABC’s Jackie Judd ending a story on charges dismissed in the Hubbell tax evasion case, July 1 World News Tonight, 1998.

“…By pandering to Clinton-haters, Mr. Starr appears to be abandoning all pretenses of impartiality. He went into this job with a reputation as a fair-minded conservative. He now looks more like a political hit man desperately eager for a future Supreme Court appointment.”
– Al Hunt’s Outrage of the Week, October 5 Capital Gang, 1996.

“If Ken Starr is a credible prosecutor he will bring this to a conclusion and the Clintons will be exonerated.”
– Newsweek‘s Eleanor Clift on the February 10 McLaughlin Group, 1996.

“If he doesn’t come forward very soon with credible evidence of lawbreaking, he will go down in history as the Peeping Tom Prosecutor.”
– Newsweek Senior Editor Jonathan Alter on Kenneth Starr, April 1 The News with Brian Williams on MSNBC, 1998.

“I’m gonna call any witness I can to prove that Ken Starr is a partisan zealot who has had a chip on his shoulder…”
– Geraldo Rivera on what he’d advise if he were Clinton’s lawyer, November 11 Rivera Live on CNBC, 1998.

“Have you any doubt that Kenneth Starr and his deputies are pursuing an agenda that is purely political?”
– Some of Bryant Gumbel’s questions to former Clinton business partner and convicted felon Susan McDougal and her attorney, September 17 Today, 1996.

“Let’s not pretend for a moment that the Starr report is a balanced, judicious presentation. It’s not. It is a partisan prosecutor with some zealous aides who’s trying to make a case against a guy he despises.”
– Al Hunt, Executive Washington Editor of the Wall Street Journal, September 12 Capital Gang on CNN, 1998.

“Couldn’t this be just a witch hunt? Couldn’t the Democrats and President Clinton’s people who’ve been defending him all these months be right?”
– Good Morning America co-host Lisa McRee to humorist P.J. O’Rourke, September 10, 1998.

“Would not there be some sort of comparison to a persecutor as opposed to a prosecutor for Mr. Starr?”
– Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s The Big Show, to Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief Jams Warren, August 18, 1998.

“…Ken Starr is like a deer caught in the headlights, he’s got big bug eyes, he’s gonna do anything. He’s so mad that his neck is going to blow up… This is about vindictiveness, that’s what this is. This is about spite. This is a hate crime. This is a hate crime!”
– Geraldo Rivera on CNBC’s Rivera Live, November 16, 1998.

“At any point have you suggested to Judge Starr that its time to shut the office down or that he may be pressing too hard?”
– Good Morning America co-host Diane Sawyer to Judge Robert Bork, 1998.

“Should Starr resign?”
– Bernard Shaw on CNN’s Inside Politics, Feb. 26, 1998.

“When is this going to be over?”
– Diane Sawyer to Starr, 20/20 interview, November 25, 1998.

“The citizenry want the investigation, the investigator, the experts, and the media to go away.”
Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s The Big Show, August 19, 1998.

“What about the image and impression of Ken Starr as the sort of evil puppeteer behind this entire investigation?”
– John Hockenberry to Gwen Ifill on MSNBC’s InterNight, November 19, 1998.

“If this reminds you of George Orwell’s novel, 1984, it should. The government in that book poked and pried everywhere. Its slogan was, ‘Big Brother Is Watching You.’ And with the aid of the thought police, he was. Welcome to Orwell’s world.”
– CNN’s Bruce Morton on Late Edition, October 11, 1998.

“It finally dawned on me that the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmeler, including the glasses.”
Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s The Big Show, to Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief Jams Warren, August 18, 1998.

“Starr is regarded as an occupying army in Little Rock. It’s sort of like….like the French talk about the Germans.”
– Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, April 25, 1998.

“This has been called demented pornography, pornography for puritans.”
– Diane Sawyer to Starr, 20/20 interview, November 25, 1998.

“This guy is leaving as a pious prosecutor, an inept prosecutor, someone who engaged in partisan witch hunts for whatever the reasons…”
– Wall Street Journal Executive Washington Editor Al Hunt on CNNs Capital Gang, July 3, 1999.

“Twinkle, twinkle Kenneth Starr, now we see how crude you are.
Up above your jury high, like the judge up in the sky.
Twinkle, twinkle little Starr, now we see how wrong you are.
When you drag the agents in, when you bully moms and kin.
Then you kiss the treacherous trip, twinkle, twinkle D.C. drip. 
Twinkle, twinkle little Starr, now we see how small you are.”
– Geraldo Rivera, CNBC Evening News July 21, 1998

Potty mouth and palling with Putin: The bizarre reasons Democrats want to impeach Trump

From dealing with Russia to insulting representatives, the list of Trump’s impeachable offences is running long for Democrats, and they are threatening action if they retake the House in November.

“There’s a good likelihood there will be articles of impeachment.” Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) swore on CSPANTuesday.

“Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment…I am not sure that there will be members who are going to wait for someone else if that someone else, doesn’t matter who it is, is declining to do it. We can all do it.”

Article Two of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that the President can be removed from office “on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

If White House Special Counsel Robert Mueller found any evidence that Trump obstructed justice or accepted foreign payments, there is a possibility that impeachment proceedings could start. Likewise, Democrats say that Trump’s order this week to have the Justice Department investigate the FBI’s alleged surveillance of his campaign could constitute an abuse of office and lead to his removal.

Green, however, has called for Trump’s impeachment no less than nine times, and often for far less serious offenses. His fellow Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters (California) has demanded impeachment dozens of times, for some equally ludicrous ‘crimes.’

While Democrats like Senator Cory Booker (New Jersey) and Rep. John Yarmuth (Kentucky), as well as liberal hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, have all demanded impeachment at some point, Green and Waters have been the most prolific.

For saying NFL players should stand

After former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem last September to protest racism and police brutality, he kicked off a protest movement that spread through the NFL.

Trump called the kneeling “unacceptable” and said that the players involved should be fired. This was enough for Green to call for impeachment. He told Congress that Trump had “undermined the integrity of his office with impunity and…brought disrepute on the presidency with immunity,” but acknowledged that he had not actually committed any crime.

For being friends with Putin

Last October, as several investigations were still looking for collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian actors, Rep. Waters told CNN that the House Intelligence Committee simply had not “connected the dots.”

Trump, she argued, should be impeached for “being such good friends with Putin.” When asked for proof of this, Waters replied: “I know. And that’s why we have a special counsel.”

Eight months later, the House Intelligence Committee concluded that no collusion took place, and Mueller’s investigation has yet to turn up any evidence of collusion or obstruction.

For being unfunny and disrespectful

In March, Waters again took to TV to claim that it was “absolutely clear” that Trump had colluded with Russia, and to call the president “stupid,” “ignorant,” “racist,” and a “moron.”Waters then demanded that Trump be impeached for name-calling.

Several days beforehand, Trump had called Waters “a low IQ individual” at a rally in Pennsylvania.

For promoting ‘xenophobia’

Last November, Green promised House Democrats an early Christmas present: a vote on impeachment. Citing no concrete examples of crime or misdemeanor, Green announced that “before Christmas, there will be a vote on the ‘Chief Inciter’ of racism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, sexism, ethnocentrism.”

As usual, Green’s anti-Trump tirade delivered no results.

For his potty mouth

In January, 66 House Democrats, led by Green, attempted to force a procedural vote to initiate the impeachment process after Trump allegedly referred to Haiti and some African countries as “s**tholes.” Green said that a comment like this was an attempt to “convert his bigoted statements into US policy,” and it demonstrated that Trump was “unfit to be president.”

The vote failed, with 355 votes against 66. Had it succeeded, the issue would have gone to the Senate, where a team of lawmakers would have tried the president. If two-thirds of the senators found the president guilty, he would have been removed from office.

Facing this fruitless struggle, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California), a vehement opponent of Trump, tamped down talk of impeachment last month. She argued that frivolous calls for Trump’s removal were divisive, and could hurt Democrats in the upcoming midterms.

“I don’t think we should be talking about impeachment. I’ve been very clear right from the start,” she said in a press briefing. “On the political side I think it’s a gift to the Republicans.”

“Impeachment to me is a divisive issue unless there’s something so conclusive as we saw … in Watergate,” she said. “This election is not about what’s going on in the White House and the rest of that. It’s about our addressing the needs of the American people, and we cannot take our eye off that ball.”

Pelosi’s concerns have been echoed in the polls, where impeachment is looking like a losing position. Forty-seven percent of registered voters would vote against a candidate pushing impeachment, compared to 42 percent who would vote for such a candidate, according to an NPR/PBS poll taken last month.

Only three presidents have ever been subjected to impeachment proceedings. Andrew Johnson was impeached but acquitted in 1868, as was Bill Clinton in 1998 and 1999. Both stayed in office afterward. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 to avoid being impeached.


By Rick Wells

Bill Binney and Jeff Beatty agree that Obama must have known about the covert anti-Trump “investigation” while in the WH, Binney says it was going on longer than…

At approximately the 21:30 point of the video, Laura Ingraham welcomes Bill Binney and Jeff Beatty to her program, two guys who know a lot about the mechanics and capabilities of the US intelligence agencies.

Ingraham points to two instances in which then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a opportunity to do the right and responsible thing by notifying the Trump team that they had Carter Page under surveillance and failed to do so, more concerned with concealing their own covert operation against the opposition than supposed Russian spying which was only a ploy for disguising their own illicit actions.

Video below

Binney says, “Actually, I think their spying on the campaign goes even before that. I mean NSA is picking up all the data on them anyway. They have it stored and they can access it through the IC Reach program, without any oversight by the intelligence committees or the FISA Court.”

She plays a clip of John Brennan insinuating strongly on national television that the Russians had compromising information on President Trump. Beatty terms that conduct and accusations as outrageous, playing to his base, and the words of a propagandist who is trying to roll back his many own failures as CIA Director.

Binney points out that the Steele Dossier involved the FBI, DOJ and CIA (also likely the State Department as well) and that “that kind of relationship only comes to a point at the ‘president.’ That’s the only person that has control of all of them and can tell them all what to do.”

Ingraham asks on a scale of one to ten, with one being zero chance and ten being most likely that Obama knew about the investigation, with Binney answering, “I would say ten.” Beatty agreed. That brings up other issues, of who else was surveilled in the Trump campaign but also other Republican candidates and even possibly Democrats. We already know of dirty tricks with Bernie Sanders. Why was Hillary Clinton so eager to extend a helping hand to Dogface Wasserman Schultz once she was fired?

Ingraham reminds the audience of the memo that Susan Rice wrote herself, documenting lest she later forget that Obama wanted everything done by the book.

It appears that book she referenced was the Koran or possibly the SatanicBible. And when he said everything, he meant everything, from day one of his evil administration to noon on January 20th, 2017. Nothing was done according to the Constitution, or the Bible as most Americans hearing those comments assumed she meant. Fundamental transformation doesn’t allow it.

Deep State James Clapper: Embedding Spy Inside Trump Campaign Is “Standard Investigative Practices – Goes On All the Time”


By Jim Hoft

The Deep State got caught spying on Candidate Trump — Now they’re spinning this as a good thing and normal procedure.

Obama’s former DNI Chief James Clapper said Thursday evening on CNN, “It’s a good thing,” the Deep State FBI was spying on Trump’s campaign.
This was after Clapper initially denied the intelligence community was spying on Donald Trump.


On Monday Clapper doubled-down saying spying on the opposition candidate is “standard investigative practices.”
Via The New York Times:

James R. Clapper Jr., who was the director of national intelligence under President Barack Obama, said that Mr. Trump is trying to distort standard investigatory practices to insinuate wrongdoing.

“I didn’t know about this informant,” said Mr. Clapper, whose memoir, “Facts and Fears: Hard Truths From a Life in Intelligence,” will be published Tuesday. “No one in the White House knew. Certainly the president didn’t know. This is a routine thing that goes on all the time. We’re making a huge mountain out of a molehill. The purpose was to understand what the Russians were doing.”

Yesterday and Today–