On May 9, 2017, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.  The firing came after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein prepared a Memo outlining Comey’s misconduct since his unprecedented July 5, 2017 public statement about the investigation of Hillary Clinton, and recommended Comey be relieved.  Attorney General Jeff Sessions concurred with the recommendation, and the President fired him effective immediately.  Surprising no one, the firing of Comey set off a firestorm of Democrat hysteria, proving once again, that if the Democrats didn’t stand for hypocrisy, they would stand for nothing at all.  This is even worse than the usual hypocrisy.  Democrats (e.g. CNN and MSNBC), constantly accuse President Trump of being mentally ill, and even have suggested that he could be removed from office under the 25th Amendment.  But the latest Democrat meltdown over Comey is a true exhibition of mental illness by schizophrenic Democrats, who have wildly vacillated back and forth from love of Comey, to hate of Comey and back again to love.  The root cause of this Democrat mental disease – their overpowering hatred of Donald Trump.  Let’s recap.  Prior to July of 2017, James Comey was widely respected by people on both sides of the aisle, as an apolitical straight shooter, who could be relied upon to act fairly.  Comey’s FBI was tasked to investigate whether laws were broken by Hillary’s use of a private email server, and whether she and her hench-people had mishandled classified documents.  Now, the FBI has handled politically sensitive investigations before, and the agency might have handled even this one evenhandedly, had it not been for something beyond the control of James Comey – the capacity of the Clintons to corrupt practically everything they touch.  In June 2017, former President Bill Clinton, now looking like a bad copy of W.C. Fields, ambushed then Attorney General Loretta Lynch on her airplane in Arizona.  The former President, we are expected to believe, just happened to be in Phoenix to play golf, when he inadvertently encountered the Attorney General.  Of course, Bill Clinton is a 70 year old man with a heart condition, and it was 106 degrees in Phoenix on June 29, 2016, down from a high of 116 degrees the previous week, so the golf story works.  We then were led to believe that the discussion between Clinton and Lynch was limited the subjects of golf and their grandchildren.  Despite this supposed limitation, Loretta Lynch realized she had to do something.  The right thing to do would have been to recuse herself from deciding what to do on the investigation.  Instead, Lynch simply announced she would abide by whatever the FBI recommended.  As if on cue, on July 5, 2016, Comey went on the air with his stinging indictment of Hillary, ending with the conclusion that no prosecutor would indict her.  At that time, Democrats loved Comey.  Il Duce Obama said, “He’s that rarity in Washington… he doesn’t care about politics, he only cares about getting the job done.”  Nancy Pelosi  called Comey a “great man” said the FBI was lucky to have him.  Elijah Cummings, of the Congressional Black Caucus, said Comey was the “epitome” of a public servant.  What Comey did in July was something the FBI simply does not do.  Maybe he thought Loretta Lynch pushed him into it.  Maybe it was the FBI Director’s hostage tape.  Then something else happened that was beyond Comey’s control.  The independent FBI investigation into Anthony Weiner’s computer for alleged child pornography, uncovered thousands of emails between Hillary and Huma Abedin, some of which were classified.  That prompted Comey to announce, in October, that the investigation of Hillary was on again.  This changed Democrat Comey love into Comey hate.   The detestable Chuck Schumer announced,”I do not have confidence in him any longer.”  Elijah Cummings reconsidered his opinion of Comey, and accused him of being a puppet for Republicans.  Nancy Pelosi opined,”Maybe he’s not in the right job.”  Then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called for Comey to resign.  “The FBI director has no credibility,” said Rep. Maxine Waters.  Democrat Representative Steve Cohen, in November announced, “I call on FBI Director James Comey to resign his position.”  Hillary Clinton even blamed Comey (and all other men) for her election loss. (It couldn’t be her fault).  Then Trump fired Comey, and the Democrats immediately swung back to Comey love syndrome.  The detestable Chuck Schumer called it a mistake, and accused Trump of timing the firing to stop the FBI’s investigation into phony claims of Russian collusion by Trump.  Wait, didn’t Comey testify there was no evidence of any collusion?  Yes, but since when do the facts matter?  Schumer suggested that Trump should have fired Comey earlier.  Here’s why he couldn’t Chuck.  You dragged your feet on Jeff Sessions’ nomination for more than a month.  Then you delayed the vote on Rod Rosenstein until April 25.  On that date, you and 93 other Senators voted for Rosenstein.  But Trump hate trumps Comey hate, so now Comey shouldn’t have been fired.  The Schumer position (today) is that, although we don’t trust Comey, we will not trust anybody nominated by Trump, no matter who that may be.  Maxine Waters even confused an MSNBC host with her reaction to the firing, “reasoning” that, had Hillary won, she would have been justified in firing Comey, but that Trump shouldn’t have done so.  Then there’s Representative Steve Cohen.  Remember his November call for Comey to resign?  Here’s what he says now – “I have said to my colleagues and to the public for over four months that FBI Director James Comey would do the right thing in the Trump-Russia investigation.  I also believed President Trump wouldn’t fire him unless he felt that Director Comey threatened his presidency.  This is sadly reminiscent of the Saturday Night Massacre when President Nixon fired Justice Department officials that threatened his presidency.”  And Donald Trump is the one who’s nuts?  Normally, I would counsel the mentally ill to seek help, but not here.  Democrats, hear me now!  Don’t seek help.  Keep demonstrating to the American people just how foolish, stupid, petty and crazy you really are.

Last week’s F on F detailed how, in its post-election stupor, the new Democrat Party has adopted the tactics of totalitarian dictators and pro-slavery nullification advocates.  That would be bad enough, but it doesn’t stop there.  In their drive to concoct alibis for the abject failure of Hillary Clinton, today’s Democrats also are doing a credible impersonation of a bygone Democrat boogeyman, Joseph McCarthy.  For the historically challenged, or those too young to remember, Joe McCarthy was a big, boorish, alcoholic Republican Senator from Wisconsin.  McCarthy was a virtual non-entity until, during the Red-scare hysteria of the early Cold War, he gained notoriety with allegations that there were communists working throughout the U.S. government.  In truth, there were some communists in the government, and for what it was worth, McCarthy did expose a few.  But he got carried away, making wild claims without any evidence.  Such tactics, i.e., making wild claims without any evidence, came to be decried as “McCarthyism.”  Keep this in mind as we go along.  The Democrats lost an election that they expected to win, not only expected, they thought they had it won before election day.  But they lost, and taking a page from the book of Il Duce Obama, since it never can be their fault, then it must be the fault of someone else.  Who?  The Russians.  How’d they do that?  They hacked the election.  How would one do such a thing?  It’s a secret, don’t burden us with the facts.  Trump colluded with the Russians.  This is not a claim that originated after election day.  July 24, 2016 – New York Times –   “Robby Mook, argued on ABC’s This Week that the [DNC] emails were leaked ‘by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump’ citing ‘experts’ but offering no evidence.”  Remember those last four words.  The Democrats did cite “evidence,” reminding us that Donald Trump said during the campaign that he would like to “get along with Russia” if he is elected.  Whoa, the smoking gun!  There’s more.  The same Democrats who laughed at Mitt Romney in 2012 when he said that Russia was our main foe, turned around in 2016 and claimed that Trump’s weakening of the Republican Platform on Ukraine was proof of collusion.  Aha!  Then, some Trump “associates” spoke to Russians.  Paul Manafort, who left the campaign long before the election, was one.  Carter Page, who advised Trump for about 10 minutes, was another.  Manafort has categorically denied that he ever discussed the election, and no one has contradicted that.  Page spoke to the representative of a Russian business.  He called the allegations a witch hunt.  No other evidence was forthcoming, but you know how Republicans and Russians lie, so they must be guilty.  Despite the failure to produce any evidence of collusion, Democrats are still singing the collusion song.  Democrat Senator Chris Coons made headlines when he claimed, “There are transcripts that provide very helpful, very critical insights into whether or not Russian intelligence and senior Russian political leaders, including Vladimir Putin, were cooperating, were colluding with the Trump campaign at the highest levels to influence the outcome of our election.”  Even Andrea Mitchell wasn’t convinced, asking whether such transcripts actually exist.  Coons responded, “I believe they exist.”  That’s certainly evidence, See e.g., Joe McCarthy – “I have here in my hand a list of 205 communists.”  So – “if transcripts exist, and if they actually say what I want to believe they say, that’s evidence of collusion.”  And, of course, if your aunt had balls she’d be your uncle.  There even are some in Media who are tired of hearing about Russian collusion.  Bill Moyers notes that despite a summer spent investigating collusion, “Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”  That’s right.  Obama’s DNI James Clapper told ABC News in March, there is no evidence of Trump collusion with Russians.  Most of the collusion nonsense comes from a totally uncorroborated British dossier. Obama CIA official, Michael Morell, has said, “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there’s smoke, but there’s no fire at all,” adding, “There’s no little campfire; there’s no little candle; there’s no spark.  And there’s a lot of people looking for it.” “The British dossier leads nowhere.” Journalist Glenn Greenwald writes, “Many Democrats have reached the classic stage of deranged conspiracists wherein evidence that disproves the theory is viewed as further proof of its existence.”  Yet, Democrats remain obsessed with collusion, to the point where Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi has called it “an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria.”  Democrats indulge this hysteria every night when MSNBC host Rachel Maddow continually pours wet coals on an already dead fire.  Maddow claims that Russia has compromising details on Donald Trump’s sex life, “which will be used to blackmail Trump into removing troops from Europe.”  After the Access Hollywood tape?  Really?  Maddow says, “If the worst is true, if the presidency is effectively a Russian op, if the American presidency right now is the product of collusion between the Russian intelligence services and an American campaign — I mean, that is so profoundly big, we not only need to stay focused on figuring it out.  We need to start preparing for what the consequences are going to be if it proves to be true.”  Gee, Rachel, that’s a lot of “ifs.”  And again, “if your aunt had balls, etc.”  But there is evidence of collusion with Russians.  This just in  – The U.S. President told the Russian President he’d be better able to accommodate Russia after the election.  Trump said that?  No, that was Obama in 2012.  Wait, this just in – a U.S. Senator contacted the Russian Premier and invited Russia to interfere with a U.S. election.  Was that Jeff Sessions?  No, it was Ted Kennedy and Yuri Andropov in, appropriately enough, 1984.  Sessions was criticized anyhow, for saying the Hawaiian islands are in the Pacific Ocean.  Here’s a bulletin.  I was out there, and there was water all around them, so Sessions probably was right.  But, wait, this just in – in 2016, a U.S. lobbyist took $170,000 from Russian bankers to end U.S. sanctions against Russia.  Paul Manafort, right?  Wrong!  It was Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary’s John Podesta, whose hacked emails started the whole collusion mess.  Yes, the new Democrats are doing a poor impression of the old cold warriors.  Their plan is to denounce anything the Trump Administration says or proposes.  Democrats have threatened to “shut down the government” if Republicans: a) appropriate money for a border wall; b) try to defund Planned Parenthood; c) try to repeal Obamacare; or d) appropriate money to enforce immigration laws already on the books.  I guess that’s “progressive.”  And their tactics might work, too.  Even though the Democrats are saying THEY will cause a shutdown, many Republicans are afraid THEY would be blamed.  After all, if the Congressional Republicans had balls, they might be leaders.

For as long as I can remember, the Democrat Party advertised itself as the Party of the working man, while casting Republicans as the representatives of evil interests, a/k/a employers and people who actually earn money.  The Democrats’ hold on blue collar voters was so complete that the desertion of many of those voters to Ronald Reagan led them to be called “Reagan Democrats.”  Of late, the Dems have cast themselves as the champions of minority groups.  Sometimes this made sense.  African-Americans and Hispanics represent sizeable blocs of voters, but for Democrats, no group is too small.  Democrats are strident supporters of illegal aliens, to the point that they put the interests of the illegals ahead of those of American citizens.  No matter what the actual number of illegal aliens is, they come first for Democrats.  This apparently, is “progressive.”  The same holds true for Democrat support of LGBT, Q, and whatever new initials have been added this week.  That community, if such disparate groups indeed constitute a community, actually is very small.  Yet Democrats will go to any length to ensure that a 6’5″ bearded man, who identifies as a woman, is free to use the same bathroom as your 11 year old daughter.  Progressive, right?  Don’t get me wrong.  It’s not a matter of either being for these groups or against them.  I certainly don’t wish any of these groups ill.  It’s just that Democrat advocacy of their every demand would seem to put the Democrats at odds with the bulk of the American electorate.  The last election proves this point.  Hillary Clinton actually pursued a stated policy of neglect of non-minority working class voters in the Midwest.  She said she didn’t need them.  Her mistaken judgment cost her Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and the presidency.  Democrats have not learned from her mistake.  Today’s Democrat Party is a far cry from the coalition that kept Democrats in control of the Congress for nearly all of the period from the 1930’s to the mid-1990’s.  That Party consisted of Northern liberals, Labor, including conservative working class people, Southern conservatives and minorities.  By contrast, the new Democrats are a hybrid of extremist groups, such as wild-eyed, anti-growth environmentalists; anti-capitalist/anarchists; the illegal alien/La Raza crowd; and out and out Marxists.  Sadly, the new Democrats are nothing new.  Instead, the new Democrat Party represents an alarming echo of the worst of history’s malefactors; a sickening melange of doctrine borrowed from fascist and communist dictators and virulent racists.  The Democrats ruthlessly stifle any and all expressions of opinions that do not mindlessly accept and parrot their positions.  Divergent opinions are denounced as extreme and dangerous.  Want to make a conservative speech on or near a college campus?  You can’t.  It’s not allowed, because, for Democrats, free speech exists only when they’re talking.  Try being a conservative actor, and get work in Hollywood.  Good luck with that.  Even the news has to conform to Democrat standards.  They set out to destroy Bill O’Reilly, because he was too conservative (not to me) and too popular (not to me) on Fox News.  O’Reilly’s gone.  Maybe his next book will be Killing Bill O’Reilly.  But maybe his ouster wasn’t political, maybe O’Reilly was just a bad guy.  Apparently not, because Tucker Carlson took over O’Reilly’s slot, and the Leftists announced he’s next to go.  Last week, they tried, and failed, to knock Sean Hannity off the air.  And this week, the lawyer who engineered O’Reilly’s demise, set her sights on his acolyte, Jesse Watters, who is now on Fox in another time slot.  The Democrats borrowed this tactic from that great champion of civil rights, Joseph Stalin.  Joe Stalin also opposed diversity of opinion.  He said, “writers are engineers of the human soul.”  And that “the production of souls is more important than the production of tanks.”  He engineered conformity by executing writers, intellectuals and artists who did not toe the party line.  Sound familiar?  Then there’s the current battle over sanctuary cities.  The Democrats insist that States and cities have the right, not only to ignore federal immigration laws, but also to frustrate their enforcement by the federal government.  This proves that, if nothing else, the Democrats are flexible.  In 2012, when Arizona tried to enforce the federal immigration laws that the Obama Administration refused to enforce, the Democrats said a State had no right to do that, and took the State to court.  The Supreme Court backed Obama, ruling, “The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to ‘establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations.”  Two years later, the Obama Administration announced, “For more than a half century, every president—Democratic or Republican—has used his legal authority to act on immigration.”  Now, under President Trump, the Dems have changed their minds.  Every Trump Order acting on immigration has been blocked by Leftist judges.  There are at least 340 “sanctuary cities” where elected officials hide aliens subject to arrest or deportation.  Last year, San Francisco released from custody 252 illegals that federal authorities had asked the city to hold.  One of these “dreamers,” Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, five times previously deported and convicted of seven felonies,  after his release, murdered Kathryn Steinle.  Democrats aren’t concerned though,  after all, she was only an American citizen.  Now, the entire State of California is about to declare itself a “sanctuary State.”  There even is a California secession movement.  They want to order state and local law enforcement officials not to cooperate with federal investigations, including immigration violations, of any kind.  California considers federal law to be unenforceable.  In a shocking acknowledgment of the concept of federalism, California’s Attorney General said “the U.S. Constitution gives my state the right to decide how to do public safety.”  So, a State has the right to declare a federal law null and void?  This is not a new Democrat position, it’s an old one.  “We will not submit to the application of force, on the part of the Federal Government, to reduce this State to obedience; but that we will consider the passage by Congress, of any act… to coerce the State … or to enforce the acts hereby declared null and void … as inconsistent with the longer continuance of [this State] in the Union.”  California 2017?  No.  South Carolina’s Order of Nullification of 1832.  Those Democrats challenged the authority of the federal government to regulate commerce, and threatened to secede.  It led to the Civil War.  The new Democrats’ sanctuary city and State position is identical to the “State’s rights” “nullification” position that the old Democrats used to oppose ending slavery and guaranteeing civil rights.  So everything old is new again.  The old Democrats were on the wrong side of history, and the new Democrats are equally afflicted.

Tomorrow is the 47th installment of Earth Day, the annual tribute to latter day Chicken Little’s, who use the occasion each year to predict the end of the world.   They have been doing just that since 1970.  The so-called environmentalists take pride in caring about ecology.  They are dedicated to the salvation of the planet.  And they’re “experts” who know all about this stuff, right?  “You better listen to him, he’s premed.”  The fact that they have been completely and consistently wrong all these years simply doesn’t seem to matter.  Their hearts are in the right place.  You ever hear what they say about good intentions paving the road to Hell?  The Green nuts go even one better, they’re predicting Hell on Earth from global warming.  Mind you, these are the same people who said that, by the year 1980 (or was it 2000?), the world would end due to, take your pick, mass starvation, excess levels of nitrogen blocking the Sun, or the depletion of all fossil fuels.  None of those things happened, but it didn’t deter the “experts.”  Now it’s global warming, or, because the warming actually stopped for 17 years, climate change.  They tell us that every year is the hottest year ever recorded.  CO2 is building up in the atmosphere.  They tell us CO2 is a poison, whose concentration must be reduced by closing down industries, or else we’ll all die.  CO2 is carbon dioxide, a gas that we emit every time we exhale.  It’s an essential part of the atmosphere.  Without CO2, plants cannot grow, you know, that kind of poison.  According to the Green “experts,” human beings are causing increased CO2 in the atmosphere, because of all of those nasty industries that employ human beings, and due to so much, well, breathing.  Il Duce Obama told us, time and time again, that the fact of man made climate change was “settled science” as to which there was no dispute; the signatures of 30,000 scientists who say they are unconvinced notwithstanding.  It’s hip to be Green, it’s progressive.  And like every other liberal cause, the facts don’t matter, only the agenda.  What’s driving this madness?  Two things, ideology and arrogance.  Ideology, because the Green movement expanded when the Berlin Wall came down.  In essence, Marxism was falling out of fashion, and the red diaper babies needed someplace to go, so they became environmentalists.  The Reds simply turned Green.  It wasn’t a big change for them, the current anti-growth movement in Europe and elsewhere gives them an opportunity to oppose capitalism for environmental reasons.  The arrogance comes from the willingness of so-called scientists to use data from a historically insignificant period of time, the time during which we have been recording temperatures, to predict the future.  Yes, it has been warmer of late, and yes, CO2 levels have increased, and yes, those two things are indisputable.  The dispute is over causation.  The Earth has been around over 4 billion years, during which time its climate has alternated between what has been called a frigid “Ice House” and a steaming “Hot House.” Some 10 million years ago, palm trees and alligators were common in Northern Europe.  The climate changed.  I’m in New Jersey.  About 18,000 years ago, the place where I’m sitting was under about 100 feet of ice, a period called the glacial maximum, a/k/a the Ice Age.  There have been five global warmings and four Ice Ages in the past 400,000 years, a period of less than 0.1% of the lifetime of the Earth.  From 16,000 BC on, it got warmer.  The glaciers melted, and people had nothing to do with it.  2016 was the hottest year ever, right?  Wrong!  The hottest period in human history was the Holocene Maximum, 7500 to 4000 years ago.  No smokestacks then, so don’t blame Man.  More recently, 800 years ago, pronounced warming allowed the Norse to colonize and raise animals in Greenland.  But after the year 1200 it got colder and the ice came back.  The period from the 1500’s to the early 1800’s was so cold it was called “the Little Ice Age.”  There were widespread crop failures and famines.  Remember how Washington’s troops suffered at Valley Forge in 1777?  If Washington had an EPA back then, I guess it would have outlawed open campfires to reduce CO2.  Then one of two things would have happened.  Either we would have lost the Revolution, or they would have shot the EPA man and thrown his body on the fire.  From 1900 to 1945, there was serous global warming.  An abrupt cooling in 1975 caused scientists to predict a new Ice Age.  Then warming. You get the picture?  The climate has changed and will continue to change, no matter what we poor, benighted humans do.  It was changing before we got here, and it will change after we’re long gone.  Simply put, forget about saving the planet, and worry about saving your own ass.  The planet isn’t going anywhere.  The notion that Man can alter what the inevitable global climate will be is the height of arrogance.  Reduce CO2?  Humans are responsible for less than 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  What that means is that, if the current 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is too high, removing all humans from the Earth, would drop the level to 399 parts per million.  Sound like a good deal to you?  In any case, let’s not be so quick to try to stop the climate from warming.   Professor Valentina Zharkova of North Umbria University has just completed a study which suggests that solar activity is about to fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s, an occurrence last seen during the “Little Ice Age,” in the 17th and 18th Centuries.   It’s a phenomenon known as a “Maunder minimum.”  If she’s right, we’re going to need all the CO2 in the atmosphere that we can get, just to try to keep warm.  Maybe the Green scientists will recommend heavy breathing.

Now fully 5 months from election day, the Left is still unhinged.  The victory of Donald Trump surprised most people, but shocked the Democrats, who remain grief-stricken.  And these dedicated progressives are not making much progress with their grief.  They say the five stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.  So far, the Democrats (a group which includes elected officials, their staffers, their voters, and the Media) are stuck in the denial and anger stages.  Their denial and anger stems from a fundamental flaw in the liberal mindset – the unreasonable, yet unshakable, belief that they are always right.  Don’t doubt me.  Liberal guru James Carville even wrote two books on this subject:  We’re Right – They’re Wrong and We’re Still Right.  This is an article of faith in the liberal world.  Liberals are convinced that whatever they believe is right, therefore any differing opinion must be wrong.   Liberalism is a religion to these people, and those who stray from the orthodox positions are denounced as heretics.  Consider the vile Chuck Schumer, the current high priest of the Left.  There is no more wild-eyed, bomb-throwing, extremist, intolerant, Leftist whacko than Chuck Schumer.  Yet Schumer is firmly convinced that HE is in the mainstream, and everybody else is out of step.  That’s why the Left cannot accept Donald Trump’s election.  That’s why it has added a 6th stage of grief to the list – fantasy; by concocting the nonsensical notion of Trump’s collusion with Russians.  They knew they were going to win, and since they’re always right, they should have won, but they lost, so the Russians must have done it.  There’s no evidence of any of this, mind you, but that’s not necessary.  The Media likes to say there is no evidence to support Trump’s claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower.  See, that’s how it works.  The Left is permitted to declare Republicans guilty without evidence, but any Republican claim is false either without or with evidence to support it.  I have covered the Russian interference subject before (2/24/17), and concluded that any Russian activity was designed to destabilize our government, to cripple a Trump Administration.  Simply put, what the Russians did, they did for love of Mother Russia, not for love of Donald  Trump.  And guess what?  It turns out that, before the Media concocted the claim that the Russians “hacked the election” to help Trump, no less a liberal bastion than NBC News agreed with my conclusion.  YouTube has recordings of the election night coverage of the various networks.  I recently watched the NBC show to enjoy the hysteria, as it dawned on the commentators that Trump actually was going to win.  At 1:26 a.m., November 9, 2016, a shaken Lester Holt mentioned the possibility of Russian intervention in the election.  They cut to commentator Richard Engel, who offered that “Russia wants to undermine our political system.  They have been stockpiling information to hurt Trump in order to hobble Trump.”  Engel’s observation was obviously correct, but we haven’t heard from him lately, because the Leftist orthodoxy morphed into “the Russians hacked the election to help Trump.”  It’s not Engel’s fault, though.  You see, when he accidentally told the truth on November 9th, he didn’t have the facts.  It looks like the election was “hacked,” only problem, it was Il Duce Obama’s staff that did the hacking.  We now know that Obama’s henchpeople investigated Trump and his people both before and after the election.  They intercepted conversations (yes folks, that means wiretaps), between people connected with the Trump campaign and foreigners.  Trump’s people were in Trump Tower, ergo, Trump was right.  But he can’t be right.  The angry Media is in denial.  They’re pushing Trump collusion with Russians, of which even Obama’s DNI had to admit there is no evidence, while simultaneously denying irrefutable evidence that Obama’s staff intercepted conversations involving American citizens, had the names of these citizens revealed to them (unmasked) , and then, by means of Obama’s January 17, 2017 Executive Order, made sure they were funneled to 16 different agencies, ensuring that the names would leak.  How do we know?  Our old friend Susan Rice, after first trying to deny any knowledge, finally had to admit she ordered the unmasking.  Of course, Ms. Rice assured us that none of this was done with impure motives. (Nothing to see here, move along!)  And, we should believe her.  Ms. Rice’s credibility is indisputable.  After all, she was the one who told us Bowe Bergdahl was a hero, and went on every network in 2012 and falsely claimed that the Benghazi attack was motivated by a video, and wasn’t a terrorist attack.  (False in one, false in all?)  The New York Times believes her, though.  In what American Spectator writer George Neumayr likened to George Orwell’s 1984 Ministry of Truth, whose job it was to lie to the people (“War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”), the Times has declared that, “unmasking is not spying.”  The television division of the Ministry of Truth did its part, too.  Ministry commentator Andrea Mitchell hosted Susan Rice in the friendly confines of MSNBC (the Even More Socialist National Barack Channel).  While Rice did her impression of Jackie Gleason playing Ralph Kramden (“ah, humina, humina, humina”), Mitchell was careful not to ask the obvious question, “What did you tell your boss Obama about all this?”  Rice was able to spit something out, “There was no collection or surveillance on Trump Tower or Trump individuals,” she said, then added,  “and by that I mean directed by the White House or targeted at Trump individuals.”  That’s what Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee used to call “a non-denial denial,” when it came from the Nixon Administration during Watergate.  Time Magazine has called the tactic, a “Political Sign of Apocalypse,” noting that “the non-denial denial is a recurring feature of political scandals, a way for the embattled to parry allegations while hedging against getting caught in a lie.”  As I write this, Democrat fantasy continues, with the MSNBC claim that Trump and Putin are so close that Putin engineered the Syrian gas attack on children, so that Trump could attack Syria and appear to be opposing the Russians.  It was all a clever ruse, you see; part of the Trump/Putin conspiracy.  Any Democrat who believes this should seek help.  Here’s what we do know.  Big Brother Barack was watching Trump before and after the election.  As George Orwell wrote in 1984, for Democrats on November 9th, “the past was dead, the future was unimaginable.”  Trump had to be destroyed by any means necessary.  Democrat fantasy gives aid and comfort to the Russians.  Putin is still laughing his ass off.