Could YOU survive what liberal, unthinking Americans are trying to do to Donald Trump?

President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump is apparently not a figure many of us feel empathy for.  Nearly half the country hates him.  Hate may even be too mild a word.  They despise him and equate him with the worst of human history, Hitler and the Nazis.  They want him destroyed, literally and politically, along with his family.  This includes Democrats, the media, and many Republicans.

His resignation or impeachment wouldn’t be enough.  He needs to face treason charges and punishment at the end of a rope or in front of a firing squad, along with his family.  His supporters are guilty by association and must face similar justice.

But in To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch told Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”  This is the essence of empathy.  You can’t understand someone until you’ve “walked a mile in his shoes.”

Let’s for a moment climb inside Donald Trump’s skin and walk around in it.

Trump was a successful businessman, a billionaire who owns properties, resorts, golf courses, and hotels around the world.  He owned a huge private jet, only a half-step down from the one he currently uses.  He has a beautiful wife and family; his children are smart and following in his business footsteps.  He hosted a wildly successful television show, was a household name and a darling of the media before he decided to run for president.

Yet he gave that up.  Why would he do that?  As a septuagenarian, did his ego demand one more even bigger prize?  Or, as some have speculated, was he approached by a group of patriots several years ago and told in no uncertain terms about the Deep State and America’s trajectory into the abyss?  Perhaps he was told that he was the only one who could run for president, have a chance of winning, then slow or stop America’s decline.

Did he, as a consummate patriot, take up the challenge?  Someday we may learn why he gave up a comfortable and successful life in exchange for endless scorn and derision.

In Hillary Clinton he fought a political opponent who was challenging, not personally, but for what and whom she represented: the establishments of both parties, the donor classes, the media, Hollywood, academia, and the Clinton machine that has been active since the Clintons’ days in Arkansas.

Donald Trump worked his butt off, campaigning around the clock.  From his tweets at 4 A.M. to his campaign rallies in multiple states in a single day, he worked harder than any candidate in recent memory.  His opponent did the opposite.  Sipping chardonnay and napping, she listened to her cheerleaders in the media as they fawned over her every utterance, telling her repeatedly that she would win the election easily.

Media coverage of Trump was and still is over 90 percent negative.  His own party worked against his election, the party he represented and brought victory to.  The big names in the GOP tried to undermine him – McCain, Romney, Bush, Ryan – all past presidents or candidates, the heavy hitters in the GOP, not to mention the Republican NeverTrump whiners and wimps.

Then there was the Deep State led by a treasonous ex-president and his no-ethics, no-honor Democrats — the unelected and unaccountable three-letter agencies, conspiring and working against Donald Trump not only as a candidate but also after he became president.  They spied on his campaign, creating fictional dossiers used to justify FBI surveillance of Trump, his family, and his entire campaign staff.  It was a concerted effort by the leadership of these agencies to prevent his election, and then to destroy his presidency as a Plan B.

Phony accusations of Russian collusion tainted his presidency and provided a cloud over his election, much like a successful athlete winning a championship fair and square and against all odds, then having his victory tainted with the accusation of rigging or cheating.  How would such a winner react to claims that he didn’t really win…especially when he had worked so hard for victory and had so little help in the process?

The Russian collusion story taints Trump’s successful campaign and election.  The Mueller investigation and drumbeat from the media share the common refrain that Trump is an illegitimate president, that he cheated to win, conspiring with an enemy country.  This is the same country, ironically, that so many of Trump’s critics were in love with only a few years ago.

Trump has been working hard as president, accomplishing more in his first 500 days than any of his predecessors – tax cuts, a roaring economy, record unemployment, a reversal of 50 years of failed policy toward North Korea, strong judicial picks, rebuilding the American relationship with Israel, and so on.  Does he get any credit from the media or his own party?  Hardly.  Instead, scorn and insults continue to rain down on him.  Wouldn’t you be frustrated and bitter standing in his shoes?  Absolutely you would.

Last is the Mueller indictment of 12 phantom Russians over supposedly hacking the DNC computers – computers the FBI did not even examine.  Indictments are simply accusations, not verdicts in a court of law, and were announced the last business day before Trump’s Russia summit.  What a coincidence of timing, putting Trump in a box where he had to either validate the Russian collusion narrative or question the veracity of the U.S. intelligence community.  Always the pragmatic contrarian, he chose the latter option during his press conference with Putin.

Does Trump fully trust the intelligence services, the same ones that conspired to spy on his campaign and undermine his election, then tried to overturn his presidency?  Would you trust these agencies if you were subjected to all the lies and the duplicity they have heaped upon our duly elected president? Of course you wouldn’t trust them. All this is based on the nonsensical assertion that Russia hacked the election, an absurd concept that even Obama said was impossible: “There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could ever rig America’s elections.”

This is the same intelligence community that exonerated Hillary Clinton for crimes proven but never investigated, yet indicted Donald Trump for crimes investigated ad nauseam but never proven.  The same Intelligence Community that told the world that Saddam had WMDs and then dragged the U.S. and other countries into a costly and counterproductive war.

Put yourself in Trump’s shoes: a highly successful businessman, in the latter years of his life, taking on the Herculean task of running for and winning the U.S. presidency.  In victory he finds nothing but abuse, scorn, and betrayal by friend and foe alike.  He is surrounded by landmines, and the US intelligence agencies do all they can to make sure he steps on one landmine after another.  This is a journey few mortals would undertake, much less survive.

Is it any wonder he is pushing back against those trying to destroy him and his presidency, including the FBI, DOJ, and CIA, all in the thick of seditious activity against our duly elected president?  He has few friends in Washington, D.C.; many who should have his back seem only eager to bury a knife in it instead.

Donald Trump is a man chosen by ordinary people, a man trying to make America great again despite only scorn and opposition coming back from those he wants to help.

[From an article by Brian C. Joondeph, a Denver-based physician and writer]


NORM ‘n’ AL Note: All those Americans who can never find anything good to say about Mr. Trump should try to reflect honestly on what this country might now be like had Horrible Hillary won the election…a woman who proved, just like Obama did, that the primary qualifications in a Democrat candidate for political office are a complete lack of honor, a lack of any sense of ethics, and a willingness to lie in any situation.  There are lots of countries around the world where you can find precisely this kind of person occupying the top office.  Thank God the USA isn’t one of them anymore.




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis






Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Suddenly-motivated sellers push US housing bubble into Stage Two

Housing bubbles proceed in fairly predictable stages. Stage One is long and usually slow, at least initially, fueled by excess central bank money creation or foreign demand or some other source of liquidity that encourages large numbers of people to buy houses. At first, sellers remember the peak prices from the previous bubble and aren’t willing to sell at anything less than that (in finance-speak, they’re “anchored” at the highest price they could have gotten last time around). So demand initially outstrips supply, causing home prices to rise, slowly at first and then explosively as increasingly-desperate buyers become willing to pay any price while mortgage lenders, seduced by fat fees and confident that they can securitize and offload any kind of dicey mortgage, lower their standards to include pretty much the whole of society.

Stage One usually ends with price spikes in the hottest markets so extreme that they generate headlines. Like these:

San Diego home prices spike

Home Prices Spike Near Murrieta, SoCal Median Hits Record Level

Orlando Home Prices Spike 10 Percent Annually in April

Another month, another record for Denver home prices

Phase Two of the US housing bubble begins when sellers read these headlines and note that prices are now above what they could have gotten in the last bubble. With the memory of how badly, during the subsequent bust, they’d wished they’d sold at the peak still reasonably fresh, they realize that they’ve been given a second chance to cash out, move to a cheaper, less-frenetic place, and coast on their real estate riches. So they call a realtor and list their house. As do a bunch of their neighbors. Supply, out of the blue, jumps.

That may be what’s happening now:

The housing shortage may be turning, warning of a price bubble

The most competitive, tightest housing market in decades may finally be loosening its grip, and that could put pressure on overheated home prices. The supply of homes for sale in the second quarter of 2018, the all-important spring market, rose at three times the rate of the same period in 2017, according to Trulia, a real estate listing and research company.

The inventory jump was the largest quarterly improvement in three years and could be signaling a slight thaw in today’s housing market. But it is just a start.

“This seasonal inventory jump wasn’t enough to offset the historical year-over-year downward trend that has continued over 14 consecutive quarters,” according to Alexandra Lee, a housing data analyst for Trulia’s economics research team.

The supply of homes for sale is still down 5.3 percent compared with a year ago. Still, all real estate is local, and some markets are seeing greater relief. Thirty of the nation’s 100 largest cities, including New York City, Miami and Los Angeles, now have more supply than a year ago.

Of course, the increase is a double-edged sword. Supplies are increasing because sales are slowing, and sales are slowing because prices are so high. In New York City, the median household must spend 65 percent of its income to buy a home, according to Trulia. In Los Angeles, it takes 59 percent.

“Among these unaffordable metros, San Diego posted the largest inventory growth—22 percent year-over-year,” wrote Lee. “Compare that with the same quarter last year, when that Southern California metro registered a 28 percent inventory decrease.”

Mortgage applications to purchase a newly built home plummeted nearly 9 percent in June compared with June 2017, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. This suggests lower new home sales going forward.

Stage Two’s deluge of supply sets the table for US housing bubble Stage Three by soaking up the remaining demand and changing the tenor of the market. Deals get done at the asking price instead of way above, then at a little below, then a lot below. Instead of being snapped up the day they’re listed, houses begin to languish on the market for weeks, then months. Would-be sellers, who have already mentally cashed their monster peak-bubble proceeds checks, start to panic. They cut their asking prices preemptively, trying to get ahead of the decline, which causes “comps” to plunge, forcing subsequent sellers to cut even further.

Sales volumes contract, and mortgage bankers and realtors get laid off. Then the last year’s (in retrospect) really crappy mortgages start defaulting, the mortgage-backed bonds that contain their paper plunge in price, and voila, we’re back in 2008.

How far away is the climax of Stage Three? It’s too soon to tell, with just one quarter of trend-reversal data on-hand. But if you’re thinking of selling (or if you own a lot of bank stocks or are thinking of shorting such stocks), now might be a good time to start paying close attention to your local housing market.


[From an article published by DOLLAR]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis







Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

From our No Comment Necessary department…

No comment necessary...



Here’s a little of the Strzok testimony captured by a Maryland mom…


As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Media’s “white privilege” emphasis has little or no basis in fact

At what point does the push for “equality” become its own version of discrimination?

That’s the uncomfortable but important question that needs to be asked after surprising details about university acceptance rates were published by the American Enterprise Institute.

By now, almost everyone has heard the term “white privilege.” The concept, pushed by liberals, is that white Americans have an unfair and unearned advantage over other races in the country, despite decades of trying to level the playing field.

As a result of that perceived “privilege,” policies like affirmative action supposedly try to lift certain minorities up by giving them advantageous treatment.

What often ends up happening, however, is that some races are pulled down instead, and this meddling leads to the same kind of race-based discrimination that America is supposed to be against.

Case in point: An eye-opening chart from AEI shows that if a level playing field is the goal, affirmative action is failing miserably, at least when it comes to medical school acceptance.

The institute compared university medical school acceptance numbers for people of different races who have similar MCAT scores.

Med school admissions skewed  against whites


That Medical College Admission Test is the gold standard for determining which students are best prepared to enter the challenging medical field. In theory, candidates with similar MCAT scores should be equally ready to enter medical school.

You might think that universities would have pretty similar acceptance rates for all people who do well on the MCAT. After all, skin color isn’t supposed to be a factor; an individual’s preparedness to handle the courses should be the only consideration.

The facts paint a disturbing picture, however. Among medical school applicants with almost identical MCAT scores, Asian and white individuals seem to be discriminated against, while Hispanic and black students are accepted at dramatically higher rates.

“(For) applicants to US medical schools between 2013-2016 with average GPAs (3.40 to 3.59) and average MCAT scores (27 to 29), black applicants were almost 4 times more likely to be accepted to US medical schools than Asians in that applicant pool (81.2% vs. 20.6%), and 2.8 times more likely than white applicants,” reported AEI.

If you don’t see the problem, re-read the last paragraph again. Remember, these are people with almost identical MCAT scores. There isn’t a major difference in their academic preparedness. The evidence is clear: Certain races are being given preferential treatment over others … and it isn’t whites.

So much for the “white privilege” claim.

“For students applying to medical school with slightly below average GPAs of 3.20 to 3.39 and slightly below average MCAT scores of 24 to 26 (first data column in the table, shaded light blue), black applicants were more than 9 times more likely to be admitted to medical school than Asians,” AEI continued.

At first glance, this could be seen as a “win” for black Americans. After all, more black students getting into medical school is good, right?

Yes … but only if they were chosen in a color-blind process and earned the opportunity through their test scores, not their skin color.

The data show that this isn’t happening. The fact that certain races are being given preferential treatment despite having similar scores means that different groups are being discriminated against.

After all, for every applicant accepted into a prestigious program, another hopeful student receives a rejection letter — and to be rejected for being the wrong race is deeply disturbing.

Has “affirmative action” gone so far that some races are being held back in admissions so that other races can be shown favoritism? That’s certainly what the data suggest.

Where is the outrage over racial minorities being systematically excluded from schools despite their test scores? Asian Americans, who are only about 5 percent of the U.S. population, are almost certainly facing discrimination based on these facts, but it seems they’re the “wrong” minority for the left to care.

Look at the distribution of the lowest MCAT score category to see how blatant the discrepancy is. Around half — 56 percent — of black medical school applicants with MCAT scores between 24 and 26 were accepted.

In contrast, only 8 percent of whites and a shockingly low 6 percent of Asians with the exact same scores were accepted. That is the textbook definition of racial discrimination, yet liberals are strangely quiet.

This is the problem with pushing equal results over equal opportunities. In their misguided quest to replace true equality with a feel-good culture, affirmative action busy-bodies have simply shifted the problem somewhere else. Nothing has been solved; it’s just a different minority that is now being trod on.

What happened to judging individuals by their accomplishments and the content of their character, instead of their race? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous dream has become a strange, twisted affirmative action nightmare.

It’s almost impossible to come to any other conclusion based on this evidence. Colleges are racially profiling … it just happens to be against Asian and white students.

“US medical schools are granting special preferences for admissions on the basis of race for certain preferred minority groups (blacks and Hispanics) over other equally qualified non-preferred minority groups (Asians) and whites,” AEI summarized.

“Even if factors other than GPA and MCAT scores are considered for admission to medical school, wouldn’t it still be very hard to conclude that admissions policies to medical schools are completely ‘race-neutral’ and completely free of any ‘racial profiling’ practices that favor blacks and Hispanics over equally qualified Asians and whites?” asked the institute.

It’s a tough question, but one that needs to be addressed.

Here’s a thought: Maybe it’s time to put the failed and hypocritical affirmative action policies of the past aside, and focus on accomplishments instead.  Let’s judge individuals based on their abilities, track record and work ethic — what a concept! Let’s set race quotas aside and create a truly level playing field where every student, no matter his or her background, has the same opportunities to succeed.


[From an article by Benjamin Arie, published by THE WESTERN JOURNAL]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Looks like Democrats don’t even like Democracy any more…

It’s pretty clear that Democrats — the politicians, not all the people who vote for them — hate democracy.  Democrats don’t believe power is from the people; rather Democrats believe that the elites, which in the minds of Democrats is made up, of course, only of Democrats, should rule the rest of us.

We can see this in the Democrats refusing to accept the results of the 2016 election.

We can see it in the Democrats’ enthusiasm for the administrative state…where unelected, unaccountable, unfireable bureaucrats can create thousands of rules and regulations which the rest of us Americans have to follow.

But we see it most clearly in the panic that Democrats are experiencing over the idea that Trump will be nominating someone to the Supreme Court who will decide cases based on what the law says, rather than what they think the law should say.

According to the editors of the New York Times,

“This call to arms may sound overly dramatic. It’s not. As hyperpartisanship, gridlock and a general abdication of responsibility have rendered Congress increasingly dysfunctional, the judiciary is taking an ever-greater hand in policy areas ranging from immigration to guns to ballot access to worker rights.”

This is a clear indisputable example of the elite Democrat establishment, of which the NYT is a card-carrying member, saying that the Supreme Court should be making policy rather than simply deciding what the laws passed by Congress or the Constitution say.

Essentially the Democrats who run the NYT are saying that because Congress won’t do what they want it to do — that’s what they mean by “gridlock” — a group of rich white lawyers on the Supreme Court should take over the job of running the country. This is nothing less than a call for revolution and a demand that America become a banana republic ruled not by the people but by a few rich lawyers.

While this openness about their beliefs is new for Democrats, they’ve been espousing their desire to turn America into an authoritarian state for decades.

Not a single significant Democrat initiative has been passed by Congress.

For example, legalizing pornography, coddling criminals, declaring abortion to be a fundamental right, redefining libel/slander, and redefining marriage have all been the result of the Supreme Court defining policy, not interpreting the Constitution and the law.

In most cases the Court went directly against the expressed will of the people and imposed laws on Americans that were only supported by the tiny elite who run the Democratic party.

The Court’s declaration that there was an unassailable right to kill one’s unborn child went directly against what the people of America wanted.  Even in the most liberal states, abortion was only legal for what would now be considered the hard cases.  There was clearly no mandate for abortion for any reason at any time during pregnancy.  Yet the Court imposed unrestricted abortion on the people.

55,000,000 Americans had voted against redefining marriage — even uberliberal California resoundingly passed Prop 8, which declared that marriage was between a man and a woman, but the Supreme Court decided that the people didn’t know what was best for them and imposed on the people what Democrats wanted.

But wait, you say, what about ObamaCare?  While ObamaCare was passed by Congress, it was passed because it contained no new taxes.  Democrats, led by Obama, told everyone who would listen that ObamaCare contained no new taxes.  It’s unlikely that even with the Democrats controlling everything, they could have gotten sufficient votes if they’d have said that they were voting for a massive tax increase.

Hence, when ObamaCare went to the Supreme Court, it should have been rejected, because in their ruling saying that the act was Constitutional, the justices asserted that Congress imposing fees on people who didn’t do what Congress wanted them to do is unconstitutional.

But instead of following what the law said and what all its supporters said when it was being debated, the Court decided to effectively rewrite the law, take a bigger role in defining policy, to use the NYT’s terminology, and change fees to taxes.

Precisely because it was clear that the American people did not support ObamaCare, the Supreme Court decided to ignore the Constitution’s definition of who has the power to make laws, i.e. the Congress, and create a law via judicial fiat.

Democrats knew what was best for America, and while the people didn’t agree with the Democrats, five Supreme Court judges did and that’s all that the Democrats cared about.

Because Democrats have used the Court to impose their will on the people, they know that if the Court returns to its constitutional role as an impartial interpreter of the Constitution, the entire Democrat edifice — ranging from ObamaCare to redefining marriage — is at risk of tumbling down.

Of course, the Democrats really never had a choice; their policies are toxic and rejected by most sane, thinking people so that those policies could never have been passed through the democratic process.

But their winning run is about to end, and they’re furious because they know that they are better, more caring, and smarter than the rest of us.  In their minds, denying them tyrannical powers is an affront to nature, and they’ve long since given up on the idea that there is a God who wants to help direct us in running our country.

That’s why they accept violence and incivility against people who simply stand for the Constitution; because Democrats can’t convince Americans, they must coerce them.

When you talk to your friends about Trump’s nominee, remind them that the judge’s philosophy is that their role will be to decide, to the best of their ability, what the Constitution says and what the people who wrote it meant it to say — that they view their role as being an impartial referee, not a tyrant who imposes their own personal views on the people.

Remind them that if Roe v. Wade is repealed, it will simply mean that each state will be able to define when abortion is legal, not that all abortions everywhere will be illegal.

Ask them if they want the rules we Americans live by to be defined by the people, through our elected representatives, or by a few 1%ers on the Supreme Court.

The NYT is correct in saying that the Supreme Court is the issue, but they refuse to admit that this will be the case only so long as the majority believe in legislating from the bench. Once Trump’s new nominee is on the Court, it will cease being the issue in all our elections because the Court will stop legislating and return to simply interpreting the laws passed by our representatives.

Nothing else Trump will do is more important than returning the Supreme Court to its proper role and returning power to we the people.


[From an article written by Tom Trinko and published by AMERICAN THINKER]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

More FBI bias and corruption revealed…(what else is new?)

If you are just starting to get the impression that the entire Obama administration was in on some dark and nefarious scheme to ruin Donald Trump’s chances in the 2016 election, you’re late to the party.

During the election, there were certainly concerns about how things were faring out on the peripherals.  We could hear Hillary Clinton beginning to indoctrinate the youth of America into the coming #RussiaGate hoax, but we had no idea at the time that the information she was getting likely came from FBI spies within the Trump campaign.

Furthermore, we could see that the entire democratic primary process seemed a little strange, but it took Wikileaks, with the possible help of Seth Rich, to bring the Queen of Corruption’s financial takeover of the DNC to the light.

Of course, the disclosure that the FBI chose not to prosecute Hillary Clinton when there was obvious, ample evidence of wrongdoing with her private email server, was simply icing on the cake.  Later, it was even determined that then-director of the Bureau James Comey had made up his mind about letting Clinton walk even before interviewing her.

Multiple reviews of whether FBI agents’ political bias affected the Russia-Trump collusion case remain in their infancy, but investigators already have unearthed troubling internal communications long withheld from public view.

We already know from FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok’s now-infamous text messages with his fellow agent and reported lover, Lisa Page, that Strzok — the man driving that Russia collusion investigation — disdained Donald Trump and expressed willingness to use his law enforcement powers to “stop” Mr. Trump from becoming president.

The question that lingers, unanswered: Did those sentiments affect official actions?

Memos the FBI is now producing to the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general and multiple Senate and House committees offer what sources involved in the production, review or investigation describe to me as “damning” or “troubling” evidence.

They show Strzok and his counterintelligence team rushing in the fall of 2016 to find “derogatory” information from informants or a “pretext” to accelerate the probe and get a surveillance warrant on figures tied to the future president.

One of those figures was Carter Page, an academic and an energy consultant from New York; he was briefly a volunteer foreign policy adviser for the GOP nominee’s campaign and visited Moscow the summer before the election.

The memos show Strzok, Lisa Page and others in counterintelligence monitored news articles in September 2016 that quoted a law enforcement source as saying the FBI was investigating Carter Page’s travel to Moscow. The FBI team pounced on what it saw as an opportunity as soon as Page wrote a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey complaining about the “completely false” leak.

“At a minimum, the letter provides us a pretext to interview,” Strzok wrote to Lisa Page on Sept. 26, 2016.

Within weeks, that “pretext” — often a synonym for an excuse — had been upsized to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant, giving the FBI the ability to use some of its most awesome powers to monitor Carter Page and his activities.

To date, the former Trump adviser has been accused of no wrongdoing despite being subjected to nearly a year of surveillance.

Some internal memos detail the pressure being applied by the FBI to DOJ prosecutors to get the warrant on Carter Page buttoned up before Election Day.  In one email exchange with the subject line “Crossfire FISA,” Strzok and Lisa Page discussed talking points to get then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking DOJ official to sign off on the warrant.

“Crossfire Hurricane” was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related to Russia matters in the 2016 election.  “At a minimum, that keeps the hurry-up pressure on him,” Strzok emailed Page on Oct. 14, 2016, less than four weeks before Election Day.

Four days later the same team was emailing about rushing to get approval for another FISA warrant for another Russia-related investigation code-named “Dragon.”  “Still an expedite?” one of the emails beckoned, as the FBI tried to meet the requirements of a process known as a Woods review before a FISA warrant can be approved by the courts.  “Any idea what time he can have it woods-ed by?” Strzok asked Page. “I know it’s not going to matter because DOJ is going to take the time DOJ wants to take. I just don’t want this waiting on us at all.”

Until all the interviews are completed by Congress and DOJ’s inspector general later this year, we won’t know why counterintelligence agents who normally take a methodical approach to investigation felt so much pressure days before the election on this case.

Were they concerned about losing a chance to gather evidence at a critical moment? Or maybe, as some Republicans long have suspected, they wanted to impact the election?

The agents got the Carter Page warrant in October and, within two weeks, Democrats in Congress such as then-Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) and some media members were raising questions about the FBI withholding word of a probe that could hurt Trump. FBI agents monitored those reports, too.

The day after Trump’s surprising win on Nov. 9, 2016, the FBI counterintelligence team engaged in a new mission, bluntly described in another string of emails prompted by another news leak.

“We need ALL of their names to scrub, and we should give them ours for the same purpose,” Strzok emailed Page on Nov. 10, 2016, citing a Daily Beast article about some of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s allegedly unsavory ties overseas.

“Andy didn’t get any others,” Page wrote back, apparently indicating McCabe didn’t have names to add to the “scrub.”

“That’s what Bill said,” Strzok wrote back, apparently referring to then-FBI chief of counterintelligence William Priestap. “I suggested we need to exchange our entire lists as we each have potential derogatory CI info the other doesn’t.” CI is short for confidential informants.

It’s an extraordinary exchange, if for no other reason than this: The very day after Trump wins the presidency, some top FBI officials are involved in the sort of gum-shoeing normally reserved for field agents, and their goal is to find derogatory information about someone who had worked for the president-elect.

As the president-elect geared up to take over, the FBI made another move that has captured investigators’ attention: It named an executive with expertise in the FBI’s most sensitive surveillance equipment to be a liaison to the Trump transition.

On its face, that seems odd; technical surveillance nerds aren’t normally the first picks for plum political assignments. Even odder, the FBI counterintelligence team running the Russia-Trump collusion probe seemed to have an interest in the appointment.

These and other documents are still being disseminated to various oversight bodies in Congress, and more revelations are certain to occur.

Yet now, irrefutable proof exists that agents sought to create pressure to get “derogatory” information and a “pretext” to interview people close to a future president they didn’t like.

Clear evidence also exists that an investigation into still-unproven collusion between a foreign power and a U.S. presidential candidate was driven less by secret information from Moscow and more by politically tainted media leaks and very obvious political bias.

And that means the dots between expressions of political bias and official actions just got a little more connected.  I don’t know about you, but I can smell a whole plate of Obama’s home cooking here.


[From articles published by CONSTITUTION.COM and]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Top New York Democrat decides he can’t support Democrats any longer

Dov Hikind has been a major power in New York for decades, so it can’t be taken as a small issue of no consequence when he says he is now supporting Republicans as long as Chuck Schumer and the Democrats remain insane and dishonest.

No one can doubt Hikind’s liberal standing, yet he rattles off all of Trumps major triumphs as he notes that Schumer supported a lot of the same things until they were accomplished by our president. He brought up the economy, relations with Israel, the progress with North Korea, moving our embassy to Jerusalem. You know the Democratic party must be in shambles to force someone like Hikind to #WalkAway.

Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D, Brooklyn) said he recently received a mailer from fellow Democrat, Senator Charles Schumer asking for contributions. The letter was riddled with attacks on the “hard right” but omitted vital information. In an open letter to Schumer, Mr. Hikind filled in the blanks.

Here is Hikind’s complete letter to Schumer:

“Senator Schumer, in your letter you promise to fight for Democratic values and go on at great length to fully villainize the current administration, but you left out certain facts that my fellow Democrats, to say nothing of all Americans, should also be aware of.

“You forgot to tell us about the economy. As good as it’s been, economists expect even more growth through the end of the year. That’s very good news, Senator.

“You forgot to tell us about unemployment, which is lower than it has been in decades, while economic confidence is at a 17-year high. It’s also at a record low for minorities. That’s very good news, Senator.

“You forgot to tell us how the U.S. is beginning to emerge in energy dominance. The Department of Interior, which has led the way in cutting regulations, opened plans to lease 77 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas drilling, decreasing our reliance on foreign oil. That’s very good news, Senator.

“You forgot to tell us about the most remarkable relationship between the United States and our ally Israel ever. Or about moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, which you yourself applauded.

“You forgot to tell us about the successful dismantling of the Iran Deal—a deal which you yourself opposed and knew threatened the rest of the world by making it easier for Iran, the leading supporter of world terrorism, to develop nuclear weapons.

“You forgot to tell us that the Trump administration is against the harmful reverse-discrimination criteria in universities that would so badly hurt the children from hard-working Asian families. So much for the big tent, Senator.

“You forgot to tell us about a potential peace with a denuclearized North Korea.

“You forgot to tell us about tax cuts. I’m part of the middle class and now I’m getting a little extra in my paycheck. I’m happy about that and so are tens of millions of Americans, Senator.

“You ask for a contribution, but the Democratic Party—which I am a lifelong member of—is currently betraying the ideals that our party once stood for: American values. You yourself proposed that Representative Ellison head the party, but you must surely know that Ellison has stood with our nation’s leading hatemonger, Louis Farrakhan.

“Senator Schumer, as a fellow Democrat, I ask you to work to restore sanity and honesty to our party so I can feel good about supporting it. Until then, I’m afraid the Republicans have my support.”

That’s about as powerful a message as you can possibly send…and to openly call the party insane and dishonest is a big deal coming from someone like Dov Hikind. Perhaps he doesn’t like the fact that the newest darling of the Democratic Party, Ocasio-Cortez, is a socialist who hates Jews. Maybe it’s because Maxine Waters (a Democrat from California, where else?) simply carries on most of the time like she has completely lost her mind (understandable, if Nancy Pelosi is her mentor). More likely, it’s these and many more Democrats who want us to realize in no uncertain terms that they would willingly resort to violence and murder in order to restore their brand of reality to this beloved country of ours.


[From an article by Steven Ahle, published by STEADFAST AND LOYAL]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized