Shame on Them

The Democrats, having recovered from the shock that their guy, Robert Mueller, exonerated Donald Trump on the charge of "Russian collusion," have collectively decided to double down. They don't care about the damage this "witch hunt" continues to do to the nation or the paralysis it causes in governance, they MUST get Trump, by any means necessary. They bluster about the ease with which they'll defeat him in 2020, but their actions belie their bluster. If they were so sure of themselves, they'd move on, but instead, they fully intend to put the country through another two years of phony allegations and political posturing.

With phony righteous indignation, the Dems now demand the "full report," so that they can parse it, syllable by syllable, to find "evidence" that Trump colluded or obstructed justice or ... whatever. They'll accuse AG William Barr of conspiracy when he redacts information from the report as required by law. They'll allege (falsely, I might add) that hidden behind the redactions is the "proof" they know exists and that they were right all along. They were wrong all along, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is a powerful force that dulls the intellect, clouds judgement, and heightens the emotions to the extent that people act crazy. The Dems are acting crazy.

But if "crazy" was the only characteristic that they exhibited, the rest of us could smile and shake our heads. The Dems are also acting viciously, unconcerned about destroying people who get in the way of their collusion/obstruction narrative. Their trained hamsters in the media (more partisan than ever because they have been proven to be unprofessional frauds who promulgate fake news) would never call any Dem on anything. That's why an inveterate liar like Rep. Adam Schiff continues to get air time. Not because he is anything but a liar, but because the trained hamsters don't care.

Yet, rational voices among the GOP counsel everyone to "move on." To let go of this insanity for the good of the country.

As I noted in a pervious post—not just yet.

It's time now to investigate the investigators. There was a real conspiracy, proven with real evidence, and conducted by real government officials with real names and positions, often substantiated by their own words (in texts) and testimony (before Congress). The conspiracy began in the Obama administration and was initiated by senior Democrat politicians and senior government officials in the FBI and intelligence community who were sympathetic to their cause. A comprehensive discussion and report of the conspiracy (very long, but excellent), noting timelines, evidence, and perpetrators can be found at "The Inside Story of Spygate."

Richard Fernandez comments on this when he writes:

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, one can make the equivalent argument that a probe against Obama officials would be just as much "a good faith attempt to investigate a credible charge" as the Mueller investigation. But one should not deceive oneself into not realizing that the ultimate targets of such a course would be Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Such a turnabout would not end the crisis which began in the waning days of the Obama administration, it would only change its direction. And then some other king would lie on the political floor and the whole point of a peaceful transition of power which "is to prevent a clash between kings" would still be in ruins. Perhaps this is why Karl Rove is urging Trump, having won the round, to move on; for by considering the affair closed, Trump could restore the tradition of comity, which has been damaged.

Or could he? In the current political culture, magnanimity is unlikely to be met with gratitude, unless the words are spat out with irony. Passions are high and neither side appears willing to give an inch. It may take time before an extended hand is not met by a punch. The fever must still run its course. One can only hope the fever breaks before the patient does.

Two years ago, the Dems crossed a line, refused to accept the results of an election and as a consequence, precipitated chaos and division. For all they claim about Donald Trump's incivility and for all they argue that he is a "threat to democracy," in actuality their incivility and their resultant actions and words threaten our republic in a way that Donald Trump could never achieve. Shame on them.

Terminator

It appears that the new political philosophy that dominates the Democrat's's actions is "double down." Their ludicrous claims promoted by their trained hamsters in the media over a period on not weeks or months, but two years, are proven false by an investigator who findings they themelves said would be the final word, so they double down on their claims. That's what Democrat leadership and virtually all members of their caucus have done. It's infuriating, laughable, and sad—all at the same time.

Daniel Henninger comments:

With one big difference, the Democratic Party, since the day Donald Trump won the 2016 election, has looked like the killer android at the end of “The Terminator.”

Its flesh burned off, the Terminator’s endoskeleton continues to pursue Sarah and Kyle into a labyrinthine factory. A bomb blows off the Terminator’s legs, but the android still won’t stop. It drags the top half of its body across the floor and with its dying hand tries to crush Sarah, until a hydraulic press finally puts out the last blinking red light in its eyes.

The big difference? The Terminator was a programmed robot, while the Democrats, in theory, possess actual human intelligence. Beyond that, I’m hard put to see the difference between the relentless android and Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Tom Steyer or any of the other anti-Trumpers and NeverTrumpers who for two years have crawled across broken glass to terminate this presidency.

One may reasonably ask: What was that all about? That the opposition simply wanted to “get Trump” is an insufficient explanation for the scale of this obsession. Nor is it sufficient to say the opposition emerged from Mr. Trump’s rhetoric about immigrants and such.

None of that explains why so many once-sober Federal Bureau of Investigation bureaucrats went rogue in 2016. It doesn’t explain why after the election professional Democrats formed themselves into what they called “the Resistance,” as if suddenly they’d all become characters in “Les Misérables.”

Something snapped in the opposition’s psyche. They started wailing about “our democracy.” The panic over this presidency became Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Henninger's metaphor is accurate in some ways, but off-the-mark in others. The Terminator was an advanced artificial intelligence, not a programmed device. It assessed its surroundings and adapted its actions to achieve a goal that was set for it (in the case of the terminator—to eliminate Sarah and Kyle. The Democrats have exhibited virtually no intelligence at all, acting more like non-programmable characters (NPCs) in video games, walking zombie-like through time and space and acting with rigidly programmed predictability. They cannot accept new information and modify their behavior accordingly. Hence, tendentious statements of people like inveterate liar Adam Schiff (D-CA), head of the House Intelligence Committee. But that's a quibble.

The Dems want to vanquish Donald Trump at the ballot box in 2020. To do that, they must convince the electorate that the lowest unemployment numbers in 60 years are a bad thing, that the best employment for people of color is also a bad thing, that low taxes are bad for the middle class, that a coherent and generally effective foreign policy is a bad thing, that support for the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel, is a bad thing, that talks (however difficult and unpredictable) with the NoKos rather than war are a bad thing, and that the largest inflow of illegal immigrants across our southern border is something to be celebrated. Even an advanced A.I. like the Terminator would have trouble accomplishing that, particularly if it was obsessed with proving "collusion" or "obstruction" that never existed.

Let's Move On

For over two years, the Democrats vigorously promoted deranged allegations that Donald Trump was a Russian Puppet and it was the Russians who were the catalyst to his election. As those allegations fell apart, the Dems promoted specious allegations that Trump obstructed justice when he fired his duplicitous FBI director, James Comey, protested that the collusion allegations were totally false, and indicated that any investigation into them was a "witch hunt." This weekend, Robert Mueller's final report exonerated Trump fully. The exoneration, which is complete despite dead-enders protestations to the contrary, is made more powerful by the fact that Mueller's investigative team was strongly biased toward the Democrats. To their credit, they did their job honestly (something I doubted would happen). Given that, there are moderate voices (mostly in the political center and in the GOP) who are suggesting that "it's time to move on."

Not. Just. Yet.

It's first necessary to understand a few things, do a little investigation of our own, and then try to move forward, but only if the Democrats agree to do the same ... and they will not.

First, the things that we now know, given the Mueller Report findings:

• The elites (i.e., Democratic leaders, GOP #NeverTrumpers, the trained hamsters in the media, and many members of the deep state) keep telling use that we should respect their judgement and allow them to lead. Their full-throated implication that Trump was a Russian puppet indicates that their judgement is seriously flawed and their leadership should always be questioned.
• Media pundits keep telling us that they have the background and experience to understand Washington's ways, and we should listen to their analysis and learn. In reality, by adopting the collusion meme without some skepticism and spreading false allegations and erroneous reports (repeatedly), they have demonstrated that they are nothing but partisan hacks who would rather promote fake news than inform the American public. They are a danger to our country.
• The Democrats, including all of their current presidential contenders, have told us that Donald Trump is a criminal and that Mueller would provide evidence that would lead to his impeachment.They were wrong. They also tell us that Trump is a racist, a misogynist, and a Islamophobe. But if they were wrong about collusion, it's reasonable to think they are also wrong about their latter claims. Like the elites, the Democrat position has demonstrated a serious lack of judgement, balance, and leadership. It appears that they will claim anything and destroy anyone to regain power. As a consequence, they do not deserve to lead.
• The heads of our federal investigative agencies (think: Comey, Brady, Brennan to name only a few) told us that Trump had Russian connections and was, if not a traitor, a Russian puppet. At best, this indicates an astonishing misreading of the facts, and at worst, a clear indication that all of them are partisan in a manner that is inappropriate for their offices. Their past competence as heads of their respective agencies must be questioned.

Second, let's do a little investigation. James Freeman writes:

The Mueller report confirms that the Obama administration, without evidence, turned the surveillance powers of the federal government against the presidential campaign of the party out of power. This historic abuse of executive authority was either approved by President Barack Obama or it was not. It’s time for Mr. Obama, who oddly receives few mentions in stories about his government’s spying on associates of the 2016 Trump campaign, to say what he knew and did not know about the targeting of his party’s opponents.

If he was briefed, for example, on plans by the Justice Department to seek wiretaps on Trump campaign associates, it’s hard to believe Mr. Obama would not have been highly interested in the matter. Going all the way back to his campaign for a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, Mr. Obama had aggressively advocated for preventing federal abuse of surveillance powers.

In September of 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported that candidate Obama “is ripping the controversial USA Patriot Act for violating U.S. citizens’ civil liberties in the battle against terrorism.” The Tribune reported:

Answering a Tribune questionnaire on the issue of terrorism, Obama vows to support the repeal of several provisions of the act because he believes it failed to strike the appropriate balance between homeland security and protection of civil liberties.

...“The act goes too far in violating our fundamental notions of privacy, thus seriously eroding the very ideals at the heart of our country’s greatness,”

Obama said in his questionnaire.

According to the Tribune, Mr. Obama said that “a cornerstone of our democracy” is “that actions of a sometimes overzealous and overreaching Executive Branch are subject to challenge.”

Hmmm. you'd think that Adam Schiff (an inveterate liar) and Gerald Nadler (a blustering hyper-partisan fool), both the Democratic chairman of relevant House committees, would be more than happy to investigate what many believe was an attempt by a sitting administration to undermine an opposition candidate before he was elected. You'd also think that they'd be interested in determining why the remnants of that administration tried to conduct a soft coup after he was elected. After all, both Nadler and Schiff want to "investigate." Why not focus on something that actually happened rather than something that is pure fantasy? Then again, the Dems tend to operate using a worldview based on fantasy, so there's no chance that a significant scandal that was initiated during the Obama era will be examined.

In mathematics and logic, the term "iff" means "if and only if."

We can move on, iff (1) the bulleted points noted earlier become ingrained in the American consciousness, (2) an appropriate and honest investigation of the scandal that worked to delegitimize an elected president is investigated thoroughly and those who perpetrated it are punished, and (3) the Democrats agree to move on. Since it's unlikely that (2) and (3) will occur, it's time to recognize that the the Washington elites are at war with the rest of us ... and act accordingly.

UPDATE:
----------------
The scope and viciousness of the two-year long investigation of a sitting President of the United States is unprecedented in American history. The Democrats had no reservations about doing it and used it as fodder to destabilize Trump's presidency and win elections. Now that their own special prosecutor has exonerated Trump, it's time to conduct a real investigation based on clear and irrefutable facts that indicate that a cabal of DoJ and FBI executives worked to ruin's Trump presidential campaign and when that failed, worked to unseat him.

The editors of the Boston Herald comment:

The Democrats have been saying that the truth must come to light for two years, now. Let us oblige them. The president has been dogged by this entire situation..

Was the “Russia Dossier” used to get the ball rolling? There is evidence to suggest it.

Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok should be at the center of a new probe to determine whether members of the United States intelligence services took part in an effort to compromise the duly elected president of the United States.

Democrats and the media will show little interest in such an investigation but that is of no matter. History will outlive the activists on CNN and it is our responsibility to shed light on the motives behind the machinations to undermine a duly elected president.

But an investigation of Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok should not be limited only to them. The Dems had no compunction about investigating a sitting president. Now that Trump has been exonerated, the GOP should have absolutely no compunction about investigating a past president of the United States under whose administration all of this was initiated.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal summarize nicely:

The Steele dossier looks like one of the nastiest dirty tricks in political history, and its authors and promoters should be held accountable.

The dossier is vintage Clinton. Had she been elected, it never would have come to light.

The Dems played hardball. It's time for the GOP to play the same game to find out what Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) knew and when they knew it, what Obama approved and when he approved it. During Obama's presidency, there was a pattern of hyper-partisan dishonesty. It's now time to take another look. The Dems opened the door. It's time for the GOP to walk through it.

Summary

Over the weekend, Attorney General Willam Barr released a summary of the two year "witch hunt" conducted by Robert Mueller and his team. Mueller's intent was to find evidence, any evidence, that would lead to impeachment proceedings against a president whose victory in 2016 the Washington elites could not accept. He was unable to do so. In essence, Barr's summary indicates that Trump did not commit any crimes. Of course, that's really no surprise to anyone who isn't blinded by Trump Derangement Syndrome.

In his four page summary, Barr wrote:

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

Predictably, "more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses" is not enough for the Democrats, who in their continuing Trump derangement will spend the next two years continuing to "investigate." Have at it.

Looking like deer in headlights with a few close to tears, the trained hamsters in the main stream media (TDS members all) are not sure how to proceed. All of the claims of irrefutable evidence of "collusion" (inveterate liar Adam Schiff comes to mind) have now evaporated, with no apologies forthcoming. Blustering Dems like Gerald Nadler tell us that the investigations will continue, but of what? Democratic Appointees for state Attorney Generals in blue states like NY will conduct their own witch hunts.

I wonder if they'll investigate the soft coup that involved senior members of the FBI And intelligence communities or maybe obstruction of justice by Hillary Clinton after she destroyed evidence design her email scandal? Not. A. Chance.

All of this has been and continues to be a travesty.

And all because the Dems cannot accept the clear and irrefutable fact that 60 million-plus citizens did not agree with their policies, their world view, or their demonization of their opponents. Those citizens voted the other way.

Bottom line: Americans don't like sore losers, and if the Dems insist on continuing this lunacy, the result in 2020 will be exactly the same as it was in 2016.

UPDATE-1:
-----------------
Michael Goodwin comments further:

... Mueller, after conducting the most exhaustive test ever of election integrity, reached this stunning conclusion: “The Special Counsel did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated” with Russians “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

No American — not a single one — took the Russian bait. And that includes every member of the Trump campaign.

That is a fact worthy of celebration, for it shows our democracy is strong and our institutions uncompromised.

Other implications of the report’s findings are also enormous.

We now know that Hillary Clinton and her supporters misled the country in claiming that the White House was stolen from her. She started the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax and her claims, aided by the Obama White House and magnified by a thoroughly partisan media, set in motion a wild-goose chase.

The chase undermined a duly elected president and cost taxpayers more than $30 million for an investigation that proved the accusations were flat-out false.

Yet money alone is hardly the full price. The probe itself was a giant cloud over the presidency. Trump’s cabinet, his family, his aides and every policy he put forth were viewed with suspicion by those who bought Clinton’s Big Lie. Many of those people shelled out thousands of dollars for legal bills merely to answer questions and prove themselves innocent of any wrongdoing.

Trump was not wrong when he characterized Mueller's investigation as a "witch hunt." The "hunt" cynically initiated by Hillary Clinton—the wicked witch of the Democrats—failed. There should be consequences.

UPDATE-2:
------------------
As the conclusions of the Mueller Report sink in, the majority of the supposed leaders of the left-leaning main stream media (the same media that castigated Donald Trump endlessly for defending himself against false accusations of collusion) remain silent. One, however, The Hill, has decided correctly that apologies are in order, not just from the media, but from many other supposed leaders in the four constituencies:

With the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe now known to a significant degree, it seems apologies are in order.

However, judging by the recent past, apologies are not likely forthcoming from the responsible parties.

In this context, it matters not whether one is a supporter or a critic of President Trump.

Whatever his supposed flaws, the rampant accusations and speculation that shrouded Trump’s presidency, even before it began, ultimately have proven unfounded. Just as Trump said all along.

Yet, each time President Trump said so, some of us in the media lampooned him. We treated any words he spoke in his own defense as if they were automatically to be disbelieved because he had uttered them. Some even declared his words to be “lies,” although they had no evidence to back up their claims.

We in the media allowed unproven charges and false accusations to dominate the news landscape for more than two years, in a way that was wildly unbalanced and disproportionate to the evidence.

We did a poor job of tracking down leaks of false information. We failed to reasonably weigh the motives of anonymous sources and those claiming to have secret, special evidence of Trump’s “treason.”

As such, we reported a tremendous amount of false information, always to Trump’s detriment.

And when we corrected our mistakes, we often doubled down more than we apologized. We may have been technically wrong on that tiny point, we would acknowledge. But, in the same breath, we would insist that Trump was so obviously guilty of being Russian President Vladimir Putin’s puppet that the technical details hardly mattered.

So, a round of apologies seem in order.

Apologies to President Trump on behalf of those in the U.S. intelligence community, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, which allowed the weaponization of sensitive, intrusive intelligence tools against innocent citizens such as Carter Page, an adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign.

Apologies also to Page himself, to Jerome Corsi, Donald Trump, Jr., and other citizens whose rights were violated or who were unfairly caught up in surveillance or the heated pursuit of charges based on little more than false, unproven opposition research paid for by Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Apologies for the stress on their jobs and to their families, the damage to their reputations, the money they had to spend to hire legal representation and defend themselves from charges for crimes they did not commit.

Apologies on behalf of those in the intelligence community who leaked true information out of context to make Trump look guilty, and who sometimes leaked false information to try to implicate or frame him.

Apologies from those in the chain of command at the FBI and the Department of Justice who were supposed to make sure all information presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is verified but did not do so.

Apologies from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court judges who are supposed to serve as one of the few checks and balances to prevent the FBI from wiretapping innocent Americans. Whether because of blind trust in the FBI, or out of ignorance or even malfeasance, they failed at this important job.

Apologies to the American people who did not receive the full attention of their government while political points were being scored; who were not told about some important world events because they were crowded out of the news by the persistent insistence that Trump was working for Russia.

Apologies all the way around.

I'm waiting, but not holding my breath, for leading Democrats, #NeverTrumpers in the GOP, the editors of the NYT, WaPo, the talking heads at CNN, MSNBC, the alphabet networks, members of the deep state, and many, many others to apologize—not just to Donald Trump, but to the country for putting all of us through the embarrassment of false allegations that shook people's faith in government. They should all be ashamed of themselves...

And those of us who stood our ground and called this a sham from day one should be proud that we fought back. For once, justice prevailed.

UPDATE-3
---------------
Conservative firebrand, Kurt Schlichter, a man not known for taking a conciliatory approach, tweets:

And as if to show the utter lack of self-reflection or objectivity exemplified by the trained hamsters in the media, David Burg tweets in response to an outrageous comment by Politico:

A Pox

Richard Fernandez is a keen observer of the human condition. On many occasions he has written about how the elites (I call them the four constituencies) on the one hand argue that Trump is an incompetent who is unbalanced and dangerous, but on the other attribute almost supernatural powers to the man. How else, for example, could some of them claim that Trump has called white supremacists "fine people" (a bald-faced lie, BTW) and thereby is responsible for the actions of the Australian man who killed 49 Muslims in Christchurch, NZ. He tweets:

"What was revealed was the extent of rottenness in the system. If Trump had been a godlike Alexander it would have been one thing. But he's not. That they are actually less competent than a casino manager and reality show host is too much for them to take.

Yet it is nevertheless true. The real crisis of American governance isn't that Trump is some evil genius. It is what a bunch of mediocrities the elite have turned out to be. Better to have found out now than in the middle of some existential conflict with a great power."

We've seen rank stupidity and hubris among the elites on both the Left and the Right. The best and the brightest haven't done a particularly good job of leading us over the past few decades. Whether it was the neo-cons on the Right who lead us in to Iraq or the "smartest president ever" who presided over a moribund economy and made an absolute mess of our foreign policy, the elityes aren't nearly as smart as they think they are. Trump is not afraid to point that out and the rage he had generated in doing so is palpable. Even worse, Trump has accomplish more in his presidency than either of his predecessors accomplished in theirs—a galling reality that drives Trump Derangement Syndrome to new heights on a monthly basis.
With their venal attempts to destroy Trump's presidency, denigrate his administration and the people who work in it, and do anything, no matter how detrimental to the country, to resist his every policy, the elites have demonstrated that they are as vengeful and small as the man they hate. A pox on all of them.

We Told You So

Almost two years ago, I posted my first of many commentaries on the Mueller probe. At that time, I wrote about a "Toxic Brew" that lead to Mueller:

A special counsel, Robert Mueller, has been appointed to conduct an investigation of all things "Russian" and, as special counsels are wont to do, all "related matters." The four constituencies have won a significant victory. Trump is under siege, his agenda in tatters and his very presidency on the line.

The Dems, the GOP elites, the deep state, and the media are popping figurative bottles of champaign and congratulating themselves for bringing down the monster Trump. The economy is threatened, the stock market has reacted negatively, healthcare is at risk as Obamacare implodes, international threats abound, but the four constituencies don't care a whit—it's all about taking down Trump. The rest is acceptable collateral damage.

Everyone is singing the praises of Robert Mueller—a man with impeccable credentials and a history of high ethics. The right thing to do is to back off and let him conduct his investigation. But the four constituencies won't back off, preferring instead to add more poison to their toxic brew.

And what if Mueller finds (as I suspect he will) that "Russian collusion" is a mirage, that at very best, a few peripheral people had suspect financial dealings (with no direct connection to the presidential election) with the Russians that were far less egregious and potentially illegal than the quid pro quo payments made by Russians to the now defunct Clinton Foundation. What if he states that Trump and his people did NOT collude with the Russians. Will the four constituencies accept his findings or will they pick them apart? Will they find the one or two comments, buried deep in his report that connects a peripheral person to a Russian business deal and scream "impeachment?" We both know the answer to those questions.

At that time we knew nothing about an FBI conspiracy for a soft coup to nullify a national election. We knew nothing about the Clinton-DNC generated dossier used as the driver for a covert FBI investigation of a duly elected president and his peopler; we knew nothing about a female Russian lawyer, who it now appears, was used to set up Donald Trump Jr., we knew nothing about a cabal in the FBI and DoJ who had "insurance" against a Trump presidency, we knew nothing about the duplicity and lies of James Comey or various heads of intelligence agencies. And yet, those of us who tried to use common sense and clear thinking argued that the allegations against Trump were preposterous and unhinged.

Two years later, it looks like Robert Mueller and his band of investigators could find nothing—NOTHING—that supports the claims made by the Democrats and their many, many trained hamsters in the media. Undoubtedly, Mueller's report will be parsed by the syllable and, like a drowning man clinging to a straw, the likes of inveterate liars like Adam Schiff will find "cause for concern" and claim that the DoJ has hidden elements of the report. All you can do is shake your head in dismay.

Byron York notes five things that Mueller did not find:

1. Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or other people whose purported legal jeopardy was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

2. Mueller did not charge anyone in the Trump campaign or circle with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

3. Mueller did not subpoena the president, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

4. The president did not fire Mueller, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

5. The president did not interfere with the Mueller investigation, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year. In his letter to Congress, Barr noted the requirement that he notify lawmakers if top Justice Department officials ever interfered with the Mueller investigation. "There were no such instances," Barr wrote.

Gosh, and here we were told over and over and over and over again that those things were going to happen.

Like most of the unhinged claims and actions that have occurred during the years of Trump's presidency, you'd think the Democrats would learn from their mistakes and move on. Not. A. Chance.

And from those of us who've been right all along ... we told you so.

UPDATE:
-----------------
As if to put an exclamation point on Byron York's list, Glen Greenwald tweets:

“The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away: not one single American was charged, indicted or convicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election - not even a low-level volunteer. The number is zero.”

Of course, the Dems have bounced back from their initial shock and disappointment, now pinning all their hopes on a two fishing expeditions into Trump. The first has been initiated by a congenital liar, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who told us in no uncertain terms almost a year ago that he had evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia. Apparently, that evidence (which Schiff never produced) escaped Mueller's witch hunt. The second fishing expedition comes out of the deep blue U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of NY. They're going to look into Trump's business dealings, looking for any facts that will provide the Dems with political advantage (BTW, that is NOT how the system is supposed to work) and thereby providing the TDS crowd with a reason to initiate impeachment proceedings or taint Trump's 2020 campaign.

I'm hopeful that both fishing expeditions will work as well for the Dems as the Mueller investigation and the Kavanaugh hearings did.

Apartheid?

Bernie Sanders is trying hard to stay left of the group of Democratic socialist young guns who are running for president under the auspices of the Democratic party. So ... what to do? He can't rage against the rich—they all do that. He can't promise lots and lots of free stuff provided by a big intrusive government—they all do that as well. He can't suggest that capitalism is evil and profit is immoral—they all make allusions to the same meme. He can't offer "medicare for all"—there's no differentiation he can gain from that either. How about guaranteed income? Nope. Or reparations for slavery? Not really.

Bernie has decided to dig deep and adopt a meme that the lunatic hard left will applaud. Bernie has decided that the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, Israel, is an "apartheid like" country.

With that statement, I can officially say ... Bernie Sanders is an idiot.

But it's worst than that. Bernie Sanders is also a posturing liar who is so blinded by his hard-left ideology that he seems incapable of making a distinction between South Africa in the 1970s and Israel in the year 2019. Is he that historically ignorant or is he providing a not-so-subtle dog whistle to gain the support of the repugnant left-wing BDS movement in its effort to demonize Israel?

Yeah, I'm sure other Democrats like Ilhan Omar, Keith Ellison, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will cheer Bernie on, but I wonder why so-called mainstream Dems haven't commented publicly.

And for Jewish supporters of the Democratic party, Bernie's ignorant rant is yet another reason to #Walkaway.

Admissions

While traveling outside the USA, I've been following the breaking college admissions scandal. You know, the one in which the rich and famous used money and influence, cheating and friendly insiders to allow their very mediocre children (using the normal academic and test score metrics) to gain admission to high prestige Ivy League schools. Everyone seemed shocked by all of this. The rich and famous bribed their way into the Ivys (of course, without the knowledge of the Ivys ... yeah, right). District Attornies have promised investigations and threatened that people would go to jail for this outrage. Puleeze.

As if all of these arbiters of ethics and honesty thought that the progeny of the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons and yes, the Obamas were stellar students who actually deserved admission to Harvard or Yale or Princeton and were wholly unconcerned that these same progeny took the place of a truly stellar and deserving students from high schools in Indiana or Idaho.

But now, the outrage machine wants to put people in jail, to "investigate," and to bring educational justice to a system that is ... well ... let's just say that academic excellence has relatively little to do selected modern day admissions to the prestige schools. But since they want to investigate, maybe they should start with the educational career of the past president—Barack Obama. Jack Cashill provides a summary:

In his overly friendly biography, The Bridge, David Remnick writes that Obama was an “unspectacular” student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school ...

How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose applicants’ LSAT scores typically track between 98 to 99 percentile and whose GPAs range between 3.80 and 4.00 is a subject Remnick avoids.

Obama does too. Although he has admitted that he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs” during his academic career, he has remained mum about some reported “back door” influence peddling that may have been as useful to him as affirmative action.

In late March 2008 the venerable African-American entrepreneur and politico Percy Sutton appeared on a local New York City show called "Inside City Hall." When asked about Obama by the show’s host, Dominic Carter, the former Manhattan borough president calmly and lucidly explained that he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.”

The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about twenty years prior. Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the same billionaire whose anti-Semitism caused Mayor Rudy Giuliani to reject his $10 million gift to New York City post 9/11.

According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to "please write a letter in support of [Obama]... a young man that has applied to Harvard." Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.

Three months before the election it should have mattered that a respected black political figure had publicly announced that an unapologetic anti-Semite like al-Mansour, backed by an equally anti-Semitic Saudi billionaire, had been guiding Obama’s career perhaps for the last twenty years, but the story died a quick and unnatural death.

The point isn't so much that Obama was admitted to Harvard law, not based on excellence, but influence. Happens all the time, although the Saudi connection is telling. The point is that all of a sudden, people are shocked that's it's going on. Give me a break.

Christchurch

I'm guessing that 99.99 percent of all Americans have never been to Christchurch, NZ. I have—twice. Prior to the disastrous earthquake that destroyed a substantial portion of the city, Christchurch was a throwback to the mid-20th century. Friendly, welcoming people, architecture that was as modest as it was alluring, beautiful parks and natural scenery in a mountainous region, and a quiet and calm feel that is hard to find in the USA. The earthquake in 2011 shattered some of that, and the heinous murder of innocent Muslims this past week surely destroyed the quiet and clam that New Zealanders love.

The right-wing, white supremacist scum that did this deserve every condemnation that has been leveled at them. Period. No equivocation or comparisons. And certainly, there should be no attempt to politicize this tragic and despicable act by connecting it to Donald Trump or conservatives in the United States.

Wait. What?

Within hours of the breaking news coming out of NZ, unhinged commentary out of CNN, MSNBC and other hard-left sources tried mightily to connect Trump to the massacre. Muslims in the US accosted Chelsea Clinton (!!) and blamed her condemnation of Ilhan Omar's anti-Semitic rants as a trigger for the NZ attack. That. Is. Idiocy.

John Hinderacker comments:

Liberals wasted no time trying to make political hay out of the slaughter. The deplorable Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tied the murders to President Trump. It is noteworthy that liberals attribute almost superhuman powers to Donald Trump, attributing responsibility to him for pretty much anything that goes on in the world. The only phenomena for which the Left does not assign responsibility to the president are the intended, beneficent results of his own policies.

The Left cannot win policy arguments on their merits. They do not want a rational debate on, say, the merits of socialism and its ability to better the lives of those who have adopted it. They do not want to examine the effects of uncontrolled social spending and taxation on the economic lives of all citizens. They do not want to examine critically the effects of government dependency on poor and minority populations. They do not want to calmly debate the notion that it's perfectly okay to shut down free speech if it "offends" the sensibilities of those who disagree with that speech.

Instead, they have a compelling need to demonize their opponents and even better, to connect them to heinous acts across the globe. Hence, the NZ atrocity becomes a referendum on Donald Trump's alleged support of white supremacy (a canard that is as ridiculous as it is dishonest).

The world is a harsh and often dangerous place in which hatreds bubble to the surface far more frequently than decent people might like. We saw hatred happen in NZ this past week.

Echoes

When believers in leftist ideology encounter an “outrage” (using definitions so broad that "outrages" are nearly infinite in number), one of their many go-to epithets for the alleged offender is “nazi”.

The Nazis were pure evil, responsible for killing millions. But sadly, they are not alone in their atrocities. In fact, there’s another group that also killed millions in the 1970s, but oddly the Left never uses their name as an epithet to label those who commit “outrages.”

I’m in Siem Reap, Cambodia, home of Cambodia’s Holocaust Museum. It presents the horrifying story of the killing fields. Most Americans are vaguely aware of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, but what they often don’t know is that the Khmer Rouge were socialist extremists—virulently anti-capitalist, demonizers of the rich, guarantors of a state controlled utopia in which medical care, education, food and other creature comforts would be available to all, and lastly, redistributionists who stole property from those who had it and gave it to favored people (always members of the communist party).

Human Remains from the Killing Fields

At the Khmer Rouge Museum, survivors’ testimony abounds. Like Yad Vashem in Israel or the US Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, the testimony is tragic in its description of barbaric acts of violence all perpetrated in the name of a repugnant ideology. Here’s the testimony of Leng Yun, a wife and mother whose family was murdered by the Khmer Rouge.

“[The Khmer Rouge] executed high ranking officers [military who opposed their communist ideology], rich people, proletariates, capitalists, and people who used to eat delicious food. [Because we owned a small shop] we were accused of being capitalists. “

To help the communist state, all of these people became slave labor, were starved, and when too weak to work as slaves, killed.

The modern-day Left appears to be very worried about language, expressing outrage whenever someone says anything that they find offensive. Yet in the United States we’re hearing echos of the anti-capitalist, eat-the-rich language that is the staple of all socialists, including the Khmer Rouge.

“The rich don’t pay their fair share."

“Billionaires are immoral."

“Capitalism is an evil."

"Those who oppose us are deniers."

Echos of these same sentiments were used by a group that ultimately killed millions.

To be clear, modern-day Democratic Socialists who use such language are NOT the Khmer Rouge. But the echo remains, and although it’s faint, it could grow in volume and lead to very bad things.

Maybe that’s why social justice warriors and their media shills never replace the epithet “Nazi” with “Khmer Rouge.” The reason may be that the echo is loud enough to make them uncomfortable.

Robin and the Sheriff

The legend of Robin Hook is a staple in Western culture. The legendary hero steals from the rich and gives to the poor. The evil Sheriff of Nottingham, a tool of the powerful, works to thwart Robin.

Who would have thought that the legend migrated to Southeast Asia? But more on that in a moment.

I’m currently in Vietnam, a fascinating country with a young, striving population. The economy is booming-construction cranes everywhere, Asian and Western investors streaming in, and a population that still has a way to go, but has an emerging middle class.

I had a chance to have a conversation with Phuc (in Vietnamese, the final “c” is very soft), a young resident of Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon). The conversation eventually got around to the "American War" and the aftermath. Phuc was not born until long after the war had ended, so his knowledge came from his father and uncles, along with history lessons at school. He was remarkably sanguine about the war, holding no discernible animosity toward Americans whatsoever.

"My father was young, during the war. We were from the south, so he wasn't part of Ho Chi Minh's guys," said Phuc matter-of-factly. "My father said the Americans just left and that screwed a lot of Vietnamese people who helped them, but otherwise, they tried to do the right thing."

I asked what happened after the communists took over.

"They were very severe socialists," Phuc said. "They believed in their cause and were unforgiving toward anyone who didn't."

He continued, "My dad told me that times got very bad very fast. They [the communists] took the property of the rich, shut down businesses of 'capitalists,' and the economy crashed. My dad said that a doctor, a carpenter, and a street sweeper were all paid the same."

When the Americans left in the 1970s, The country was unified under a communist regime. The state controlled everything including the economy, medical care (for all) and education (for all). The rich were demonized, their possessions redistributed to loyal communist party members. It was supposed to be a socialist utopia.

It took eleven years for.the Vietnamese economy to crash—hard. Inflation was rampant, shortages abounded, a government services were corrupt, inefficient and generally incompetent. Medical care was abysmal, education was spotty. Think modern day Venezuela with an atonal language overlay.

I asked what Phuc thought of the communists who still control the country.

He smiled. "Yeah, the government still owns everything. But we’re as capitalist as they come. It's still hard, and a lot of my friends want to leave for better opportunity in America but ..." he shrugged.

He continued. "My dad wasn't educated, but he read a lot. He used to tell us the story of Robin Hood when we were kids. Whenever he referred to the socialists who were our leaders during the later 1970s and into the 1980s, he used to say,

‘They wanted to be Robin Hood, but they quickly became the sheriff.’

That says it all.

Bernie Sanders thinks he's Robin Hood. His friar tuck, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, thinks she's fighting the good fight. His band of merry men (Liz, Kamilla, and Cory, to name only a few) think they're operating on a higher moral plane than the rest of us. In reality they're a band of thieves who will impoverish a nation if given the chance. And in the end, they'll brook no resistance—they'll become the sheriff.

Since they’re such strong proponents of multiculturalism, maybe this generation of Democratic Socialists should spend some time in a Vietnamese neighborhood in their locale. People like Phuc will disabuse them of the notion that they're heroic Robin Hood figures. They aren't. Not even a little.

Fastidium

As the saga of the Democrats and Ilhan Omar continues, we observe three things happening at once. First, the Dems made a pathetic attempt to finesse the fallout from Omar’s anti-Israel and anti-Semitic tropes by developing a “resolution” that essentially said ‘saying mean things is bad.’ Wow! That's really brave, isn't it? Second, the majority of Dems (and virtually all the Democrat presidential contenders) refused to condemn either her language or Omar herself. Hate is okay as long as it’s multicultural. Third, some Dems decided that Omar was victim of misogyny and “Islamophobia. “

That got me to thinking. Islamophobia is absolutely the wrong word. Phobia is a Latin word for "fear" and when used as a postfix, it connotes fear of the lead word. I have no fear of Omar, but I do have a rather a strong feeling about her – disgust.

Since Omar and her buddies at CAIR invented the term Islamophobia by using a Latin postfix, I decided to go to the Latin for disgust “fastidium”).

Omar is an Islamist, driven by virulent Jew hatred coupled with an aggressive desire to see Israel destroyed. So in my mind, if she’s a victim if anything, it’s “Islamofastidium."

And for Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders (a leading presidential contender) who defend her indefensible comments by turning her into a victim, fastidium also seems an appropriate reaction. I can only hope that other Dems feel the same fastidium and decide it’s time to walk away from a party that is now in hard-left free fall.

Working on the Language

White Supremacists in the United States and worldwide (e.g., the KKK, skinheads, neo-Nazis and an entire collection of low achievement, low-IQ right-wing low-lifes) model themselves after the ultimate historical white supremacists—The Nazis. Each of these groups has a worldview that shares a virulent anti-Semitic strain. They hate Jews, and they hate Israel because it's the Jewish homeland. But not all anti-Semites come from the right, and that's becoming increasingly obvious as a significant percentage of the hard-left along with a small but growing segment of the Democratic party espouse virulent anti-Israel views with a overt dose of anti-Semitism mixed in.

Consider for a moment how the media and the dems would treat the GOP if a GOP congressman espoused white supremacist views. The trained hamsters in the media would blame the atmosphere created by Donald Trump, the Dems would demand that the member be stripped of committee assignments, that he be censured, and otherwise ostracized. And that's exactly what happened with Rep. Steve King. The GOP acted swiftly and condemned King without equivocation.

Now imagine the reaction if the GOP waffled about King for even a microsecond, if even a small number of GOP members argued against his censure or committee removal. The entire Republican party would be branded as racist and white supremacist.

But there are different rules for a Democratic party that is waffling in their unequivocal condemnation of anti-Semitic statements by left-wing members of its own party. Politico reports:

House Democratic leaders are struggling to contain the controversy over Rep. Ilhan Omar's comments about Israel, with the caucus fighting behind closed doors over whether — and how — to respond.

Tensions ran high at a caucus meeting Wednesday as some Democrats privately vented that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team had failed to adequately respond to the escalating political crisis, with too little outreach to their own rank and file.

Freshman Rep. Jahana Hayes of Connecticut stood up and confronted Pelosi directly, arguing that she shouldn’t have to learn about the official Democratic Caucus response from MSNBC. Hayes said she now has to vote on a resolution that she’s barely read, without a private briefing from leadership, according to five sources.

Pelosi countered that the Democratic measure to condemn anti-Semitism is not final, though text had been circulating and a vote had been tentatively planned for Wednesday. That vote was postponed amid a last-minute backlash from progressives in the caucus.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) later told reporters that leadership hadn’t decided whether a vote on the resolution would take place this week, adding, “We’re working on language."

"Working on the language," huh? The language is pretty damn simple. Let me give it a try.

Omar is an anti-Semite. Her language is inflammatory and disgusting. She's anti-Israel, apparently an enemy of the only democracy in the Middle East. She pro-BDS, a proponent of a despicable ideology with the sole intent of destroying Israel. And worse, she plays the victim, suggesting that anyone who criticizes her is a racist or a misogynist or an Islamophobe or all three. That's a cowardly position that allows her to skate among Democrats who refuse to speak out against her.

The Dems have a serious and growing anti-Semitism problem driven by their hard-left base. They're waffling, and every Jew that supports the Democrats should consider whether that support aids and abets the anti-Semite wing of the party. It's time to #Walkaway.

UPDATE-I (3/8/2019):
----------------------------
I comes as no surprise that the leading defenders of Omar's anti-Semitic anti-Israel rhetoric are the young guns in the democratic party's hard-left—Alexcandria Ocasio Cortez and D-N.Y., and Rashida Tlaib, D-MI. Recall that AOC and Tlaib claim to be champions of gay rights, woman's rights, and diversity among other "woke" values.

Here's the latest from Paul Kane:

The focus is again on Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, and remarks about "loyalty" to Israel. After leadership signaled a willingness to advance a softly worded resolution related to anti-Semitism, Omar's allies rallied to her defense and accused Pelosi's leadership team of inappropriately singling out the Somali refugee.

Led by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., fellow freshman Democrats, Omar's defenders sidelined the original resolution, and now leaders are cobbling together a broader draft that would oppose many forms of offensive actions.

It may seem trivial - a nonbinding resolution expressing opposition to intolerance of all kinds - but this is a critical test for leadership to bring the caucus back together.

It's monumentally hypocritical for Democrats, who profess to be woke on issues such as gay rights, misogyny, anti-bigotry, and diversity to condemn Israel when it is the ONLY country in the entire Middle East that lives those values. But this isn't about political differences or the "oppression" of the palestinians (a group that is anti-gay (think: throwing gay people off buildings), anti-woman (far too many aspects of Islam subjugate women) and so anti-diversity that a member will be killed for selling his land to a Jew. This is about a hard-left ideology. Mindless, hypocritical, and cynical.

It's time for those who truly do believe in the "woke" values to #Walkaway from a political party that incessantly talks about them, but will not step up when one of their own supports those who violate them every. single. day.


UPDATE-II (3/8/2019):
------------------------------
Charles Lipson provides us with additional commentry on the Dem's silence surrounding the Omar debacle:

Omar’s slurs echo centuries of anti-Semitic hatred—hatreds that drove so many to flee Europe for the bright promise of America. Why, then, does today’s Democratic Party have such trouble recognizing these ancient tropes and condemning such noxious language?

Part of the answer lies in Omar’s vocal support from newly elected Democrats on the far left. They represent the party’s energy and much of its base. Among them, support for Israel has slipped markedly; outright antagonism has risen.

This shift is ominous for Israel because it is turning the bilateral relationship into a divisive partisan issue. These differences were painfully apparent in Benjamin Netanyahu’s treatment by successive presidents. President Obama openly quarreled with the Israeli leader. President Trump has warmly embraced him. Bibi’s embrace of Trump in his re-election campaign has deepened the partisan divide in the U.S.

The left’s antipathy to Israel has long been obvious on college campuses. Now, it is being voiced in Congress, and not just by Rep. Omar. She is strongly supported by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and now by the House Democratic whip, James Clyburn of South Carolina. Clyburn, the chamber's highest-ranking African-American, says Omar's experience is "more personal" than Jews whose parents survived the Holocaust. He will not permit any resolution to single her out. Many of their Democratic colleagues have remained silent, refusing to condemn Omar directly.

Here we have African-American James Clyburne, a guy whon would be the first in line to condemn even the slightest innuendo of rqcism (think "dog whistles") when they are directed at people of color, telling me that somehow Omars "experience" trumps and is "more personal" than those of us whose families were decimated by the holocaust. To use a yiddish phrase, what incredible chutzpa!

This appears to be where the Democratic party is headed as we move toward 2020. Their explicit anti-Israel positions were rejected by voters when Barack Obama's (the most anti-Israel president in history) surrogate, HRC, was defeated. They want a do-over. They don't deserve one. #Walkaway.

Democracy and the Constitution

The Democrats keep telling us that they are our "protector's of democracy and the constitution." That would be the same political party that tried mightily to destroy the reputation of a future supreme court judge without any credible evidence; the same political party that once back in power in the House, used a felon who was convicted of lying to Congress as their star witness, and then had the audacity to suggest that he was being truthful; the same people political party whose candidate for president colluded with the Russians to create a phony dossier intended to destroy her opponent; the same political party that looked the other way when the FBI was caught planning a soft coup of a duly elected president. Yeah, that party.

And now in still another effort to "protect democracy and the constitution," that same party has decided to conduct yet another witch hunt. It would also be okay to call it a fishing expedition that proceeds a witch hunt. Rep. Gerald Nadler (D-NY) has decided that Donald Trump obstructed Justice by ... well, the details remain murky but since Dems never, ever lie, it must be true.

Recall, if you will, that the Democrats assured us all that Donald Trump "colluded with the Russians" to tilt the election in his favor and that the sainted Robert Mueller would find irrefutable evidence that he did so. Looks like Mueller failed, although I'm certain that if Trump drank a black Russian at a bar in one of his hotels and Mueller notes it in his report, the same protectors of "democracy and the constitution" will conclude that "collusion" has been proven.

But just in case, the Dems have decided to do what they always do, use government as a cudgel to intimidate their opponents and concentrate their power. Roger Kimball comments:

What does desperation smell like? It smells like House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, who is reprising his ‘Impeach Trump!’ act from 2017, this time with a gavel in his hand ...

... no one not named Bill Kristol [a virulent GOP NeverTrumper] now thinks that Mueller’s expensive, long-running entertainment will issue in any actionable charges against the President.

Hence the ‘insurance policy’ being framed by Congressman Nadler. The headline of a column in Politico yesterday cut to the chase: ‘House Democrats open sweeping corruption probe into Trump’s world.’ They’ve sent letters to 81 people associated with Donald Trump demanding ‘documents.’ Which documents? All the ones that show the President in a bad light or that might be used to frame him for misconduct or ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’

Like what? Well, they aren’t quite sure, but it is not stopping them from ‘demanding documents from the White House and Trump’s namesake company, charity, transition team, inauguration and 2016 campaign, as well as several longtime associates and the president’s two adult sons.’ Hoover it all up, boys! There has to be something, somewhere in Trump’s past we can nail him for.

It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. Congressman Nadler says that ‘President Trump and his administration face wide-ranging allegations of misconduct that strike at the heart of our constitutional order.’ Asked to be specific, he mutters darkly about ‘abuse of power’ and ‘obstruction of justice.’ For example? Are you ready? Donald Trump has frequently disparaged Robert Mueller’s investigation as a ‘witch hunt.’ That, according to Congressman Nadler, constitutes obstruction of justice.

Except, of course, that it doesn’t. Yesterday, President Trump dismissed the flood-the-zone probe as a ‘political hoax,’ which is too kind a phrase for malevolent effort to unseat a duly elected president.

Nadler contends that by calling Mueller's investigation a "witch hunt," Donald Trump obstructed justice. After all, the new Democrats believe that only they have a right to express an opinion. Nadler believes that by firing a dishonest and duplicitous FBI director (who by the way, admits he leaked confidential information to the media), Trump obstructed justice. After all, only Democratic presidents have the right to hire and fire their senior people, not Republicans.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal comment:

Credit Mr. Nadler for candor that Democrats didn’t display when they campaigned last year. Then they talked only about holding the President “accountable.” Now they claim they already have enough to impeach Mr. Trump, though as Mr. Nadler admitted Sunday, “you have to persuade enough of the opposition party voters, Trump voters . . . that you’re not just trying to steal the last—to reverse the results of the last election.”

That may be harder than he imagines, and not only because of Mr. Nadler’s Freudian slip there of “steal.” Based on the public evidence so far, Mr. Trump hasn’t obstructed justice in any of the examples Mr. Nadler cited. Mr. Nadler wants to turn the President’s exercise of his normal constitutional powers into impeachable offenses.

Hence, the Nadler fishing expedition in which the Dems are looking for something, anything that they can twist into an impeachable offense. During the previous presidency, the GOP was highly partisan, played politics, and even resisted Obama's actions in their own way, but they did't apply the vile tactics that we're now seeing from the Dems.

Trump Derangement Syndrome has caused far too many Democrats to reject decency and adopt a scorched earth approach to governance. So be it. When the tables are turned, the GOP should do exactly the same thing—reject a duly-elected Democrat president, and even as a minority, harass and obstruct everything his or her administration tries to accomplish. After all, they'll be saving Democracy and the Constitution, right?

Voting with their Feet

Democrats, and democratic socialists in particular, regularly tell the rest of us that we MUST pay higher taxes to help fund all of the "free" stuff (e.g., healthcare, college tuition, college debt, guaranteed incomes, myriad social programs, large, underfunded pensions for public sector employees). They accuse the "rich" of not paying their far share, but never state exactly what that fair share might be. They demonize billionaires because ... socialism.

For all of that, they must be very proud that the top five states that tax their citizens most heavily are all deep blue. Each of those states, NY, CT, NJ, CA, and IL, have had overwhelmingly Democrat majorities in their legislatures for decades. Most have had Democrat leadership in their cities for additional decades (the last GOP mayor in the most corrupt city in the United States, Chicago, was elected in 1931!). All are under severe financial strain and all continue to advocate even higher taxes and fees.

USA Today in conjunction with the Tax Foundation provides the facts and figures. Of the top 10 states that lead in taxation, all have Democratic legislatures (the place where fiscal decisions are made and taxation is approved). The majority are losing population. That is, "tax refugees" are leaving these states to gain some relief from the crushing burden of high taxes.

But wait. If the blue model (exemplified by higher taxes and spending) is a "moral" imperative, if it is de rigueur for "economic justice," if it results (as Democrats claim it does) in better lives and better living conditions for citizens who live under it, why are people (and businesses) leaving the states that have implemented it?

The Dems are obsessed by the 2020 vote and are doing everything possible to win that vote. For just a sec, maybe they should look inward and ask themselves why citizens who live under their governance are voting with their feet and leaving. That's the vote that really matters, and it's one that the Dems lose every. single. time.

Charlatans for Socialism

Third party presidential candidate, Howard Schultz, is persona non gratia among Democrats, and he's the devil among Leftists. The reason is that he sees the Democrat's leftward lurch toward socialism clearly. Here's a recent tweet from Schultz:

History can be pesky, particularly for those who prefer the fantasy of utopian promises of free stuff coupled with a warped sense of "social justice." And far too many young people, propagandized in high school and college to believe that social justice is somehow equivalent to socialism, have flocked to the likes of Bernie Sanders and his many apostles.

The Babylon Bee blog comments:

After a recently elected democratic socialist politician suddenly began using authoritarian, elitist-sounding language mere weeks after getting her first whiff of power, every single person in the country who's never read a history book expressed their shock and surprise at the sudden transformation.

The woman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, tweeted "We're in charge" in the context of a proposed sweeping government takeover of the economy, saying her critics who haven't proposed an alternative were "shouting from the cheap seats." She also declared "I'm the boss, how about that?" in a recent video interview. The statements shocked certain groups of people across the country, namely, those who haven't been in the same room as a history book anytime in the past few decades.

As I've noted numerous times in this blog, you don't have to read history books to understand the inherent destructive power of socialism. All you have to do is look 1,367 miles south at Venezuela. Schultz' tweet is not only accurate but eerie. And yet charlatans like Bernie Sanders tell us that this time will be different. That this time, social justice will prevail. That this time, socialism won't wreck the economy, push more—not fewer—people into dependency and despair. That a powerful centralized government will be benevolent, not authoritarian and ultimately, tyrannical.

To repeat a wonderful aphorism. What the charlatans for socialism never want to admit is the clear, unequivocal historical truth that:

Under capitalism, the rich become powerful. Under socialism, the powerful become rich, and everyone else becomes poor.

Don't believe me ... believe the history books.

UPDATE-1:
-----------------
This tweet sequence by Richard Fernandez touches on yet another aspect of the socialist scam:



It's the moral preening and/or virtue signaling that may be the most galling aspect of socialist ideology, particularly when history tells us that once in power they operate on anything but a high moral plane, destroying both institutions and people in their never-ending quest for more power and control. History shows us that the promises of socialism are all lies, spoken with fervor, no doubt, but lies nonetheless. They do not stand up to any reasonable interpretation of "external truth."

UPDATE-2
------------------
Heartening news for those of us who know that socialism is a destructive force that will not bring the utopia that the charlatans tell us to expect. Yesterday's NBCNews/WSJ poll reports:

And regarding socialism, just 18 percent of all Americans say they view the term positively, versus 50 percent who see it in a negative light.

The numbers for capitalism are almost the exact opposite: 50 percent positive, 19 percent negative.

Maybe people are reading history books after all.