We Are the Americans : Our Leader, President Trump, Will Never Give in and Never Give Up, and Neither Will We

WE ARE THE AMERICANS. We are the Americans who stood their ground at Bunker Hill. We are the Americans who volunteered for General Washington's Continental Army and drove autocratic elitism out of our country. We are the Americans who fought at Gettysburg. We are the Americans who took the most dangerous landing on D-Day at Omaha Beach. We are the Americans who saved Europe from Nazi socialism. We are the Americans who forced the collapse of the totalitarian Communist Soviet Union. • • • WE ARE THE AMERICANS. We stand with President Trump against all efforts to bring down the Republic and turn it into a socialist state that destroys individuals for the sake of governing elites and their marxist agenda. • We are the Americans who understand that we are engaged in a civil war -- still, thank Heaven, being fought in the Swamp that is Washington and in widely scattered street confrontations. We are the Americans who refuse to be tormented into the belief that we wrong and cannot win. We are the Americans who will save the Republic -- because we understand what is at stake and because we have a leader who will never give in or give up. • • • WHAT IS CIVIL WAR? E. M. Cadwaladr, a writer who morphed from liberal to conservative as the Obama era showed its unsavory underbelly, and Donald Trump emerged, wrote this is 216 on his blog : "We have Donald Trump, the last man standing -- and the first in a very long time to actually stand up and speak his mind. He is everything America ever was -- good and bad -- all rolled up into one big, beautiful, raucous, uncouth package. What country but America could have made such a man? I am tired of apologizing for my country or for him. It is true that Donald Trump will never write the 21st century equivalent to the Gettysburg address, but we’ve just suffered through seven years of a President who believed he could remake the entire world with the vastly overrated power of his words. We have nothing good to show for either his eloquence or his ideas. It is evident enough that behind the amazing shotgun blast of language that comes out of Donald’s mouth there lies that formidable talent that we used to call “American know-how” -- that force that built the greatest nation on the Earth before we all learned to be so sensitive that we’re afraid to breathe. We need a businessman with an economics degree more that we need another passive-aggressive elitist with a law degree. I’m not going to waste time voting for one more candidate whose obvious goal is to manage America’s decline for the benefit of the current political class. If we are to fail as a nation and as a people, then by God let us fail standing up and being heard. Yes, Donald Trump is a big roll of the dice. What worthwhile President in our history has not been? And, for better or for worse, the die is already cast. It is now Trump or nothing. Conservatives looking for the perfect candidate in 2020 or beyond ought to consider that, if Trump fails, the establishments of both parties will do everything possible to insure that no genuinely popular candidate will ever rise to viability again. In their spectacular dismissal of public anger, the Trump phenomena has caught both parties by surprise -- but the train is leaving the station now. We have to get onboard and hope for the best. If we do not get on we may never see another train worth boarding in our lifetimes. We may not be living in a country with a franchise worth the name." • On Thursday, E.M. Cadwaladr wrote an article in American Thinker titled "Distinguishing Civil War from Social Anarchy." He said this : "The antics of the left since the 2016 election have proven beyond any doubt that leftists are not going to give up their agenda quietly. Their street activists have shown themselves more than willing to engage in violence -- creating a mob to evict a Trump rally from Chicago even before the election, beating up Trump-supporters on numerous occasions, and threatening members of the administration in public. Leftist-dominated universities have long had the habit of lionizing 1960s and '70s domestic terrorists -- in some cases granting them professorships. Also worth mentioning are various "lone wolf" assassinations and attempted assassinations almost certainly inspired by leftist rhetoric, notably a string of police killings by the Black Lives Matter movement and the shooting of Republican House whip Steve Scalise. Antifa is no more a 'protest organization' than Mussolini's blackshirts were. Assaulting people in the streets doesn't normally fit under the constitutional rubric of 'free speech.' Antifa's goal is to influence politics by creating fear of bodily harm among its opponents. That is the very definition of terrorism. Nevertheless, mob violence and even political assassination still fall far short of an actual civil war. In the increasing volatile and dangerous atmosphere of our time, we cannot lose our heads. We must, despite provocations, do our best to understand clearly what is happening around us." • Cadwaladr goes on to describe civil war this way : "Civil wars are made by certain distinct actions of public officials and are not simply an emergent condition that occurs after a certain level of street violence is reached. Simply defined, a civil war occurs when two irreconcilable governing authorities seek to control a single country by mobilizing organized bodies of armed men to fight each other. It is an attempt to accomplish by direct and unambiguous force what such authorities have given up accomplishing by ordinary political means. The domestic terrorist incidents we have seen so far have largely been attempts to cow either the public or our representatives into submission. This is different from the deployment of actual troops to seize and hold key targets of military, political, or logistical value. There were terrorist incidents before the American Civil War, but it wasn't really a war until the Confederates fired artillery on Fort Sumter, and the Union marched an army into Virginia three months later in response. At that point, the niceties of political maneuverings were suspended." • But, Cadwaladr says America is close to civil war : "Both major political parties in the United States are themselves deeply divided. The only 'moderate' position left between them is a desire by corrupt establishment politicians on both sides to maintain their personal status quo. In truth, that status quo has already been swept away by an increasingly polarized public. Conservatives wish to roll back the damage that the socialists have done; socialists wish to finish their social experiment at any cost. One or the other must now happen. Bipartisanship is dead. We have, therefore, met one of the preconditions of civil war -- we have two utterly irreconcilable camps of governing authorities. The aging club of career political hacks in the middle are retiring with as much money as they can carry to avoid the storm." • Most troubling is Cadwaladr's observation that : "At the same time, incidences of the collapse of the federal government's attachment to the rule of law have become too numerous to keep track of. From Bush's signing statements to Obama's autocracy by executive order, the executive branch has made a mockery of the Constitution's spirit, and sometimes of its actual letter. Administrations from both parties have felt free to pick and choose the laws they were inclined to enforce and blatantly disregard the rest. States and municipalities, too, have snubbed federal law. One need look no farther than marijuana legalization or sanctuary cities. The law is no longer respected as an institutional framework for society; rather, it has become a kind of procedural plaything for politicians and their retinues of attorneys. Since laws are only as meaningful as the willingness to enforce them, we have transitioned, little by little, from a nation of laws into a nation of authorities ruling by thinly disguised fiat. Law, as such, has ceased to be a moderating force as it has ceased to be respected." • Why is America not yet in a civil war? Cadwaladr's answer is extremely perceptive : "Two things stand between the current situation and an actual civil war. The first is that most politicians and other high officials are lawyers and tend to think like lawyers. While they are willing to violate existing laws and invent new ones on the fly, they are nevertheless trapped within a legalistic mindset. They see the law as the de facto means for achieving every possible end. Thus, it did not seem preposterous to them for a pipsqueak federal judge in Hawaii to block Trump's travel ban. Both sides took it seriously. Politicians may have contempt for the Constitution, written as it was by old dead racist white men, but they still have considerable faith in vestigial human authority left over from more rational times. If a federal judge declared the laws of gravity null and void, our political class would probably consider them suspended, pending a higher court's ruling. This brings us to our second obstacle to actual war : while politicians on the left are happy to make use of street agitators and domestic terrorists like BLM and Antifa, they still consider them merely as a means of rigging the legal game. BLM and Antifa are like witness bullying writ large. The political class doesn't think of such people as instruments of real military force. Again, they are like Mussolini's blackshirts -- useful for beating people up, but pathetic as actual troops." Citing the South's training of sizable militia before the Civil War and the North's control of the largest part of the federal army, Cadwaladr notes that these two opposing armed forces were the "genuine article -- the real tools of actual war. Should the militant wings of the Democratic and Republican parties decide to settle their differences in the brutal and time-honored way, they will find themselves completely unprepared. They will be rolling the dice on the loyalties of regular military units and state national guards. There are currently no other viable troops. Something of this sort actually occurred during the Spanish Civil War, but such a gamble would take more nerve than today's leftist politicians appear to have." • So, while the Progessive left calls on Americans to 'resist' and to harass conservatives and GOP offiicials, Cadwamadr calls it "a kind of weaklings' road to violent conflict, knowing that the public will suffer the consequences and you won't. Throwing the legal game completely out the window, on the other hand, by honestly declaring war could end in finding oneself on the wrong end of an infantryman's rifle or an executioner's syringe. Real war is for keeps. There are no secure retirement options when the odds are something like 50-50 that your cause will prevail." • • • REAL CIVIL WAR REQUIRES COURAGE. Right or wrong, a true civil war requires the courage of real men and women -- the Roundheads led by Oliver Cromwell who in the 17th century undertook a bloody civil war to defend the rights nad privileges of the British Parliamant against King Charles I and his aristocrats who supported the divine right of kings, or the French Revolution undertaken by the French people to overthrow the monarchy, beginning with the 1789 storming of the Bastille and ending with the accession to power of Napoleon in 1799. Those people were revolutionaries. They may not have met in Congress to sign the Declaration of Independence, in the most formal beginning of a revolution in history, but the Cromwellians, the French revolutionaries and the American Colonists had courage and they knew that the price of failure would be execution. • Cadmaladr says that such civil war is "not an undertaking for the spineless apparatchiks and demagogues who now skulk around the halls of Congress or chair our political parties. It is hard to imagine any of today's Democrats, other than perhaps James Webb, engaging in anything as culturally distasteful as formulating battle plans. They've despised the military for fifty years. That reflexive hatred is now a part of them." • So, today, states Cadwaladr, the biggest danger is not civil war : "Although the creation of large, well organized militias isn't utterly out of the question, they are not materializing yet. There are still law enforcement entities willing to suppress them. The immediate threat continues to be the uncontrolled escalation of social anarchy. The left has let the genie out of the bottle. The leftists' leaders are now beginning to discover that the genie has a mind of its own. Decades of leftist indoctrination have created a weaponized generation of loosely organized, pseudo-anarchistic, multicultural dreamers. A small but relevant proportion of them will be willing to burn, loot, and kill in the name of tolerance and social justice. Their soft, ex-hippie progenitors cannot restrain them. As the saying goes : Once the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend....Even without the danger of militia armies, we are facing a kind of hideous synthesis of Mao's Red Guards and the Manson family. This is not a military force, but a home-grown cadre of terrorists, dedicated to Western civilization's destruction. The longer it takes the Trump administration to take them seriously and slap them down, the uglier and more destructive their actions will become. It may still be possible to suppress them with the police, but it would require a level of resolution unconcerned with our opponents' level of outrage." • • • WHY DONALD TRUMP? American Thinker contributor Brian C. Joondeph, a Denver doctor, asked that question on Thursday. Joondeph says : "President Donald Trump is not a figure many feel empathetic toward. Nearly half the country hates him. Hate may 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." • In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch tells 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." Dr. Joondeph says : "Let's for a moment climb inside Donald Trump's skin and walk around in it. Trump was a successful businessman, a billionaire with 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 years of scorn and derision." • Joondeph notes the hatred for Trump because he beat Hillary Clinton, who "represented the establishments of both parties, the donor classes, the media, Hollywood, academia, and the Clinton machine that has been active since her husband's presidency two decades earlier....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. Then there was the Deep State, the unelected and unaccountable three-letter agencies, conspiring and working against Donald Trump, not only as a candidate, but also as President. They spied on his campaign, creating fictional dossiers used to justify FBI surveillance of Trump, his entire campaign staff, and his family. It was a concerted effort by the leadership of these agencies to prevent his election, then 'an insurance policy' to destroy his presidency as a Plan B. Phony accusations or Russian collusion tainted his presidency, providing a cloud over his election, much like a successful athlete winning a medal or championship fair and square and against all odds, then having his victory tainted with the accusation of rigging or cheating." • Joondeph asks how such a winner would 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." • But, we see Trump working hard as President, accomplishing more in his first 500 days than any of his predecessors -- tax cuts, a roaring economy, record low unemployment for all Americans, including Blacks and Hispanics, a reversal of 50 years of failed North Korea policy, strong judicial picks. Does he get any credit from the media or his own party? ZERO. Most of us would be so bitter and disheartened that we would be tempted to either quit or buckle under to the elites -- to 'get along.' We would look at the No Evidence result of 2 years of probing by the FBI, CIA, DOJ and special counsel Mueller and say, "what the hell, I might as well enjoy the rest of my life playing golf and watching my kids succeed." • But, President Trump has chosen another path. He is fighting the Deep State FBI and DOJ. He is pushing back at Mueller. He is calling out the badly compromised CIA and intelligence community, pretty thoroughly stripped of its honor by Barack Obama and his henchmen, Brennan and Clapper. Why should President Trump trust the intelligence agencies -- they conspired to spy on his campaign, undermine his election, and overturn his presidency? All this is based on the ridiculous assertion that Russia hacked the election and was actually the reason Trump won -- an absurd concept that even media god Barack Obama said was impossible : "There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections." Obama was covering for his own rogue Intel establishment, but he was, for once, right. And, we should always remember, as Joondeph points out, that : "This is the same intelligence community that exonerated Hillary Clinton for crimes proven but never investigated and indicted Donald Trump for crimes investigated ad nauseam but never proven....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 US presidency. In victory he finds nothing but abuse, scorn, and betrayal, by friend and foe alike. He is surrounded by landmines, his intelligence community plotting a path to make sure he steps on one landmine after another. This is a journey few mortals would undertake or 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 the duly elected President? He has few friends in Washington, DC; many who should have his back are eager to bury a knife in it instead. The simplest explanations are often the best. Walk a mile in Trump's shoes, and his actions make all the sense in the world. A guy chosen by ordinary people, trying to make America great again despite so much of America trying to stop and destroy him. How would any rational person behave when standing in Trump's shoes?" • • • AND, WHAT ABOUT THE STATE DEPARTMENT? Dr. Joondeph doesn't even mention the State Department, which has been a source of Deep State trouble for President Trump from the beginning of his presidency. His first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerosn, was so laid back that reports indicate that few political appointees were replaced and many Deep Staters simply dug in. Now that Secretary Mike Pompeo is in charge, that is changing. • But, American Thinker published an article on Monday by Ishmael Jones, the pen name of a former Marine and CIA case officer, and the author of "The Human Factor : Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture." Jones says : "The majority of our 75,382 State Department employees do not support our President. Many are openly scornful....But because State Department protocols and diplomacy have failed us for decades -- in Libya, Syria, with the creation of ISIS, Russian expansion, and North Korean belligerence -- their 'Resistance' has given President Trump the opportunity to do an end-run around them.... I joined the CIA, and although most of my service was under deep cover, a few times I was assigned to an embassy. And lo and behold, there I was, swanning about the embassy as a State Department diplomat. I made lots of diplomat friends. They are fierce opponents of this President. Their hatred is deep and it infects their waking moments, with religious fervor. Of course we all have friends like this, but our diplomats are official representatives of our government, and should not be communicating their hatred, even unconsciously and involuntarily, to our enemies. It hurts our nation, and it makes these individuals vulnerable to recruitment attempts by foreign powers." • Jones states that : "94% of diplomats’ political contributions go to Democrats. They live in a no-conservatives cocoon. State Department employees see Donald Trump as an enemy and they’re not going to support him. Even if they wanted to support him, they don’t have the fire that it takes to negotiate with rogue states. When it’s time to fight, their training makes them weak. Unlike a Manhattan real estate developer, they’ve never had skin in the game. They lack negotiating skills....We now have a man in the White House who knows how to negotiate from strength. He’s going to keep on winning until we’re sick of all the winning. He can solve conflicts with North Korea, Iran, ISIS, Russia, and China. He can solve the Arab/Israeli conflict. But he must rely on his own strength and experience, and he must not rely upon the State Department." • Excellent advice, not only for foreign negotiating, but regarding all executive agencies in every aspect if Donald Trump's presidency. • • • CONSIDER HILLARY AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT. A contributor to American Thinker has a novel idea about Hillary's private email server while she was Secretary of State. On Wednesday, Joe Herring wrote : "I've long said Hillary Clinton is insufficiently stupid to have believed she could operate an unsecured home server without compromising the security of any data transmitted through it or stored on it. For just as long, it has been my contention that the server was the faucet through which she pumped information she was selling (yes, selling) to foreign entities, both public and private." • Let that sink in. Herring says Hillary deliberately used a private email server so she could sell US secret information. His logis is this : "IT security protocols would've easily flagged attempts at intrusion if targeted toward the State Department's secure servers, through which then-secretary of state Clinton ought to have conducted business. Likewise, the transfer or copying of said information from a secure server is a detectable act with access being tightly controlled and records kept of who looked at what and when. 'Convenience,' the excuse proffered by Clinton for not following even the most basic of security procedures, is, in a way, a rare instance of Clinton telling the truth, just not in the way she would have us believe. She claims that it was more convenient to utilize a home server, using linked devices to conduct business. More truthfully, it was more convenient to offload state secrets absent the prying eyes of government IT security staff. In his now infamous 'exoneration presser,' fired FBI director James Comey admitted that Clinton's server was 'likely compromised' by foreign actors, but he also claimed there was 'no evidence' of such an intrusion. During disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's recent testimony, we discovered that this assertion was just another in a long line of brazen falsehoods tumbling out of Comey's mouth." • It was Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, who gave Strzok a moral shellacking over Strzok's extramarital affair with his colleague and co-conspirator, Lisa Page. Herring calls Gohmert's dressing down : "A legitimate point, as the character of the smirking doyen was at issue, given that Strzok had spent the better part of that day swearing that his personal biases did not bear on his public duties, an assertion belied by both the evidence and common sense. The resulting furor from Democrat members of the committee overshadowed the point Gohmert was making -- that from Strzok's own mouth came yet more confirmation that Hillary Clinton's home server was compromised by a 'foreign entity'; that there was indeed evidence of the intrusion and the theft of data; and that Comey had lied yet again, as he most certainly knew of this prior to his tortured-logic exoneration spectacle. Representative Gohmert emphasized that the 'foreign entity' responsible for placing the digital back door into Clinton's server was not Russia. 'And this is a foreign entity, not related to Russia in the least!' " • THAT is a zinger. If it wasn't Russia, who was it?? Herring says : "Gohmert knows but isn't saying, as that information is likely still classified. This revelation causes numerous questions to spring to mind, not the least of which, the timing of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's splashy unsealing of indictments against Russian targets over 'election meddling,' coming within hours of Strzok's damning admission. The difficulty in unraveling the perfidy of the Clintons, the previous administration, and their overseas entanglements has always been the sheer scope of the corruption. When investigating one crime, ten more are discovered, leading to ten more for each of those. The high levels at which these crimes have been committed -- President Obama's Cabinet and the President himself -- compound the problem as their ideological allies within the permanent bureaucracy continue to obstruct, misdirect, and cover up in the name of 'resistance.' " • We have a right and a duty to keep asking this -- how can the federal government, the Deep State, find the resources, time and energy to go on digging around in every aspect of President Trump's presidential and personal life, and those of his family and friends, continually coming up with ZERO -- and YET after 6 years, continue to find no reason hold to accountability former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for "carelessly" handling classified information. Herring has an answer : "It is my assertion that the Democratic Party, under the shadow leadership of President Obama, is mounting such a vigorous defense to hide its own involvement in the criminality that characterizes all things Clinton -- most notably, the money-laundering operation known as the Clinton Foundation. President Obama knew of Hillary's illicit server. He communicated with her on it. Both surely knew that any electronic device with even a tangential connection to either of them would be targeted by every hacker on the globe with nefarious purpose. Logic then would dictate that any information passed through, or placed on that server, was placed there to be picked up -- a digital dead letter drop, if you will. Politicians have made an art form out of evading accountability for bribery and financial malfeasance in office. It simply isn't conceivable that the unprecedented contortions of the Deep State displayed since the arrival of Trump would be triggered by a desire to conceal garden variety influence-peddling. However, as a reason sufficiently important to warrant committing hundreds of additional crimes to prevent its discovery, treason stands alone." • TREASON. Not Trump's but Hillary and Barack's. Again, Herring explains : "The same mindset that has no difficulty in short-circuiting the Constitution by enacting through judicial and executive fiat those policy aims they could never accomplish legislatively also has little problem with bypassing national security restrictions, if they believe that their purpose is sufficiently noble....nearly every instance of domestic espionage in modern times has been rooted in this misshapen sense of moral imperative so fondly inculcated on the left." • So, beware the State Department. Beware the FBI, CIA, and DOJ. Beware the Deep State. And, now we must beware of the "foreign entity" Representative Gohmert spoke of. But, it's hard to beware of an "X" we can't even identify. Herring points up the problems : "What information did they receive? Were they the end-user, or merely a conduit to another power? What connection did they (and others in that time frame) have to the Clinton Foundation? Where does the money trail lead? Who benefits from the information and the policies stemming from it? We learned that Russia was not the 'foreign entity' that compromised Clinton's server, a revelation quickly swept from the headlines by a blanket indictment charging Russians with hacking everything from our elections to the Colonel's secret recipe of herbs and spices. How do we know that the timing of the indictment is more instructive than the content within? There is nothing in the indictment that hadn't already been alleged more than a year ago, and there is no new evidence provided to bolster the claims. In other words, this indictment has been sitting in Rosenstein's or Mueller's pocket, as cleanser for a damaging news cycle -- prosecutorial 'BleachBit' for an investigation tainted from its inception." • • • ONCE MORE, SENATOR RAND PAUL SPOKE UP. Senator Paul told Fox News on Wednesday the only person whom he and others 'actually know colluded with the Russians' is former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Senator Paul was on Fox News to clarify his statements on Russia’s election meddling and the intelligence community. President Trump faced broad outrage over comments he made during the Helsinki, Finland, summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin Monday. When asked to explain the maelstrom, Senator Paul said the President thinks the Mueller investigation is “tainted” by partisan Democrats who also colluded with Russia : "The President sees the Mueller investigation. He sees all these accusations from partisan Democrats, Hillary Clinton, saying ‘Oh, he colluded with the Russians.' The only people who we actually know colluded with the Russians were Hillary Clinton who paid a British agent who paid Russians for information for the Dossier.” Senator Paul said that he lost faith in the intelligence community after the NSA spying and data collection scandal during the Obama years. • Earlier on Fox News, Senator Paul had harsh words for former CIA director John Brennan after Brennan accused President Trump of treason after meeting with Vladimir Putin Monday. Senator Paul was asked about the comments in a Fox News hit Monday morning, and he didn’t hold back, broadsiding Brennan for being a “bigot” and voting for a communist for president : “John Brennan started out his adulthood by voting for the communist party presidential candidate and showing himself to be the most biased, bigoted, hyperbolic unhinged director of the CIA that we’ve ever had. He called the President treasonous because he doesn’t like him. Brennan and [James Clapper] are known for wanting to expand the authority of the intelligence agencies to grab up everyone’s information including Americans and so I didn’t have a lot of respect for these people before they decided to go on hating the President. I dislike these people because they wanted to grab up so much power and use it against the American people. Some people are deranged with Trump and that’s why they’re crazy.” • • • DEAR READERS, the key is that we are the Americans who stand with President Trump for the Republic, and there is overwhelming factual support for our position. Tomorrow we'll try to wrap up the Helsinki ProgPanic and its origins. • And, a last word to, and for, all the dedicated and patriotic US Intel operatives who put their lives on the line 24/7 for us and the Republic. We honor you and are deeply grateful for your sacrifice. God bless you.