Freedom Caucus: Breaking the Establishment Wheel A Speaker Nomination at A Time

The Speaker’s gavel finally in Kevin McCarthy’s grasp, we might try to understand the intense, historic opposition to his speakership by twenty republican Freedom Caucus members. An enmity that was never really explained, unfortunately, but that’s rather elementary. 

Basically, the animosity results from this: caucus members are tired of being Paul Ryan’d—and McConnell’d. And Bush’d. And Cheney’d. And Romney’d. And Boehner’d. And Kinzinger’d.  

And ultimately, establishment republican’d. 

In other words, Freedom Caucus members are tired of a deeply corrupt liberal establishment controlling and imperiling the country. A fetid swamp that, yes, includes GOP republicans. A majority of the party, actually—leadership-wise, at least. Reliable liberals pretending to be republicans. Turncoats, opposing on the margins, but invariably dutiful to a swamp in peril.  

But, let’s stick with Paul Ryan.  

Finally gaining access to documents in a secure facility in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) chairman, Devin Nunes, investigating the Obama administration’s treasonous Russian collusion plot, was shocked at what he found.  

“At first I couldn’t fathom the scope of it,” Nunes said. “These corrupt bastards were unmasking every report with a Trump official in it, every report with anyone remotely related to Trump.” 

In other words, while Hillary Clinton was running a Trump/Russian collusion media campaign with crooked lawyers, opposition research firms, and the national news media. Obama was using the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign. And they weren’t just spying to be spying. They were spying to manufacture a phony data trail to compliment Clinton’s fake Russian collusion media plot, and to frame, yes frame, members of the Trump campaign. Conspirators, they were manufacturing crimes and setting obstruction and perjury traps for the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, duly elected.  

An act otherwise known as: treason. 

Nunes was on to them. To the point, what did he do next with these and other investigative revelations?  

He briefed House Speaker, Paul Ryan.  

“I told him that I was going to speak to the press and the president. I told speaker Ryan this had nothing to do with Russia. They were just spying.” Spying on Donald Trump and his campaign to, initially, prevent his presidency and, later, to impeach and eliminate him.  

An act otherwise known as: treason. 

So then, and on point, Ryan, third in line to the presidency and comprehensively briefed, knew what Clinton, the Obama administration, the FBI and CIA had done and were doing to Trump, a duly elected President, and that all were involved in a treasonous conspiracy. Incontrovertibly up to speed, he knew historic crimes had been committed not only against Trump, but against democracy and the American people.

Yet, and still on point, Ryan spent his speaker’s tenure badmouthing and undermining Trump, before ultimately retiring because of him (reasoning Ryan disputes). Retirement not only for his personal dislike of Trump, which is evident, but primarily because Trump had arrested control of the Republican Party from Ryan and his fellow establishment republicans—establishment the operative term. 

Despite his political attempts to portray otherwise, Ryan despises Trump still.  

November ‘22, ABC News:  

“I’m proud of the accomplishments [during the Trump administration] – of the tax reform, the deregulation and criminal justice reform – I’m really excited about the judges we got on the bench, not just the Supreme Court, but throughout the judiciary. But I am a Never-Again Trumper. Why? Because I want to win, and we lose with Trump. It was really clear to us in ’18, in ‘20 and now in 2022.” 

First, all those pride-generating accomplishments of which Ryan boasts, coupled with the historic successes: stock market, oil, unemployment, defeating ISIS, et al. It sounds like Trump was a pretty good leader. A “winner,” one could say, definitely not a loser. And all this winning while fighting off a treasonous coup, no less, and an entire establishment determined to manufacture his administrative and personal demise. A concrete fact that didn’t make it into Ryan’s calculations, interestingly. 

Or rather, tellingly.   

Second, the well-established rule: “Everything before the “But” is BS” applies to Ryan’s remarks, too. Pathetic though the attempt, it’s politics. Ham-handed politics, but politics nonetheless. The “pride” and “excitement” Ryan feels for Trump era accomplishments are, in fact, results of Trump’s leadership and of his policies. Ryan offers the compliments, if indirectly and ham-handedly, not because he wants to, but because he knows the vast majority of republican voters (a) know what Obama, Clinton, and the liberal establishment did to Trump and the country, and (b) still vehemently support Trump.  

The “But” is what you say before you reveal your true self. In this case, that you’re an establishment republican who has lost control of the Party to flag-hugging interloper. You know, like, the black waiter at the club who came into new money and is now a member. Having cocktails with the crew at the club bar, it’s like, “How ya’ doin’, bro?” But everyone knows he doesn’t really belong, that he hasn’t really, earned it. 

An establishment member, Ryan was always a Never-Trumper. He “worked” with Trump because he had to, because via democracy, ugh! eyeroll, he was forced to. And like every other establishment republican, he undermined Trump the whole time. Like snickering at the former black waiter when he abandons the crew for the club facilities. He should know where the restroom is, boys. He cleaned it! [Raucous crew laughter] 

Again, establishment the operative term. 

Third, in the discussion with ABCs Jonathan Karl, another card-carrying establishment member, incidentally, where are the remarks about the treasonous plot? About Obama, Clinton, the establishment, and what they did to Trump, democracy, and the American people? To include Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, not so incidentally. A sacred veteran. A war hero, no less, who establishment members deemed a traitor, framed with manufactured crimes, and financially ruined—all verified in declass documents per Kash Patel and former Director of National Intelligence, Rick Grenell.  

Ryan briefed on all of it, where is the patriotic outrage? 
Why no discussion of the treasonous plot, and no criticism of the conspirators?  
Why isn’t treason an issue for Ryan? And Karl?

Per the plot, the establishment essentially said to the American people: Democracy is dead, plebes. We run things now. This is precisely what the coup means, and to say it’s a crisis is a grotesque understatement. It’s communism, unveiled. Then there’s Hunter Biden’s laptop proving financial corruption between the President of the United States and the Chinese government; that’s a crisis, too. There are the “Twitter Files,” proving collusion between the Biden administration, the FBI, CIA, and Big Tech to censor speech and rig elections, also crisis status. There’s the entire news media, to include Karl and ABC, refusing to utter a word about any of it, which is no surprise given they are proven conspirators in establishment crimes.  

All this and yet, here’s Paul Ryan attacking Trump … still. As he’d done the six years previous. We can’t win with Trump. Trump’s gotta go. The GOP has to dump Trump. One thing that does get to stay? And receives no criticism from Ryan?  

The establishment.  

It’s clear from Ryan’s remarks who he favors—the laughing and collegiality with fellow establishment member and Never-Trumper, Karl. The fawning over a corrupt Nancy Pelosi and her husband, and over “traditional GOP candidates.” Or rather, traditional establishment candidates who need to replace Trump’s candidates. 

Again, establishment the operative term. 

So, this is Ryan choosing sides with the establishment. There is nothing more anti-American and undemocratic and dangerous than an administration and political actors, and a nation’s FBI and CIA, no less, attempting to rig elections and take leadership choice and control from the hands of the American people. It’s communism, pure and simple. And rather than help the man, and the country, that were attacked by the traitors, Ryan and his establishment republican club crew want to get rid of the target and enable the traitors.  

In other words, nothing is more important than the establishment. Not even treason. 

“You run a coalition government when you’re Speaker of the House … you have to run a coalition,” Ryan says. Really? Have to? Well, democrats don’t run a “coalition government” when they are in control. They unite and railroad right over republicans, even have help from republicans to run over the voters—help from establishment republicans, that is.  

Not recognizing the abusive disparity, Ryan and the rest of his establishment republican crew are either blind, naïve fools or establishment loyalists. Comrades whose hearts belong to the regime, which is apparently the case, which brings us to current speaker, Kevin McCarthy, via Donald Trump. 

From the moment Trump announced his candidacy in 2015, he was crystal clear about his mission: returning rightful control of the government to the American people—“returning” to obviously mean control was lost. Or rather, arrested. Trump, on the campaign trail: 

“Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American people. The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exist for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself. The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind. Our campaign represents a true, existential threat like they haven’t seen before. This is not simply another four-year election. This is a crossroad in the history of our civilization, that will determine whether or not ‘We the People’ reclaim control over our government. The political establishment that is trying to stop us, is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration, and economic and foreign policies that have bled-our country-dry … this is a struggle for the survival of our nation, and this will be our last chance to save it. This election will determine whether we’re a free nation, or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact are controlled by a small handful of global special interests.” 

Trump not only scared the hell out of the liberal establishment with these remarks, but the republican establishment, too—establishment being the operative term. Equally frightened, isn’t it then clear that the establishment carries no political distinctions? Is it not then clear the establishment a unified force of both republicans and democrats? 

Indeed it is clear, and it’s precisely why the republican establishment worked so desperately to undermine Trump and rid the party of their own presidential candidate, pre-election and post-election. Wherein the treasonous establishment plot was executed and made manifest, crimes of which each and every republican, establishment and otherwise, was made fully and knowingly aware. A list to include: 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy. 

After the January 6th incident on Capitol Hill—another establishment scheme in a long, scroll-like list of manufactured anti-Trump schemes—and with Trump blamed for insurrection. McCarthy had a phone conversation with establishment republican and virulent anti-Trumper, Liz Cheney, both of them fully informed and aware of the treasonous establishment plot against Trump, democracy, and the American people.  

Referencing the 25th Amendment, a constitutional process for removing a president from office, Cheney: “What happens if it gets there after he’s gone? Is, is there any chance? Are you hearing that he might resign? Is there any reason to think that might happen?” 

McCarthy: “I’ve had a few discussions. My gut tells me no. I’m seriously thinking of having that conversation with him tonight … I’m going to call him … The only discussion I would have with him is that I think [the 25th Amendment] will pass [congress], and it would be my recommendation you should resign. Um, I mean that would be my take, but I don’t think he would take it. But I don’t know.” 

In terms of blame, there are all kinds of problems with the January 6th “insurrection”: Nancy Pelosi’s dereliction of duty in protecting the capitol, Ray Epps and FBI involvement. Amazingly—in the sarcastic sense, we can locate a cave-dwelling terrorist in the mountains of Afghanistan but, domestically, can’t find Ray Epps or the person who placed bombs around the capitol the day before “Insurrection Day.”  

The point: intelligence can find who it wants to find. 

Nevertheless …  

Given the history, given the long list of manufactured, anti-Trump, establishment schemes of the previous six-years, all failed and exposed. The first instinct for Cheney and McCarthy should be: This is just another establishment ruse to get Trump. Clearly, however, there is no such instinct for either of them and, as with Ryan and Karl, no discussion of the treasonous plot, either.  

Treason punishable by death, is it not logical to presume that getting rid of Trump is, for the conspirators, paramount? And that the ceaseless six-year assault on him—all the lies, fraud, and establishment treachery—is an effort to avoid the dire consequences? Are those impossible calculations? 

Well, they are if you’re an establishment conspirator. 

Here’s how the McCarthy/Cheney conversation should have gone:  
Cheney: “The establishment traitors are now trying to get rid of Trump with the 25th Amendment, just as they have done repeatedly for the past six-years. How are we going to protect democracy and the American people?” 
McCarthy: “I will talk to him tonight and develop a plan.” 

Again, both Cheney and McCarthy were/are fully aware of the treasonous plot against Trump, democracy, and the American people. Yet here they are plotting Trump’s demise. And in assistance to whom?  

The establishment—plotting and establishment the operative terms. 

Behavior. It never lies. It’s how you know. 

All 222 republican congress members are fully aware of the treasonous plot against Trump, democracy, and the American people. And the point is, you choose a side. The House Speaker matter is settled now, but originally only 20 members, essentially the Freedom Caucus, the “Trumpers,” sided with Trump, democracy, and the American people. 202 republicans remaining, and 212 congressional democrats already fully devoted to the establishment. It’s an indication of the mountain yet to climb before “replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American people,” as Trump put it. 

The 20 members opposed McCarthy because he had revealed his establishment allegiance, and because they were tired of being establishment republican’d. Tired of being Ryan’d, McConnell’d, Bush’d, Cheney’d, Romney’d, Boehner’d, Kinzinger’d  

And for his apparent allegiances, McCarthy’d.  

This is how the establishment does it. We’ll let you have your little Freedom Caucus, the establishment’s republican wing says. But when it comes to pulling the strings and control, we’ll wield the power, which in this case is the Speaker’s chair. Freedom Caucus members well understood this. Thus, the hostilities and defiance in the new congress’ opening rounds. 

Obviously, the establishment—establishment republicans, the Democrat Party in toto, the news media—wants a reliable fellow club member in the Speaker’s chair. Interestingly, or perhaps inexplicably, so does Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and other usually dependable anti-establishment, pro-America, -Trump, and –democracy conservatives. 

During the congressional drama over McCarthy, Hannity had a hostile exchange with Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Freedom Caucus member and fervent Trump supporter. In their nightly television lineup, Hannity, Ingraham, and guest Huckabee all sat squinty-eyed and, making faces, annoyed as caucus members tried to explain, if rather poorly, the reason for their objections to McCarthy.  

“Maybe it’s time for you to step down!” Hannity said to Boebert. “Is this a gameshow [to you]?” 
“What’s the endgame?” Ingraham said sarcastically to another caucus member. 

Under fire, Boebert said plainly, “I do not trust Kevin McCarthy to deliver on [his] promises.” And why the distrust? 

For McCarthy’s establishment friendly behavior.  
For him not laying the wood to Liz Cheney during their Jan. 6th phone exchange.  
For saying, “I’ve had with this guy,” meaning Trump. 
For virtually ignoring the treasonous conspirators, and Hunter’s laptop revelations, and voter fraud, and the scroll-like list of establishment lies, scams, and crimes of the past six years. 
For suspiciously not having the same passion for these issues as the Freedom Caucus. 

That’s why. 

Hannity, Ingraham, Huckabee—all knew about these McCarthy issues, just like they know all the details of Clinton’s and the Obama administration’s treasonous plot. They know all-too-well about establishment republicans, too, and how they undermined Trump for six years. And in fact, the Freedom Caucus members, the Trump and America and democracy fighters, are their people. People who, like Trump, are trying to break the establishment wheel. A corrupt system Hannity, Ingraham, Huckabee, and the entire nation and world now knows to exist for six years of comprehensively exposed establishment treachery. 

When you go to do big things, and especially the right and just things, like breaking the corrupt establishment wheel. This the kind of pressure, grief, and ultimate persecution you will endure for being in the minority, for standing on truth and principle, and for being unafraid of public embarrassment and humiliation. Because that is what the establishment does: publicly embarrasses and humiliates people who challenge establishment doctrine, rules, and supremacy. It is the favored establishment tool, a tool of conversion. Employed so that dissenters forfeit their beliefs and accept and support establishment beliefs.  

All hail the establishment! Or face public scorn and humiliation. 

So it is with these caucus members, who know full well what the problem is, and why they’re doing what they’re doing. They see the establishment for what it is, which is precisely what Trump said it was: “failed and corrupt.” As to the claim’s veracity, the past six years have removed all doubt, and it is a genuine and undeniable crisis for American democracy.  

Freedom Caucus members don’t want establishment republicans in control via the Speaker’s chair, because they have seen what establishment republicans do: align with their establishment brethren. It doesn’t portend well when getting to the bottom of establishment crime and punishing the criminals—democrat and republican alike. 

Establishment republicans like Ryan and McCarthy say they’re proud of Trump’s accomplishments and such. Yet, unlike Freedom Caucus members they never, with passion and purpose, take up Trump’s wheel-breaking cause. They don’t fight for Trump, democracy, or the American people, none of the three. Clearly, they fight for the establishment, for the established order, and for establishment power and control.  

There isn’t a better reason to fight than a treasonous plot; there will never be a better reason, in fact. Yet, establishment republicans are mute. Only, they’re not mute. There’s their behavior, a language in itself. Unlike Freedom Caucus members, they leave the treasonous crimes of the establishment virtually unspoken, and help the establishment rid America of the individual who vowed the establishment’s demise and to return power to its rightful owner, the American people.  

Freedom Caucus. Who couldn’t get behind something so, American, but people oppose to such antiquated nonsense? 

Pouring over the Twitter Files, investigator Matt Taibbi concluded the US government was “in the censorship business in a huge way.” What he is actually saying is the United States government, under establishment control, was undermining democracy. Only for a billionaire’s purchase of the Twitter platform are we able to know this. In the same way, only for the miraculous 2016 victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton are we able to know of her and the Obama administration’s treasonous coup. Tellingly, establishment members, republican and democrat alike, don’t want to talk publicly about either revelation, or about any of the establishment fraud and crimes of the past six years. 

It means, simply: members are determined that the establishment wheel remain intact, and that members remain in power, and in control. Which then means: but for 20 congress members, and perhaps a few more, the United States government has anointed itself king, and demoted the American people to subjects. You know, like it used to be, and is nearly everywhere else in the world.

To know the times, one need only read the signs. 

©JMW 1/2023 
All Rights Reserved 

JMW’s Latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside. 

Overcoming Fantasy Land’s Folly

Catholic writer, Blaise Pascal: “Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.” 

The unfortunate fact is some people don’t want to know the truth, at least not certain truths, and thus obviously don’t love it. The result is folly, and there is no group more adept at folly than liberals, who’s foolishness is insanely easy to demonstrate. My “Liberal Dunce Folder” offers a quick example. 

For those wondering, I keep a file—a massive file—of the many examples I find of well-demonstrated liberal foolishness. Or rather, examples of sound and incorruptible logic that crush “liberal logic,” or so it’s called; that render liberals’ arguments and positions on matters utter nonsense; and that should be for them utterly humiliating.  

It’s never humiliating, of course. But, nevertheless … 

For the example, which we’ll label: Exhibit A, something fairly recent: Liberals want to eliminate the Constitution’s Second Amendment and confiscate guns from the American people. Yet they leave Taliban terrorists $90-million-dollars in weaponry.  

So, how does this make sense? It doesn’t, obviously—a recurring theme when dealing with liberals. Thus, the incessant head scratching and perplexed expressions at liberal ideas and arguments.  

Some would say this Afghanistan fiasco was Joe Biden’s doing alone; blame him for the logical inconsistency! But are Biden, any of his fellow Democrats, or the liberal news media taking issue with the inconsistency? 


And your local liberal voter—the mindless, servile and annoying liberal devotee in your personal sphere—are they saying, “What fresh nonsense is this, fer chrissake?! We’re supposed to be ridding the world of guns!” In fact, forget the inconsistency. Shouldn’t liberal voters be incensed that Biden left $90-milllion in weaponry behind that they financed?  

They should be angry, but are they? No. Like the democrats and liberal news media, are liberal voters taking issue with the logical inconsistency? 

Them either. 

It is clear we’re staring at a steaming pile of illogical foolishness. The question is: can liberals one and all see that it’s a steaming pile of illogical foolishness? The answer is yes.  

No guns for you, Americans, because guns are the bane of civilized society. But here, terrorists, the world’s most violent and evil criminals, have $90- million worth of our taxpayer’s weaponry.  

It’s disgracefully illogical, not to mention hypocritical. And make no mistake, liberals all can see it.  

Let’s try a few more choice examples from the “folder,” considering them Exhibits B, C, D, and so on … 

“If guns kill people, why do we send people with guns when they go to war?  Why not just send the guns?”  

Imagine a military commander briefing a room of crated M-16s on an upcoming operation. Because, this is where liberal logic leads: “Okay, men. Listen up. The LZ is here, in this field. We’re moving three klicks to the north, up this ridge, here …”  

It’s embarrassing, I know. 

Here’s one from youthful gun control activist and Parkland school shooting survivor, David Hogg: “Remind me. How many AR-15’s did Jesus own?” 
Twitter response: “Not enough to avoid being murdered by his government.” 

Ouch. And did the murderous rebuttal faze Hogg? Not in the least.  

Incidentally, liberals have no use for God, and think the concept nonsense. Yet, they lecture everyone on the virtues of Godliness. Doesn’t seem very, logical, does it. 

And this Foxworthy themed logic: “If you don’t trust the police or government, but you think they should be the only ones to have guns, you might be a liberal.” Or perhaps, a “redneck” liberal.   

And these on the issue of abortion: “Bacteria is life on Mars, but a heartbeat isn’t life on earth.”  

“Biology lesson: your baby’s DNA isn’t identical to your DNA, making it not your body.” 

“Why would liberals be upset about deporting children, but not upset about aborting them?” 

And this related pandemic jewel: “If unvaccinated American kids aren’t allowed in public schools, why would we import millions of unvaccinated immigrants?” 

And these on the issue of gender: “If men who think they are women can use women’s bathrooms, why not men who think they are men? Does mental illness make you safer to women?” 

Arm sweep everything else off the table, having to argue male and female restroom arrangements with liberals should explain the level of lunacy we’re dealing with. There isn’t a liberal parent one, male or female, who wants their 6-year-old daughter in the restroom alone with a mentally ill weirdo dude in a dress. Not one. Yet, ask your local liberal parent if they approve of this liberal-driven restroom nonsense, and watch them battle feelings of cult betrayal. They won’t be sending their 7-year-old daughters into bathrooms alone and unattended, but damn if they’ll openly rebuke cult doctrine and question cult leadership. Thus, the predictable response:  

“Transphobe! Bigot! Trumptard!” 

“If liberals don’t believe in biological gender, then why do they march for women’s rights?” 

“Liberals say there’s a gender pay gap, and then say there’s no such thing as gender.” 

“The people who claim President Trump has mental issues, also claim there are more than two genders. Let that sink-in.” 

Indeed, let those last three sink-in. And when you feel deeply embarrassed for liberals, realize they feel humiliated, too. For religious loyalties, however, they just can’t show it. Instead, it’s: 

“Transphobe! Bigot! Trumptard!”  

And then, these illustrative outliers: “If socialist college professors believed their own propaganda, wouldn’t they teach for free?”    

“White privilege: the privilege of being called ‘racist’ by people who see nothing except your race.” 

Remember the liberal line, “Walls don’t work?” Well: “If walls don’t work, are prisoners staying voluntarily?” 

“Liberals won’t fund a border wall to keep illegals out. Yet they expect you to fund sanctuary cities to keep illegals in.” 

These two Exhibits encourage one to think: liberals just say whatever pops into their mind, don’t they. Yes. They do. 

And finally, for a bleeding scalp, this from Clint Eastwood: “If you could reason with a [liberal], there wouldn’t be any [liberals].” 

The reader is probably asking: are these people really this—let’s be amiable and say: naive? 

The answer is no.  

Contrary to what some say: that liberals are morons, they are not morons. For the most part they are extremely intelligent, capable human beings. The problem is, one, they’re emotion driven—angry, bitter, resentful, hateful (liberalism is the repository for malcontents)—and they make these illogical proclamations, see: the Exhibits, emotionally and without thinking things through. Then, as well-illustrated by the Exhibits, those less inclined to emotion do the thinking, and issue the thoughtful, incontrovertible, wise, and should-be-embarrassing rebuttals. 

The result is the decimation of liberal logic and ideological ruin. Their argument lying lifeless for all to see presents problem two for liberals: the ruins. They can’t acknowledge them. For if they did, they’d be admitting their leaders, the people they revere and serve, are incompetent fools, and worse. And if their leaders are incompetent fools, and worse, then what are the servile liberal faithful?  

One can see the quandary. The answer to it?   

It’s doing what liberals always do when confronted with their failed logic and beliefs, represented in this old adage: if you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation.  

The Exhibits, in their entirety, present a problem: the liberal premise in each is illogical and doesn’t make any sense. A fact clear to everyone, even liberals. The truth of the matter is, liberals are liars. If they truly wanted to eliminate guns from society, for example, they wouldn’t provide $90-million worth to the world’s most violent and evil criminals, to use on society.  

So, liberals are not only liars. They are hypocrites, too.  

Point this out to your local liberal—in fact, point any one of the Exhibits out to your local liberal, and it is a logical certitude which cannot be reconciled or overcome. So in response, liberals deftly change the subject to something else, a distraction. They must change the subject and make that topic the discussion, because fools can never and will never argue the truth. Why?  

The truth means the demise of their beliefs—beliefs they want to have, that they want to be true. Or, demise of their ideology, their religion. In this case: liberalism.  

The outcome intolerable, liberals create an alternative universe for themselves where these desired beliefs can be real, genuine, and true. And when facts and logic render those beliefs false, and when their counterfeit universe is challenged by reality. Liberals simply won’t allow it. They can’t allow it. Otherwise, they would be complete and utter fools, and complete and utter followers and worshipers of fools.  

The proverbial “blind leading the blind.” 

Liberal: “Trump’s a traitor who colluded with the Russians to steal the election!” 
You: “No. Sorry. Hillary’s campaign manager confessed in federal court that it was a scam perpetrated by Hillary. Trump was fully exonerated.” 
Liberal: “Well, Trump is a disgusting human being!” 
You: “Are we still talking about Russian collusion?” 

No. No we’re not talking about Russian collusion any longer. Because facts and truth can’t exist in the alternative universe. Why? Because liberals can’t argue them. Indeed, facts and truth aren’t merely offensive in Fantasy Land. They are deeply offensive. Look at the previous conversation. It is every word true. Is this not what occurs in every conversation/debate with liberals? Does your local liberal accept the truth, and reality? No—and despite showing them hard, incontrovertible evidence. Liberals continue diverting to other topics, instead. Why?  

Because the truth isn’t what they want to believe; it deeply offends them.  

Trump’s a traitor, dammit! I want to believe that! 

Thereto, liberals divert for having fully invested in this traitorous fraud put forth by their leaders, which makes the faithful dupes, suckers, and ultimately fools. Who wants to cop to that? In fact, take each of the Exhibits. Confronted with these instances of equally devastating logic, who wants to cop to those intellectual and ideological failures? 

Not liberals. So what do they do?  

They repeatedly change the conversation.  

In other words, everyone must argue the lies and ignore the truth. It’s how Fantasy Land survives. 

The Bible speaks of “hardness of the heart”—They have eyes to see but do not see, and ears to hear but do not hear. People can’t see or hear not because they can’t see or hear, but because they don’t want to see or hear. It’s “hardness of heart,” which ultimately means: defiance.  

People, in this case liberals, want to believe something else, and thus obstinately refuse to recognize the truth. Pride won’t allow truth’s validation and failure. It’s the heart basically saying: there is no evidence so irrefutable, compelling, or damning that will make me change my views!   

Thus, supremely logical bearers of truth become racists, misogynists, bigots—become anything but correct, righteous, and the ideological winner. This is precisely why conversations/debates with liberals never go anywhere, and why problems can never be effectively solved. The truth ends debate and remedies problems, and liberals reject it. And whatever the subject matter, what does one do with people who refuse to acknowledge the truth? 

Mr. Scott, you’re an alcoholic
No, I’m not. 
You’ve lost your wife and family and business for it
That wasn’t the reason. 
Well, it’s what your family says. What your business partners say. 
You can’t listen to them. 

How does one breakthrough this hardened, Tungsten-grade obstinance? 

It’s impossible. Any attempt, fruitless.  

Mr. Scott would rather live in the alternative universe he has created for himself, wherein neither he nor his drinking are responsible for his personal destruction. Likewise, liberals would rather live in their alternative universe, wherein the truth isn’t allowed to exist, and failure and humiliation must then never be endured.  

Clearly, Fantasy Land is a virtue-free society. So then, why discuss freedom, liberty, honor, integrity, morals, principles, the rule of law, the constitution, and the like with liberals when they haven’t such virtues and such virtue dependent things in their characteristic profile?  

If liberals were principled human beings driven by morals, integrity, and honor, they would be in agreement with the truth, and you. They would believe what you believe and hold your positions. Instead, they get up every day and listen to what their leaders, people of like belief, tell them to believe, which they then take out into the world and proselytize. And then, there you are, the truth-seeking realist, providing them the logic they never employed; providing them the unassailable truth of matters, with the documents and quotations and indisputable facts. And they want no part of it.

In fact, you’re an infidel! 

Although perfectly capable, liberals, particularly the servile faithful, aren’t interested in thinking for themselves. They aren’t interested in listening, in thinking things through critically, and employing their own logic to decipher the meaning and truth of certain matters. It’s a really easy thing to do, and they can easily do it. It’s just, they want to believe something else. 

Thus, liberals proceed to argue 15 million other inapplicable nothings so as to remove this offensive and annoying truth bearer from their presence. Liberals don’t want reality. They want their comfortable and warm alternative universe, wherein they can be quasi-righteous and -intellectually superior.  

Wherein Trump is a traitor colluding with the Russians.  
Wherein guns are evil, and not the people who wield them and use them in crimes.  
Wherein there is no gender, but a gender pay gap.   
Where liberals can be enraged at the ill-treatment and deportation of children, but abortion enthusiasts at the same time. 

A person of truth and order doesn’t understand this chaos. Things must make sense to people of order, must be logical and add-up. They must know what they are doing, and that it’s the right thing. They want to live where things make sense, where things are secure and prosperous.  

Well, such a place is living hell to liberals, who fancy Fantasy Land, and who are no less encouraged to believe such a place exists by leaders and a culture that help maintain the belief’s viability. The desire for make-believe is odd given liberals desperately want the truth in other areas of their lives. They’re warm to the truth, actually, and will even listen to its bearers. In these cases, the logical capability works just fine.  

You’re cancer-free, Mrs. Liberal. [elation, tears, hugs for the truth-bearer] 

Yet, show them actual trial testimony of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager confirming her treasonous fraud, and thereby exonerating Donald Trump. Show them laptop evidence that exposes presidential crime and corruption. In fact, show them the facts behind any one of the previous Exhibits, and they reject it. All of it. Why? 

It contradicts what they want to believe. 
It renders Fantasy Land and their entire liberal religion a fraud.  
Worse, it renders them dupes, suckers, and fools.  

And who wants to cop to that? 

Hence, the hard-hearted defiance. Under these conditions, it’s no longer about true and false or right and wrong. It’s about undesired reality, and losing, and saving face, and humiliation, and having to change. 

A fourteen-year-old girl and her soccer coach father were suspended by a Vermont school district for the daughter’s discomfort with undressing in front of a transgender boy in a school locker room. Liberals one and all know the transgender issue is a liberal cause. They know adolescent girls and boys undressing in front of each other is utterly absurd and morally wrong, too. Furthermore, they know MeToo feminists have advised young women to speak out when they are uncomfortable, and that it’s “their body” to do with as they see fit. 

Liberals know all of this, and yet they run the other way. They ignore the story, let it wither on the vine. Until they’re forced to address the matter for some nauseating truth bearer, where the response is: 

“Transphobe! Bigot! Trumptard!” 

Standing up for children and fellow females? For morality? Being people beholden to their convictions, organizational claims, and word? No. None of that. 

That means facing the music, and there’ll be none of that, either. 

Again, it’s the heart basically saying: there is no evidence so irrefutable, compelling, or damning that will make me change my views! Leaving the truth more loathsome than “Medicare healthcare advisor, Susan, on a recorded line. Can you hear me okay …?” 

So what we have, basically, is a cult of narcissists and sociopaths. People who never recognize their mistakes or failures or the undeniable truths that illustrate both; who then never apologize for either; and who thus make society a contentious, dreadful place—at least for the realists, the people of truth and order. The, good citizens. 

Fantasy Land seems like a pretty cool place: lies are true, enduring righteousness, never having to fail or apologize. An extremely seductive locale, indeed. There’s only one problem:  

It isn’t real. It’s a world of lies, and obviously self-loathing—that one would make deceit an ally and truth their enemy. And then, defiantly stick to the lies no matter what. 

Speaking about her husband’s indiscretions, actress Emma Thompson said she was “utterly, utterly blind” to the fact he was having affairs with other women. “What I learned,” she said, “was how easy it is to be blinded by your own desire to deceive yourself.” 

Lying to oneself is easy, indeed. But then, what does one do upon realization of such an adverse condition? 

One begins a love affair with the truth, so they can then know it. And changes their life, for the better.  It’s the mark of a mature, well-functioning adult, and of a contributing member to society. 

Otherwise, you’re just a fool. 

©JMW 11/2022 
All Rights Reserved 

JMWs latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside. 

Evil, Just the Same

“Her childhood was ended too soon. He took that from her. We hope that she can make it through this. We know that she will never be the same. We know that she will never get her innocence back.” 

So read a statement to the court written by the broken, lamenting father of this 14-year-old victim, his daughter. The victim met her assailant, 22-year-old, Thomas John Boukamp, on a messaging app when she was thirteen. He later kidnapped her from her Lubbock, Texas middle school. That’s, middle school. Boukamp: 

“I loved someone I connected with, I was filled with violent sexual fantasies, and then I thought I had found someone who understood me. I didn’t want to take advantage of her…I loved her.”  

The evidence of this, “love?” 

During eight days of captivity, Boukamp raped, strangled, beat, and forcibly removed the child’s braces with pliers. 

Incidentally, this idea that parents feel overbearing about knowing what their innocent, naïve, and inexperienced children are doing, and that they feel cowardly when their kids scream in protest at their privacy intrusions. Let this outcome be the reason parents step forward with a crisp fresh one. Crack!  

“Say one more thing. I dare you; I double-dare you.” 

Kids don’t know [poop emoji]. Precisely why experienced and sage parents are in charge.  

In fact, the warning signs for every catastrophe yet to personally unfold are clearly visible, and everyone ignores them. Thinking when they happen to someone else, How awful. Gee, glad that wasn’t me, or mine.  

And then it happens to them.   
And there’s no do-over, no restoration. Only wounds and scars … if luck prevails. 

“I like teenage girls!” Boukamp confessed in a recorded jailhouse phone call, played for the court at his sentencing. “They [federal agents and prosecutors] don’t like that I like that. I frankly don’t care what the morality of this current time and place says. It’s not wrong. There’s nothing wrong about it. And they’re not going to ever convince me of its wrongness. So up theirs. I hate this nation.”  

Narcissism much? And how ‘bout rape, strangulation, assault, and removing braces with pliers? Can we convince you of that wrongness? 

Trust me. That either. 

Boukamp added he would never apologize for “quote unquote raping a 14-year-old” and said he didn’t care that authorities were monitoring the [jailhouse] call. “If you’re listening to this, yeah, your family is going to die. Play this at my f-ing sentencing! Do it. I hate you!” 

It is certainly untoward for a 22-year-old man to pursue a 13-year-old girl, but that isn’t necessarily what makes Boukamp such an evil human being. It’s the captivity, rape, strangulation, the use of pliers to remove a child’s braces—sans a local anesthetic, no less—and the narcissistic defiance and belligerence thereafter.  

Evidently, Boukamp’s “sexual fantasies” were a little too, eccentric, for a naïve 14-year-old child, and her unwillingness to participate in those fantasies threw him into a rage.  

Thus, the “love” and unspeakable evils. 

So, what is it that makes Boukamp so evil? Society has no shortage of justifications: parental abuse, bullying, female rejection, mentally handicapped, sociopath, psychopath, insanity. Whatever the assigned reason, does it really matter? The baseline is: evil. 

Can’t we just let that standalone as the descriptive?  

What Boukamp did is evil. He’s an evil human being. The reason he is evil is beside the point, really. And actually, how or why Boukamp is evil is nobody’s concern. He’s evil, period. A descriptive that, indeed, stands alone.  

Okay, so, next question: what makes Boukamp any less evil than Hillary Clinton? 

Such the great divide in evil here?  

Clinton orchestrated and financed a treasonous plot to steal and overturn the 2016 presidential election. Isn’t a treasonous plot to deceive the public and steal an election standalone evil, too?  

Of course it is, but it gets worse …  

Clinton then allowed some $50 million taxpayer dollars to be spent on a two-and-a-half-year investigation, the Mueller investigation, which used her pretext as the basis for the investigation. Or in other, more practical terms, Clinton, grinning broadly and rubbing her hands together in diabolical delight, sat in her Chappaqua study watching news coverage of the Mueller investigation for 2 ½ years, knowing Special Counsel Mueller was investigating Trump with her treasonous plot script.  

Mueller: It says here you partnered with Vladimir Putin to steal the election, Mr. Trump, and that you had courtesans pee on a hotel bed in which former President Obama had slept. Do you deny these charges?  
Trump: Well, it all seems rather laughable, Mr. Mueller. Don’t you think? Who would suggest such ridiculous things? 
Mueller: Blast you! Damn your hide! I’ll ask the questions! It’s confirmed right here in the script, er, intel, that I received from Hillary Clin, er—from someone with intimate knowledge! So, confess! 

The point is this scam is incontrovertibly evil. And note Clinton not only allowed millions in taxpayer dough to be spent investigating her fraud, but as a means of furthering it and securing its success. The fraud, her fraud, dragging the United States into bitter and unwarranted political turmoil, no less. And why?  

For her political fortunes. 

People say, What a horrible, evil human being to do something like that. On the evil scale, this incident is certainly up around the “10” mark. But it doesn’t begin to hint at the depth of Clinton’s depravity. Last week, for example, she accused republicans of plotting to steal the 2024 election—read alternatively as: she accused republicans of what she actually did herself. 

How does a human being do this? Even if Clinton has yet to be herself indicted or convicted of the crimes, federal court testimony proves conclusively she committed them. So, we know she committed them. More importantly, she knows she committed them. And yet, falsely and sans a single shred of evidence, here she is proclaiming the GOP is plotting steal the 2024 election.  

It’s breathtaking and offensive hypocrisy, yes. But how does one justify in their mind accusing someone else of a treasonous plot, knowing full-well they are the architect of one, and that the public is fully aware of their guilt in the matter?  

How does one do that?!  
How does one override the senses of guilt and shame and ultimate morality? 

It’s pretty simple, really. Clinton clearly has no sense of morality. What isn’t present in the first place needn’t be overridden. It can’t be overridden, in fact. If Clinton had a sense of morality, she would have never orchestrated and executed a treasonous plot. She wouldn’t later accuse others of doing what she herself did and was caught doing, either. Had she this sense of morality—the desire to do good and for righteousness, she would be ashamed and remorseful.  

So, the morality gene is clearly absent in Clinton. We often say in a cliché way, “Good Lord. That person is shameless!” But in Clinton’s case, it’s really true. She’s incapable of shame, which means she’s incapable of humility. And what label fits these sorts? Human beings who follow no law or moral code, who lie, cheat, and steal, who wrongly and hypocritically accuse their fellow human beings, and who are incapable of both acknowledging their failures and the humility it requires to do it? 

Peel away the slick-paper backing and slap the sticker on the pantsuit lapel:


If there is no law or moral code, then there can be offense to either, and thus no evil.  
However, there is a law, both God’s and man’s. And, there is a moral code. 
Thus, those failing to meet those standards are then, (fresh sticker please):  


Clinton and her fellow conspirators in the Obama Administration knew what they were doing was against the law, else they wouldn’t have gone to such lengths to conceal their crimes, and to keep them concealed. They knew, and didn’t care. They didn’t care because they don’t recognize any law. That’s the tell in all of this. Evil is entitled, isn’t subject to any rules. And doesn’t entitled lawlessness precisely describe how Clinton, Obama, and liberals behave? 

Treasonous coup, anyone? 
Lying to FISA courts to illegally spy on Americans? 
Wasting millions in taxpayer dough to investigate a fake crime of your design? 
Falsely labeling a laptop Russian disinformation to conceal its damning data? 
An aiding and abetting news media blackout to conceal historical political crimes, and to ensure electoral and political victories for the crooks? 

The tell: evil behavior by evil human beings. 

And what about liberal voters, the supporters of this evil … 

Hearing Boukamp’s remarks, your average liberal voter would be seething: What a disgusting, evil piece of human debris! Get a rope! They’d demand. Yet here is Clinton—likewise evil, lying and cheating and stealing, wrongly and hypocritically accusing her fellow human beings, and following no law or moral code. And who has a husband, not so incidentally, who clearly shares Boukamp’s appetite for young, naïve women and Boukamp’s contempt for the “morality of this current time and place.” All this depravity and injustice, and yet liberal voters applaud Clinton’s every utterance and stand loyally behind her on stage with “Hillary!” signs. 

So, why the different response to evil from liberal voters? 

Well, your average liberal voter doesn’t want to believe in Boukamp. He’s just a deranged, narcissistic nobody. He has no power or prestige, and no doctrine to sell—the requirements of a liberal voter god.  

Furthermore, Boukamp told the truth, that he liked adolescent girls; that he didn’t care about morality; and basically, that he would proudly, passionately, do what he did to his 14-year-old victim again. All of which is waaay too much public honesty for your average liberal voter’s comfort, who obviously prefer their gods be more cunning and deceptive, and haughty. Hubris of the degree you can get caught in a treasonous plot, and accuse your political enemies of plotting one, too. 

That is the kind of cojones your average liberal voter respects. Rather, that is the kind of evil your average liberal voter expects. And these being the prerequisites, what does it say about liberal voters? People who will yet, knowingly, turn out in hordes to vote for and enable their clearly evil gods in November and beyond? 

It says they’re evil, just the same. 

The fact is, lest anyone delude themselves, every human being must resist and defeat evil every single day of their existence. They fail. Try harder. Succeed. Fail again. Try again. As Stevenson put it, “The saints are the sinners who keep on trying.” Indeed. 

Then there are those who not only don’t try, but see evil as the success. People who labor every day to ensure evil’s dominance and reign. These people serve no law or morality, except that they might use either in a ruse to advance evil. They don’t expose treasonous plots; they plan and execute them. They don’t verify damning laptops as authentic; they fill them with corruption data, and label them *Russian disinformation*. They don’t acknowledge their criminal and moral failures; they don’t have these failures, because they haven’t the morality gene. They don’t tell the truth; they lie, without compunction. They don’t want questions; they want compliance …  

with evil. 

And finally, this: evil isn’t stopped because the “tryers” keep pointing it out, and pointing their fingers at its practitioners.  

Evil has no rules, no conscience, no shame, and it doesn’t bargain. A juggernaut, it crushes everything in its path until it rules, because that’s the world’s endgame. Its demise requires but a simple vote, now. Left to its devices, however, necessitates something a little more, bloody. And costly. 

Or so says the lone voice in the wilderness. And history—example after example after example … 

©JMW 11/2022 
All Rights Reserved 

JMWs latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside. 

The Case Against William Barr

If you’re willing to commit treasonous crimes, willing to subvert the election will of an entire citizenry and overthrow their government. Then lying is comparatively effortless. Lying is what you do in your spare time.  

In fact, if you’re committing treason, then you’re most definitely lying to achieve the outcome. Otherwise, you’d play it straight, would be honest and obeying the rules like everyone else.  

Incidentally, doesn’t the fact treasonous conspirators refuse to obey the rules—thereby considering themselves above the rules, clearly—doesn’t that scream elitism and authoritarianism? 

It’s pretty obvious. The horrid scream, that is. 

And who is it ignoring the rules, the law, and the US Constitution all the time—not to mention election results, court testimony verifying their crimes, indictments and convictions of their fellow traitors, being routinely caught in their lies and hypocrisy? More to the point, who are these “above the rules” elitists publicly pining for the authoritarianism of “democratic socialism?” 

Liberals, of course. Specifically these treasonous traitors of which we speak: Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, the FBI, CIA, and DOJ. Caught in espionage and lying to FISA courts, having thereby gauged themselves supreme among the voting plebes, these individuals are clearly done with the whole concept of free-and-fair elections. And their voters, er, subjects, apparently approve of the idea.

81-million record votes for a lemon like Joe Biden?  

The traitors rigged and stole the 2020 election, sure. But they didn’t infuse that many votes into the count to win. They relied heavily on their “subjects” to steal the day. And don’t forget, tongue-polishing Obama’s loafers while all this treason was being planned, orchestrated, and executed—Biden, the “president” of the United States, was himself a conspirator, and traitor.  

A fellow traitor winding up in power after a coup. How, novel. 

In any event, it is clear now, settled. Treason was committed. Clinton thought it was her turn to win in 2016. Obama wanted his communist ambitions for the United States realized, and therefore weaponized his FBI, CIA and the Department of Justice to assist Clinton. And the cabal attempted a treasonous coup not merely to overthrow the government, but to dethrone America’s sovereign monarchy: the voters. Also known as: unworthy plebes. 

So, confirmed: all are traitors. Clinton financed the fake Steele dossier. Obama and his federal agents used it to spy on the political opposition, and to subvert an election. The news media helped sell the conspiracy and to cover the crime. And Trump winning in 2016, gasp!, the cabal lost the ability to cover their tracks.  

Their crimes exposed, enter former Attorney General William Barr. 

Not wanting to affect the upcoming 2020 presidential election, or so he claimed, Barr didn’t have a lot to say regarding his special counsel’s—John Durham—work initially. Now, he seems to have found his voice. He’s a regular Chatty Cathy, in fact, and his communications present a question: is Barr a swamp creature assisting the traitors? Or worse: is he a conspirator and traitor himself? 

Barr’s integrity and motivations are only in doubt because his remarks and opinions haven’t been supportive of Donald Trump, which, is perplexing, perhaps revealing, considering what Barr knows. 

But, Barr initiated the Durham probe, you say. That’s true. 
He set in motion the cabal’s exposure, and their potential capture and punishment! Yes, he did. 
So, how can you question Barr’s integrity and loyalty?! You demand. 

Fair enough. Let’s review … 

After Robert Mueller’s failed Russian collusion investigation, failing for there being no collusion evidence discovered—because there was no evidence to discover, because the whole thing was a treasonous hoax. And after the Department of Justice’s Inspector General investigation into the FBI’s role in the hoax, AG Barr did indeed undertake an administrative review of the matter, which quickly evolved into a criminal investigation. What does this mean exactly? 

It means, while “administratively reviewing” the matter, Barr came upon evidence of crime that turned his review into a “criminal investigation.” In other words, and for the benefit of liberal voters: Barr discovered that crimes had been committed. And who were the perpetrators of these crimes?

Well, who were Barr and Durham investigating? 

The traitors, of course: Clinton. Obama. The FBI, CIA, and DOJ. 

Barr initiated the administrative review, via Durham, in early 2019. Per his preliminary investigation, Durham thought other countries—Britain, Italy—might have information helpful to his investigation. So, Barr took summer trips to both places, opening a channel through which Durham could access the information, which Durham exploited. Shortly after Durham’s return, October 2019, Barr’s administrative review transformed into a criminal investigation. A status advancement that Barr, the US Attorney General, must deem justifiable and ultimately authorize. 

It is to say, Barr is the boss. He knew the precise nature of the criminal evidence, and the extent. Thus, the authorization. The nation’s top law enforcement official, in fact, Barr knows everything about the treasonous collusion crime. 

When Durham’s investigation is completed, to whom is final report delivered?  

The Attorney General of the United States. 

Who decides whether or not that report gets released to the American public?  

The attorney general—now Merrick Garland. 

See now why it was vital to steal the 2020 election with a pandemic and mail-in ballots? The winner selects the attorney general, to whom Special Counsel Durham reports. 

In other words, what Durham knows, AG Garland knows—and can manage favorably for those, the traitors, who selected him. 

Likewise, what Durham knows, Barr knew from the investigation’s beginnings, and knows now. 

To be crystal clear, if redundant, Barr is comprehensively informed about the treasonous collusion crime. An example of that thorough insight and knowledge, Barr drafted this letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in September 2020—just before the November election, incidentally—responding to requests from the committee into the origins of the Russia collusion probe: 

“In connection with your committee’s investigation of these matters and ongoing hearings, you have been asking us to accelerate this process and to provide any additional information relating to the reliability of the work of Christopher Steele and the so-called ‘Steele dossier,’ as long as its release would not compromise U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing criminal investigation. 

“A footnote in the Inspector General’s report contains information, which up till now has been classified and redacted, bearing on the reliability of the Steele dossier. The FBI has declassified the relevant portion of the footnote, number 334, which states that ‘the Primary Sub-source [Igor Danchenko] was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his or her contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers.’ 

“I have consulted with Mr. Durham, who originally brought this information to my attention in the course of his investigation, and he has informed me that the disclosure of the information will not interfere with his criminal investigation.” 

Barr added that he had alerted then Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, to “certain classified information in possession of the intelligence community” which “bears upon the FBI’s knowledge of the reliability of the dossier.” 

In other words, the dossier was fake, and the FBI knew it from the start, and all along. 

The point here is that Barr knew Danchenko had lied, that Steele had then lied, that the FBI knew both men had lied, and yet not only put both men on the FBI payroll, but continued their Trump surveillance and FISA court renewals, anyway. And why, not so incidentally, would the FBI, a conspirator in all this, remember, put both men on the payroll?  

Confidential Human Sources (CHS) of the FBI, the traitors could keep both men concealed and protected, which, of course, was protection for the traitors themselves.  

Nevertheless, if the Steele Dossier, the primary evidence used to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, and later the Trump White House, was a fabrication—in fact, a known fabrication. Then Barr knew the FBI had attempted a treasonous coup against the 45th President of the United States, Trump, at the behest of Clinton and Obama.  

There is no other conclusion.  

It wasn’t a political dirty trick. The FBI wasn’t duped. Obama didn’t want everything “done by the book.” 

It was treasonous plot against not only Donald Trump, but the American people. 

Barr knew. He knows now. He knows everything. In fact, Barr publicly affirmed that Trump had been spied on, and essentially that a coup had indeed occurred.  

So then, why is Barr not Trump’s biggest, most vociferous defender?  

Why, in one breath, is Barr publicly bemoaning a judge’s ruling for a special master regarding the FBI’s unprecedented raid on Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago residence, and thereby undermining Trump’s efforts to expose the treasonous conspiracy that Barr himself knows took place? And in the next breath saying, “It’s hard for me not to conclude it’s a political hit job,” in regard to NY Attorney General, Letitia James’, latest lawsuit against Trump and his family? 

Russian collusion wasn’t the mother of all “political hit jobs?”  

Barr can’t be found to talk about Durham’s investigation prior the 2020 election. When he does talk, he claims he doesn’t want to threaten the upcoming election’s integrity with details of democrat treason—I say again, with details of democrat treason. Yet Barr has no problem preliminarily opining on the veracity of James’ case. No problem at all. 

Of course, Barr would argue capacity. Meaning, his capacity as attorney General prevented him from speaking on certain matters: these details of democrat treason. But, that’s not the excuse he used. It was that he didn’t want the investigation to interfere with the election, which was nonsense. His obligations are to the law and the truth and the American people, not Washington and politics. 

How differently would these record setting 81 million voters have voted had they known the details? 

Not much, probably. “Subjects” tend to do as their told. 

In any event, Barr knows all of the Russian collusion conspirators. He can’t see that these same actors are involved in the Mar-a-Lago raid? He can’t see that the raid—a search for declassified and dooming Russian collusion documents, and other corruption and conspiracy affirming material—is an attempt by the traitors to conceal their crimes and escape justice? He can’t see that the raid is a continuation of their coup, one that he knows, in full and complete detail, occurred? 

Being legally and professionally involved and unable to speak about ongoing litigation is understandable. But, the Sussmann trial didn’t take place? The conspiracy-confirming revelations in that trial didn’t occur and weren’t publicized? Of the upcoming Igor Danchenko trial, Durham didn’t just say in a court filing that Danchenko was a known fraud paid by the FBI anyway? All this and so much more that is publicly known about the crime via congressional investigations—Objective Medusa, and federal court testimony. And yet this: “The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it,” is Barr’s opinion regarding the court granting Trump a special master over the Mar-a-Lago raid? 

A judge is stepping in to prevent treasonous conspirators from continuing their coup, and Barr, the man who knows every conspirator and every intimate detail about the coup, thinks the traitors should appeal the judge’s ruling? 

Barr continued: 

“[The judge’s ruling] is deeply flawed in a number of ways. I don’t think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up, but even if it does, I don’t see it fundamentally changing the trajectory. In other words, I don’t think it changes the ball game so much as maybe we’ll have a rain delay for a couple of innings. 

“And none of that really relates to the content of documents. It relates to the fact that there were documents there and the fact that they were classified and the fact that they were subpoenaed and never delivered. But they don’t have to show the content, you know, the specific advice given in a memo, for example, in order to prevail in this case. So I think it’s not really going to change the decision.” 

Were Barr an honest and honorable man, a man truly devoted to the law and beholden to justice. Were he a patriot interested in the preservation of democracy and the United States, his remarks should be this simple and straightforward: 

Well, the whole thing is secondary, in my well-informed opinion. This judge has likely seen the revelations from the Sussmann trial, and is suspicious about the Department of Justice’s and the FBI’s motivations—as well he should be, given my comprehensive knowledge of John Durham’s investigation. Given the overwhelming evidence, there is every reason to question motivation. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, and then rolled the espionage into a coup to undermine his presidency and to ultimately eliminate him—a plot that involved the FBI and DOJ, remember, some of the very same conspirators that managed and executed the raid at Mar-a-Lago. Despite what I myself know about the Russian collusion crime, which is comprehensive, Durham has provided enough trial evidence to warrant suspicion and caution. I’m not the biggest Trump fan, admittedly, but Durham’s trial evidence alone confirms Trump was the target of a political coup. This is now fact, and we should be fixated on the perpetrators of that crime, not Trump. If a special master redirects the focus, terrific.  

Barr knows what happened, every detail. Remember that …  

Asked about having turned on Trump, Barr said, “That’s the way news is covered these days—as if it’s a sporting event. And you’re either wearing this jersey or that jersey. And the jersey, you know, I think, is specific to the facts and the truth in any individual situation. There are times where people may be conducting legitimate investigations into some of Trump’s actions, but this [the NY Attorney General’s fraud case] isn’t one of them. It is simply true that there are a lot of long-knives out for him, and people tend to go after Trump, target him unfairly, apply different standards of justice. And when that happens, I think it has to be called out.” 

“Has to be called out,” Barr Says. Like, a treasonous plot and its traitors must be called out?  

And these “facts and truths in any individual situation” of which he speaks. Where are they in regards to the plot and traitors, now exposed in federal court testimony, no less? Why isn’t Barr highlighting that information in his television performances and “calling out” the traitors?” And these countless “investigations into some of Trump’s actions,” which of them proved legitimate? 

How many? Not a single one.  

And is Barr, the most comprehensively informed person on the treasonous plot, helping the citizens of the United States to connect the dots and understand? 


So then, these “long knives” out for Trump. Is Barr wielding one of them?  

The evidence to affirm seems more than circumstantial.  

If you aren’t helping to expose the crime, one you know full-well occurred, no less. Then you’re helping to cover it up.  

And in that case, well, you’re a traitor, too.  

The prosecution rests. 

All Rights Reserved 

JMWs latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside. 

The Pachyderm In The Establishment Compound

The beloved system they’ve arranged for themselves is under attack. That’s why establishment members one and all are so distressed.   

No one has ever challenged them like Donald Trump, has ever dared call them “the swamp” and “fake news,” and summoned them and their precious system to the public carpet. And because he did, establishment members one and all have been forced to reveal their loyalty. All have had the opportunity to stand up for America, incidentally, and for the constitution, the rule of law, and the American people. And most have refused, to include some ponderous surprises.  

Assisted by the national news media, the Russian collusion cabal grandly deceived the American people. Collusion was a proven and undeniable political hoax—a treasonous hoax, actually. It was “fake news” created and put forth by “the swamp.” A grand lie carried on for years by the “beloved” establishment at obscene taxpayer expense. Most importantly, it was falsehood that renders the six-year establishment attack on Donald Trump thoroughly unfounded and illegitimate.  

Talk about having your enemy full-mounted and set-up for some punishing ground-and-pound. Does it get any better than a historic and treasonous political hoax by your political rivals? A scam that cost an industrious, hard-working citizenry millions in hard-earned wages, and that caused years of unnecessary national turmoil and grief, no less?  Ordinarily, campaigning is just griping about raised taxes and wasteful spending. But now your treacherous rivals have been caught in a historic and treasonous fraud. 

Why, it’s the opportunity of a political lifetime! Cue: ground-and-pound. 

I say again: cue ground-and-pound! … 

One question in the inexplicable silence of inaction: where is Mitch McConnell? In fact, where are the Bush’s, Jeb and George W.? Where are Liz and Dick Cheney? Where are Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins? Where is the Lincoln Foundation, and Bill Kristol? Where are all the republicans but Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, and the small but fearless and hard-punching band of conservative sisters and brothers? 

Their political rivals available for some brutal and devastating ground-and-pound, and the vast majority of republicans are balking. When they should be daily—relentlessly, mercilessly—reminding the American public of their rival’s treasonous collusion hoax and the obscene taxpayer expense, among other equally injurious issues born of six-years of Trump derangement and treasonous fakery.  

But, no. This election-guaranteeing weaponry at their disposal, and republicans are not only balking. They’re assisting the criminals!  

Desperately needing to regain control of congress to bring the conspirators to justice, for example, McConnell is ragging on republican congressional candidates. Meanwhile, Liz Cheney and republican sidekick, Adam Kinzinger, are desperately trying to indict Donald Trump for the “insurrection” events of January 6. While Cheney’s father, former vice president Dick Cheney, is labeling Trump “the greatest threat to the republic” in her campaign ad. 

The question is: why? Why are these republicans assisting not merely their political rivals, but their clearly criminal political rivals? 

Their beloved system is under attack, that’s why. And republicans are just as loyal to it as democrats. No? The establishment is undoubtedly controlled by liberals—thus the “liberal establishment.” And if these republicans aren’t fiercely opposing the establishment, aren’t delivering the politically punishing ground-and-pound, then to whom are they loyal?  

The liberal establishment or the American people?  

These republicans, RINOs as they are not so affectionately known, were never loyal to America or the American people; they only pretended to be. How do we know? Because they have the chance to show loyalty now to the constitution, to the rule of law, to the flag, to election integrity, to federal intelligence and law enforcement integrity, to the truth, to equal justice for all, and to the United States and the American people. All have had the chance, and yet … 

they’re assisting their political rivals and protecting their beloved establishment. 

Did the Russian collusion hoax happen? Yes. Did it then render the six-year establishment attack on Trump thoroughly unfounded and illegitimate? Thus, a fraud? Thus, “fake news” created and put forth by “the swamp,” aka the establishment, and a lie carried on for years establishment-wide? Yes to all.  

Is such a thing immoral, and criminal? Against everything the United States stands for? Yes and yes. And are these RINO republicans out there saying so? In full-mount, are they bludgeoning their political rivals or the establishment either one with their immorality and crimes?   

No. It’s politics as usual: 

We have a really good chance to flip a house/senate seat this fall. 
Republicans have to have a clear agenda, and cannot be outspent. 
What republican candidate can keep Trump from regaining the White House? 

Any talk of the collusion hoax? Of FBI, CIA, and news media involvement and corruption? Of Hunter’s laptop? Of “president” Biden’s affiliation and familial crimes? Of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s heinous sins? 

No. And why not? 

The beloved system is under attack. 

Rather, the established order to which many republicans have secretly belonged, and to which Trump forced them to reveal their loyalty, is under attack. 

Election-guaranteeing weaponry at their disposal, and the vast majority of republicans are safeguarding the establishment. 

It’s understandable, really. Establishment membership is a good life. That’s why members one and all are stepping forward in protection. To include the ponderous surprises: McConnell and his establishment republican kin—stepping forward not in word, but in deed. Meaning, not discussing establishment sins and putting the establishment at risk. Meaning, not delivering the ground-and-pound that a genuine American loyalist and patriot would deliver to treasonous criminals, but instead helping the criminals destroy the one person who summoned members and their precious system to the public carpet.  

McConnell and his kind, and the entire establishment membership, actually, like things the way they are—the power, the access, the wealth, the control, the invulnerability. They like being first to eat and getting all the focus and attention. The mere thought of forfeiting such luxuries, of servile ordinariness, makes members one and all shiver.  

Only, their system is on the verge of being not just fully exposed, which is terrifying enough, but also destroyed. If the American people en masse—meaning: when liberal voters get their heads out of their kazoos—begin to comprehend the corruption and injustice, it’s curtains for the established order, and perhaps worse. That’s why McConnell and his RINO kind are assisting their political foes, er, their fellow establishment members. That’s why McConnell and his kind don’t do, say or stop anything the establishment is undertaking. That’s why they don’t get daily involved, don’t jump on board and defend their fellow republican, Trump—the establishment anti-Christ.  

That’s why they don’t discuss the Russian collusion revelations and, like the establishment news media, ignore the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. All know what the revelations mean to establishment life, to their power and control over American thought, belief, and culture. Hunter Biden can be a junkie and sexual deviant, fine. But if his father, the “president” of the United States and card-carrying liberal and establishment member, were involved in financial corruption with one of America’s primary enemies.  

Well now, that’s a serious problem.  

Signing the establishment’s death warrant, these are stories McConnell, RINOs, and establishment members all simply cannot abide.  

What they can abide, however, is ragging republican congressional candidates, trying to indict Trump for insurrection, and calling him “the greatest threat to the republic.”  

So, members all, specifically McConnell and his fellow RINOs, ignore the collusion and laptop stories. They just, don’t discuss them—avoid them, even. Just like they ignore and avoid gross, establishment-sanctioned illegal immigration that is currently taking place. Or rather, the crime of illegal immigration that is currently taking place.  

Just like they ignored election fraud not only in 2016—the collusion hoax, but in 2020, too, via mail-in ballot fraud. Then again, McConnell and crew didn’t really ignore the 2020 fraud. Safeguarding the establishment, they claimed the establishment anti-Christ, Trump, had no basis for the allegation. This, despite the ballot-filled suitcases under vote counting center’s folding tables; despite these centers inexplicably shutting down for several hours; and despite a loathsome, demented, basement-dwelling, twice-failed presidential candidate receiving more votes than any president in American history—all of which McConnell and crew ignored, too.  

Just like they ignore Peter Schweitzer’s books detailing the establishment’s malfeasance. Via his vast oeuvre of verified political corruption, Schweitzer doesn’t just expose establishment members’ individual sins. He exposes the system’s sins, too. But that’s the establishment’s job, you say, not only rooting out political corruption and exposing it, but guaranteeing that it never occurs. It’s true, of course. But then, such enterprise is bad for establishment business. And because it is, establishment members don’t help with the exposure.  

Hence the verdict: establishment members aren’t devoted to democracy, the flag, the constitution, individual liberty, or to the United States and the American people. They’re loyal to the establishment. To their fellow liberals. To their club. Thus, Trump publicly calling their club corrupt and criminal, the entire establishment went on offense to protect their way—all hands on deck. 

Establishment members are devoted to the establishment, and thus themselves. Each are doing whatever they must to eliminate the threat, Donald Trump, and ensure their way of life.  

It’s either Trump or them, and Trump clearly isn’t letting it go, which presents a problem for the establishment. In a word it’s: resources. The establishment has unlimited funds. Where most everyone else would be forced to submit, Trump has the resources to fight them, and worse, to expose and destroy them. This establishment members know. So, accusation after accusation, committee investigation after investigation, court filing after resource-draining court filing, they keep pressure on and hope alive—for six-years and counting.

It’s the only way. 

Bottom line: Trump cannot survive. What exactly that means has yet to play out. 

The thing is, if Trump sues the government for libel, for all its lies against him and the damage to his reputation, which he most certainly will do, eventually. It’s the American people who will pay the restitution. Not the government. Not the collusion conspirators. Not establishment members. 

Thomas Sowell: “It’s hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong”—or for doing wrong. 

Americans get angry at Washington and the establishment—the perpetual lies and deceit, the corruption, the wasteful spending, the profiteering, the treasonous coups, the two-tiered justice system, the bias and conspiratorial news media that allows it all—and elect anti-establishment, pro–populace and -American firebreathers like Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.  

This frightens establishment membership.  

In Trump’s case, for example, he and his 74-million supporters represent a populace uprising against the establishment ecosystem. An unnerving rebellion that simply cannot be tolerated. Hence, the establishment doesn’t tolerate Commanders-In-Chiefs, or rather, Encouragers-In-Chiefs, who call the establishment and its members to the public carpet for their cronyism, lies, and corruption, and who encourage this sort of populace unrest.  

Thus, the ceaseless and ongoing establishment attack of Donald Trump. A sustained, relentless beating through which the establishment delivers a public message: if you f- with us, this is what awaits you.   

And skulking in the establishment compound, trying to avoid the cameras and to remain unnoticed, are a slew of Grand Old Party republicans who will assist in the ground-and-pound. 

©JMW 9/2022 
All Rights Reserved 

JMWs latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside. 

My Enemy, My Ally

Is the Russian collusion cabal—Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, the FBI and CIA, et al—colluding with China, Russia, and the world to takedown the United States? 

Given the evidence for it, why isn’t somebody asking that question? Where are all those rabid Russian collusion journalists and television news personalities? After being fed all that fake collusion nonsense by the cabal, and made to look utterly foolish and inept in front of the entire nation, why aren’t they angry at the cabal, and vengeful?  

Because seeking vengeance on fellow conspirators is telling on yourself, and the crew. 

What do you call it when a president (Barrack Obama) coordinates with a political candidate (Hillary Clinton) of his own party, uses the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies to help that candidate and his party win an election. Then, losing the election, rolls that effort into a coup to get rid of a duly elected president and his political enemy?  

You call it: subverting democracy.  

For ease of understanding, subversion: “to undermine the power and authority of (an established system or institution).”  

Or in basic terms: trying to takedown the United States.  

These are people who think they get to determine America’s leadership. 

Again, and hopefully for greater efficacy: these are people who think they get to determine America’s leadership. Not you. Not the country’s citizenry. Them. And they not only think it. They executed a coup and proclaimed it. 

In subverting democracy, one is clearly trying to “transform,” Obama’s idea, a nation into something else. And what other form of governing is there but socialism, communism, and ultimate authoritarianism? Given the undeniable coup, transformation was/is clearly the goal. Yet, the American people seemed determined to believe an attempted communist takeover of their nation something utterly absurd— 

Oh-come-ooon! What are we? Some third-world country?! Gimme a break. 

As the wise psychiatrist advised his willful, constantly failing patient, “Life comes with certain rules, and it’s probably not going make an exception for you.” Human beings have sought power, wealth, and to control other human beings since the dawn of time. So, as to this rule, the American people need to likewise realize that life probably isn’t going to make an exception for them, either.  

Enter: Clinton campaign manager, Robby Mook, who confessed in federal court to the cabal’s coup and their attempted subversion.  

So then, it’s official: life/history is making no exception for the American people, either.  

Let it be a wake-up call. 

So, why do people subvert democracy, anyway?  

There isn’t a catalogue of motivations to sift through. It’s done purely for power and control—and whoever is committing a coup to subvert democracy and steal elections, wants that power and control, unopposable power and control. Else, why try to subvert and usurp the power and control structure that already exists?  

Because you want a new power and control structure. 

In this case, the new structure means doing away with the United States Constitution and laws that have governed the nation for nearly three hundred years. And if you’re attempting to destroy that tradition, then you’re trying to transform the nation into something else, into another form of governance that renders citizen power and control obsolete.  

Like, say, socialism and communism and authoritarianism—all one and the same. 

People seem to want to pretend that the past six years are just republicans and democrats doing what they do, the way they invariably do it. However, it is abundantly clear these two sides aren’t just opposed to each other, as they have been historically. They are genuine enemies now; the rancor between them speaking clearly to it. It’s no longer mere political opposition. It’s palpable loathing, brought about by deeply opposing ideology.  

But, America has a collective ideology, you say. The United States Constitution. Individual freedom, liberty, citizen power and control, and all that. Indeed, it does. And clearly some don’t like that ideology and arrangement—dislike so intense that they’d attempt a transformational coup to create a new ideology and arrangement. And these malcontents are a more diverse group than some might suspect. In fact, for the Trump presidency, a once hidden arrangement/alliance has been now fully and thoroughly exposed.  

Except for a small contingency of conservative republicans, both the Democrat and Republican Parties are aligned—evidenced by the equal fierceness and zeal with which both targeted and sought to destroy Donald Trump. But for a small contingency of conservatives, Trump has no allies in Washington, only establishment enemies. 

Hence the point: the United States government is chiefly comprised of establishment friendlies. And here’s the problem: government has grown monstrous. So massive that it can conceal malfeasance and attempt a communist takeover, with assistance from a complicit, equally corrupt news media, of course. As a result, government has developed its own way of doing business, which is a transformation in itself: it has gone from doing the business of the American people to doing the business of the political/ruling class, or rather, the establishment.  

The establishment, made-up of both republicans and democrats, remember, has a system. A system developed by establishment friendlies, for establishment friendlies, and to be employed by friendlies to both access and ensure power, control, and wealth. And with nearly an entire national news media to help conceal systemic malfeasance; life is really good in the system. Because life is so good, so prosperous and promotional, these establishment benefactors, understandably, don’t want anyone meddling with their system. In fact, witnessing how cohesively and mercilessly the establishment has pursued Donald Trump and conservatives, using all of its available state power and might to crush its opposition, to include espionage, treason, and propaganda. One can credibly argue that communist control is already established. 

Nevertheless, elected officials profiteering is one thing—understanding that it is wrong, of course, and that elected officials are supposed serve the American people, and not themselves. It’s quite another when they use their system to transform the nation they’re supposed to serve, into a system that serves them, and that renders them unopposable dictators—which is all but accepted reality.  

Given the confirmed coup, the establishment cabal clearly made a run at transforming the United States into a nation they control. In doing so, the cabal could not have been more open about their intentions: taking control of the United States away from the American people, and assuming it for themselves. Clearly, the cabal wants a country that operates like China and Russia, and pretty much the rest of the subservient and oppressed world.  

So then, the obvious: is the establishment cabal in fact working with these other nations to bring about America’s demise? They all want the same thing—to destroy the United States, at least as founded. The collusion cabal not only committed an internal coup to upend American democracy. They call America evil and argue against its legitimacy daily. China, Russia, the rest of the world—they work every day against the interests of the United States, too.  

So, why wouldn’t these interests be working together to achieve America’s demise? 

Of course, none actually want America “destroyed.” Because, of what use is a wealth-generating super power in ruins? How do people access and accumulate vast wealth from devastation? Erecting a nation from destruction is a costly expense, not a profitable opportunity.   

To access and accumulate vast wealth, conspirators need the American people doing what they do: applying themselves in their various industries. So that both they and their hard work can be exploited, capitalized on—just as both are now, incidentally, only that’s currently more involved and tedious for all those constitutional rules, laws, and especially those freedom-loving conservative patriots, always quoting constitutional articles and amendments and the Bill of Rights.  


It’s much better to just, control things. To make it so you can dismissively shrug at dissenters, and say, “Well, that’s just the way it is. So, shut-up and get back to work making my vast wealth.” It’s so much easier when people can’t choose their leaders and can’t go to the voting booth to get rid of them. Precisely the kind of citizen control/servitude arrangement communist minded elitists find so demeaning and insufferable, and that they seek to “transform” into something more, beneficial, and less servile. 

So, obviously there are shared interests between the establishment cabal and the rest of the world’s communists. But are there clear instances of collusion?  

Indeed so. In fact, such an instance kicked the whole Trump experience off. 

Obama and then Secretary Clinton sold uranium to a Russian company—again, a Russian company, as in, a primary enemy of the United States. The deal included a racketeering plot involving kicbacks, bribes, and extortion—like the deal itself, something one definitely does not want public. And if one doesn’t want something public, what does one do?  

One conceals it. Does the reader know about the uranium deal or the racketeering that occurred? About the profiteering of the cabal?  About the grave risk to national security, and the ease with which the cabal assumed the risk at the expense of the American people?  

I likely rest my case. 

Basically, America, via Obama and Clinton, was turning over a large swath of America’s untapped uranium deposits—otherwise known as: nuclear fuel for devastating nuclear bombs with which to destroy your American enemies—to Russia, a primary foe of the United States.  

Also involved in the deal was China (CEFC, China Energy Company Ltd), which sought to purchase an interest in the Uranium One deal, evidenced by Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop.  

So here are Obama and Clinton making nuclear fuel/bomb deals for personal benefit with not merely one of America’s primary enemies, but both. And it gets better, er, worse:  

All this ties into the Russian collusion hoax—perpetuated by, yes, the collusion cabal.  

How so? 

Obama and Clinton clearly had much to hide for this clandestine uranium deal. In fact, the entire collusion cabal had much to hide—the same cast of characters, all involved. For its part, the FBI, and certainly the CIA, knew about the deal, because they had an informant telling them about the racketeering plot and the kickbacks, bribes, and extortion involving the Russian company (Rosatom) that was trying to buy Uranium One (a US mining company). In fact, the FBI investigated the deal. And who was the FBI director at the time of the investigation?  

Robert Mueller. Yes, the same Russian collusion Special Counsel. The same prosecutor who, in his exhaustive, near maniacal search to expose the origins of Russian collusion, never asked Robby Mook if his boss, Hillary Clinton, was responsible for the hoax, and did not include Mook in his final report. 

Mook ultimately confessing to the crime in federal court, think of it: one question, under oath, and the book on the whole two-and-a-half year, $42-million taxpayer funded matter is closed.  

One question. 

How is it Fox News with its comparatively paltry resources managed this detail—that Hillary financed the hoax, and Robert Mueller never uncovered it? 

He must not watch Fox News. 

And who prosecuted Rosatom’s—again, a Russian energy giant—main executive in the United States, Vadim Mikerin, for his informant-exposed corruption?  

Yet another Russian collusion conspirator: Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein.  

And when did Rosenstein prosecute the case?  

Many years later, so the deal would remain below legislative and public radar. 

The point is the Russian collusion cabal was represented and implicated in the Uranium One deal, and were thus in collective legal jeopardy. All then knew that if Donald Trump were elected, he would declassify everything related to the Uranium One deal and expose the cabal’s malfeasance. Cabal membership and malfeasance to include then Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and the Biden’s family’s corrupt, laptop-recorded deal-making with the Chinese. 

In other words, Obama and Clinton were working the Russians, while the Biden crime family was working the Chinese—all at the expense and potential ruin of the United States.  

So, it’s not just that the collusion cabal is corrupt. They were scheming with America’s primary enemies, too. But then, Trump happened, which was not supposed to happen. Couldn’t happen, in fact. Yet it did, and the cabal was panicked. Panic that resulted in a Russian collusion hoax, endless Trump accusations and investigations, daily media and White House Press Room lies and attacks, two impeachment attempts, and so on. And when things really became desperate, after four years of failing to “kill the king,” and facing a vital election they, the cabal, were destined to lose for historic, Trump-inspired American prosperity, and one they desperately needed to win to prevent the exposure of their crimes. The cabal got help from China via a virus and pandemic. A plague for which the establishment cabal refused to blame China, and instead used to bludgeon Trump for an entire election year.  

In other words, who cares if a million Americans die by virus—and 14-million more innocent people around the world. Whatever it takes to complete the transformative mission and conceal our political crimes, we’re prepared to do … to them, the rubes we aim to rule. 

In any event, the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, from the American people, actually, and who wins? 

China, Russia, and the cabal. 

No more expensive Chinese tariffs. A new energy pipeline for Russia. And best of all, the cabal controls their criminal exposure. 

When you work the six-years of so-called “Trump derangement” backwards, deeply backwards, you see that it wasn’t really about Hillary Clinton’s secret server and her trafficking in classified material, and all of that. The merciless Trump targeting was a result of Obama and Clinton corruption and malfeasance, namely this Uranium One deal. Crimes no less facilitated by Obama’s FBI, CIA, and a deep state cabal, to include the news media.  

Involved in historic corruption, and colluding with America’s primary adversaries, this treasonous cabal had but one threat of exposure:  

President Donald Trump.  

That is the reason for six-years of so-called Trump derangement, which isn’t derangement at all, but rather an effort to conceal historic political corruption and crime. And the cabal at risk of exposure put the establishment’s system, its way of life, at risk, prompting establishment friendlies to step in and protect their way—  

The way that no longer serves the American people. 

When the history is finally written, if it ever is accurately, the world will learn that Hillary Clinton is one of the coldest, most corrupt human beings to ever exist on the planet, in league with history’s most notorious despots. She is an inveterate liar, a fraud, and the embodiment of the purest of evil. Bill Clinton isn’t a good person, either. But he cares what people think about him and likes to be liked—has to be liked, actually. And there are his well-documented sexual appetites that control him, too.  

Bill Clinton is weak, in other words. He hasn’t the stomach or the cunning for the kind of global malfeasance that went on at the Clinton Foundation and the Obama White House. He likes chicks, friends that can supply really young ones, and Oval Office trysts with naïve interns. Not all that palace intrigue and treasonous coup stuff. Is he corrupt enough to be a cabal player? Absolutely.  

But he’s too immature for the strategy sessions. Everybody knows that. 

It’s the same with Obama. He is an America-despising Muslim who wants to tear down the United States, but doesn’t have the political connections, cunning, or courage to do it. Who does?  


Obama made her Secretary of State—after both she and her husband demeaned Obama and his family during the democrat primary. A woman demeans you and your family and you make her Secretary of State? That isn’t strength. Like Bill Clinton, Obama needed Hillary, to do what he and Bill were too soft to do themselves.  

The booze and the concha tell Bill and Barrack what to do.  

The point is Hillary Clinton, a soulless human being, is the engine powering it all. The entire six-year #TrumpResistance orbits around her. All roads lead to her, to her campaign, to her lawyers, to her subordinates, to her political connections. She’s doing the deals, running the scams, orchestrating the delays and distractions. All answer to her. 

Who’s out there still involved, still visible, still orchestrating, still advancing, still clearly in the leadership role? Hillary Clinton. Whose attorneys are fighting the fight? Who’s subordinates are carrying the water? Hillary Clinton’s. And where are Obama and Bill? 

I rest my case. 

Hillary led a corrupt and criminal cabal in a coup to subvert American democracy, aiming to take power from the American people and enslave them. Then, to protect their system, their way of life, establishment friendlies—both republicans and democrats, and the news media, and Saturday Night Live, and late-night television, and Hollywood, and …—stepped in to protect the collusion cabal and to conceal their crimes.  

The establishment must destroy Trump because, one, he represents a populace uprising, 74-million strong and increasing, against the establishment and its sacred way of life. And two, because Trump is the head of the conservative snake and, with his destruction, there will be no further resistance.  

Business, finally, can get back to normal—the opposition deathly frightened by the very prospect of opposition, and cowering under systemic glare. 

Members of the establishment don’t believe in America, in the individual liberty for which it stands. If they did, then they wouldn’t attempt to subvert the democracy that upholds liberty and empowers individuals. Members couldn’t care less about the country, or the citizenry. It’s a piece of land, one that can either profit them, or look like any other “shithole” civilization around the world. Establishment members care about power and wealth, and will sacrifice America to get both without a moment’s hesitation. And it doesn’t matter who they partner with—China, Russia, Iran—to acquire the power and wealth, either.  

Years after the Uranium One deal, the FBI, under pressure from President Donald Trump, finally released documents on the matter inside its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) online vault. But there was nothing incriminating in the disclosure, just benign, previously released and already public letters from Congress members demanding answers in the Uranium One case. 

Even so, the FBI knew the deal was corrupt and, moreover, a potentially grave national security risk. They’d had an informant, William Douglas Campbell, alerting them to the corruption, which they ultimately prosecuted. The FBI knew this long before Obama and Clinton were making the Uranium One deal with the Russians, too. Yet, the deal was nonetheless approved by CFIUS (the Obama-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States). 

The events and timeline leave three questions: one, did the FBI notify then-President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other leaders on the CFIUS board about Rosatom’s dark deeds before the Uranium One sale was approved? Two, did the bureau drop the ball and fail to inform policymakers? Or perhaps, three, was there a conspiracy among Obama, Clinton, the FBI, the CFIUS committee, Vladimir Putin, and China to profit from the uranium market at the expense of America’s national security? 

The Uranium One deal was inarguably and thoroughly corrupt, the details of which the cabal would certainly want forever concealed, which they proved by not including them in their FOIA online vault release.

However, there are more documents. Reporter John Solomon: 

“One former U.S. official, who had access to the evidence shared with CFIUS during the Uranium One deal, said this to me: ‘There is definitely material that would be illuminating to the issues that have been raised. Somebody should fight to make it public.’ That somebody could be President Trump, who could add these 37 pages of now-secret [Uranium One deal] documents to his declassification order he is considering in the Russia case.” 

Trump hesitated on the declass, citing concern for allies and risks to the then occurring Russia probe. Yet, he was the Commander in Chief. Privy to all information and intelligence, he has the declassified evidence and knows the truth. 

What’s the chance the Uranium One evidence was stored at Mar-a-Lago? 
What’s the chance the documented history of the collusion hoax was stored there, too? 

And do you think China, Russia, and the establishment cabal benefit if it all disappears? 

Me too. 

So then, do you think the cabal and its fellow establishment friendlies are partnering with America’s enemies to takedown the United States? 

Me too. 

©JMW 9/2022 
All Rights Reserved 


FBI’s 37 Secret Pages of Memos About Russia, Clintons, and Uranium One 

Secret FBI Memos On Clintons, Russia, and Uranium One Will Bake Your Bagels 

New Jersy Man Sentenced for Role In Russian Uranium Bribe Scheme 

JMWs latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside. 

Evidence Planting for Dummies

The liberal news punditry mock those who suggest the FBI raided Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence to plant evidence. Given Robby Mook’s federal court confession, making Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration responsible for the collusion hoax …  


We understand what the confession means, right? That Hillary, Obama, and their cast of conspirators have already planted evidence in the public domain: the Steele dossier, Igor Danchenko, the Mueller Intimidation, er, Investigation, the fake data from Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS that filled 24/7 news cycles for years? 

All lies, planted in the public domain to steal an election and deceive the public. 

So then, planting evidence at Mar-a-Lago is a stretch for these people? Is such the mockable suggestion? 

To that, here’s what needs to be understood about the liberal punditry: they either don’t know this fact was testified to in court. Or, they do know, and simply aren’t going to make it part of their assessments and opinions. 

Now, why would they do that? 

Well, it’s because they’re liberals who’ll do anything to help their fellow ideologues win elections, to thereby impose their kooky religious beliefs on everyone else. In fact, this is the way to look at liberals on television, and in any venue where they offer their analysis, if you can call it that. They’re not celebrities. They’re ideologues, just ordinary people with beliefs, like everyone else. People who won’t dare question those beliefs, and thus don’t separate from them in their opinions, no matter what.  

Imagine your neighbor, Fred, for example. An obnoxious, insufferable liberal who dutifully regurgitates the religion’s doctrine at neighborhood barbecues. He went to journalism school and received a diploma. He took a job at CNN or MSNBC, where he sits every evening regurgitating the political doctrine his religious elders provide. There’s nothing special about Fred from the block; you’ve known him all his life. He’s an elitist jerk. The whole neighborhood thinks so. And despite the fact he’s now sitting on television every night with some notoriety, and offering his political opinions, doesn’t make him any less an elitist jerk the whole neighborhood thinks he is. 

This, in fact, defines every single one of these liberal pundits. Not that they elitist jerks, necessarily, but that they’re just ordinary people from some block somewhere who, like Fred, are ideologues who, for a journalism degree, get to appear on television and offer their opinions—or rather, proselytize viewers to the religion.  

Anyway, the point is people give liberals, specifically news media liberals, Fred, way too much credit for knowing things, for being abreast of the details of political matters, or just matters in general. The fact is they don’t know. A reality illustrated by CNN host, Brook Baldwin, demanding an on-air fact-check of old news.  

Wait, what? Hold on, hold on, hold on. Hillary smashed Blackberry phones with a hammer? 

Yes. It occurred, Brook. And its old news.  
Clinton deleted thirty thousand subpoenaed emails, too, Brook. More old news. 

The point is Baldwin didn’t know about the Blackberries. A professional, like elitist jerk Fred, that the public counts on to know, and trusts to know, didn’t know. As a result, we’re forced to ask: what else doesn’t she know? 

So, here are news people who are supposed to know things before they get on television and talk about matters, but know neither the details nor even the matters themselves. And if they don’t know the matters, then how do they pass on the matters or the details to their viewers? How do their viewers then know the matters and details?  

Viewers don’t know the news because, the people who are supposed to be providing them the news don’t know the news, either.  

Hence, the point: people give liberals way too much credit for knowing things, when they clearly don’t know things.  

There is another side to this phenomenon, however: liberals who do know things—that federal court testimony proved Clinton and the Obama administration responsible for the collusion hoax, for example. There are liberal pundits who do indeed know that, but who simply refuse to acknowledge it publicly, and perhaps personally, for it indicting the religion and assisting their political enemies, aka, conservatives and republicans.  

If Clinton and the Obama administration are responsible for a treasonous collusion hoax, then all those liberal news media rountables become entirely different discussions. It’s like, “For Mook’s court testimony, we now know Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration were responsible for a hoax, and that Donald Trump and Fox News have been commendably accurate throughout this entire ordeal.”  

And where does the dialogue go after that? 

Towards none of the things these liberal pundits want to talk about. 

Then, during these roundtable discussions, these liberal pundits say to their conservative counterparts, “Why can’t conservatives and republicans acknowledge what Donald Trump has done to the country?” 

The proposed conservative response: “Because you’re all f-ing liars. A fact proven again and again and again.”  

Forgive the profanity. It’s frustration from watching too many conservatives carry on meaningless roundtable discussions that ignore the fact federal court testimony exposed Clinton and the Obama administration as hoax conspirators and traitors to the United States and its citizens. 

“Let’s talk about that, a**holes.” 

Again, frustration. 

And does the liberal punditry want to “talk about that?” No. And why not? Is it that they don’t know the news? Or do they know it, but refuse to acknowledge for what it means to their religion and beliefs? 

It’s a toss-up. 

Clearly, though, the liberal punditry is out there blabbering on and on, Brook Baldwin, without the slightest inkling what they’re talking about. Trump is bad—that’s the extent of their knowledge. The looks of shock and outrage at conservative data and insight aren’t dismissive roundtable discussion ploys. These liberal pundits just heard something they have never heard, and did not know—like, Clinton smashing Blackberry phones with a hammer—and they don’t believe it. Worse, they can’t believe it. Because if they do, the roundtable discussion turns into an authoritative lecture from conservatives and republicans, and the liberal religion starts to look like Jonestown.   

In contrast, there are liberals like Bill Maher, who seem somewhat abreast of political matters, but who can’t seem connect the dots. In response to the Mar-a-Lago raid, for example, Maher said, “In the end, it comes down to what is in these boxes… if it turns out to be the real deal, if it turns out that Donald Trump has violated the Espionage Act, that is a serious crime and he should be held to account. If it doesn’t turn out to be there, that there are legitimate questions, I think, from the Trump supporters about the different standards applied to Donald Trump that hasn’t been applied to Hillary Clinton, to James Comey, to Hunter Biden and the others.”  

A little logic: could it be that these six-year-long establishment attacks on Trump are an effort by these coup conspirators to conceal their own espionage crimes, and to avoid punishment?  
Could it be that Trump supporters are right about the “different standards” and the two-tiered justice system that enables liberals to: conceal their own espionage crimes and to avoid punishment?   

As for the FBI using the Mar-a-Lago raid to plant evidence Maher, likewise, mocked Trump and his supporters. “I don’t even think [Trump] knew what was in those boxes or cared. I just think he was like, ‘They’re mine! I live here! I put it in those boxes! I get to take my boxes!”  

In other words, the suggestion of evidence planting is risibly absurd. 

Legitimizing the concerns of Trump supporters in his remarks, Maher seems to know Clinton and the Obama administration’s coup conspirators planted fake stories in the news media to support their Russian collusion fraud. That’s what a hoax is more or less: planting a fake scenario to achieve a result. So then, is it really such the logical stretch to believe that the same people who planted fake stories in the news media wouldn’t raid the Mar-a-Lago residence to plant more evidence to conceal their original crimes? Or to perhaps confiscate declassified documents that would indict them and exonerate Trump? 

Are these dots really so difficult to connect? 

They aren’t for people who aren’t religiously shackled to a maniacal lust to rid the world of Donald Trump, which is exactly what liberals have pursued for six years—sex scandals, collusion hoaxes, impeachments, insurrection. All failed. And it really isn’t maniacal lust; it’s self-preservation. 

Did the FBI plant agents in the January 6th crowd? Video and testimony say so.  
Did the agency plant agents to facilitate a governor’s kidnapping? Michigan jurists said they did.
Did China plant a virus to help liberals steal an election they were destined to lose? Liberals certainly never blamed China. 

In eliminating Donald Trump, there has clearly been a massive exercise in gardening—one planted liberal fraud after another. Yet these same conspirators wouldn’t raid Mar-a-Lago to plant evidence? To try to accomplish what they’ve been visibly, incontrovertibly attempting to achieve for six years?   

Hillary funded the treasonous collusion hoax: confirmed. Her campaign manager testified to the fact in federal court: confirmed. Obama sanctioned the crime, carried it out via the nation’s CIA and FBI, because he commands both agencies, not Clinton: confirmed. The coup conspirators are still functional. The deep state is still operational, all unpunished: confirmed.  

So again, why would the conspirators not raid Donald trump’s residence and plant evidence?  

They would, of course. Given their crimes, and particularly the punishment, what choice do they have? 

All that supreme, super-galactic brainpower and liberals can’t connect these dots?  

Obviously not. And yet, they’re mocking conservatives? 

Liberals could connect the dots were it Trump caught in a treasonous collusion hoax—one can be sure of that. One can be certain they would suspect him and his fellow conspirators of planting evidence, too, and that they would be alerting the world not merely to the possibility of it, but of the “existential threat to democracy” Trump presents. The reason they can’t fathom the same now?  

It indicts their political gods and imperils their religion.   

Otherwise, they’d be claiming what Trump supporters are claiming now. 

Maher is intelligent enough to draw these fundamental conclusions. The liberal punditry is, too. Well, if they know the news, that is, which should not be assumed. 

You can’t have treasonous conspirators commit a collusion hoax, get caught, have their crime exposed in federal court, and then not presume that they would plant evidence on a target they have been desperately pursuing for now, six years. In fact, you would expect it.  

Unless, that is, you’re a bunch of ideologues determined to protect your gods and religion. 

©JMW 8/2022 
All Rights Reserved 

JMWs latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside. 

Paul Pelosi and Club Rage

Why are liberals so enraged? As in, Jon Stewart enraged—profane, red-faced, veins bulging. They’ve never behaved this unhinged before. So, what’s the reason? The real reason.

What if I said, Paul Pelosi? Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s drunken husband.  

Sound odd?  

It isn’t. Although, the reason isn’t Pelosi directly. It’s his current situation.  

Conservatives have spent decades—hat-tip Limbaugh, the Godfather—trying to alert the public to who these people, liberals, really are characteristically. Trying to alert people to how unhinged and hateful they truly are; to how all the things liberals say they care about, they actually couldn’t care less about; to how they’re users, exploiting human beings—activist groups, minorities, the aggrieved, the poor and downtrodden—to further their own interests and ambitions; and ultimately to how inhuman and evil liberals are, and enjoy being.  

It’s a collection of facts illustrated any number of ways. Liberals love black people, for example, as long as they aren’t republicans and conservatives—like Dr. Ben Carson. In which case, liberals basically lynch them with public disdain and ridicule. Likewise with homosexuals. In which case liberals basically throw them from rooftops with public disdain and ridicule. 

So, is it these constituencies liberals love, the human beings within them? Or is it liberalism?  

It’s religion first, obviously. Always. 

So, confirmed: liberals are inhumane and evil human beings. They lie, cheat, steal, and treat human beings like refuse. And having achieved national media and cultural control, there is nothing anyone can do about it. Via their tool of perception, they can tell whatever story they want—or not tell it. They can control how they appear, and their image, and can cast their adversaries in whatever light they choose. So, life is good!  

Okay, so. Why are liberals so enraged and unhinged? 

First and foremost, they’re just angry, miserable people. They get a governmental super majority for example, yet they’re still angry. They stick it to the rich via taxation, still angry. Get gay marriage passed into law, still angry. Get the first black president, still angry. Get free food, housing, phones, health insurance, and more—still angry. Get everything they want, still angry. 

Still bitching. Still moaning. Still not enough. 

In case you missed it, it’s all a hallmark of deep, abiding: misery. 

And here’s the worst part: liberals fancy themselves humanly superior. Nobody is correct but them. Nobody is more intelligent. Nobody has better ideas or logic. Nobody does anything better, outshines them. Nobody is allowed any triumph, even when they clearly and incontrovertibly triumph. And if all this is true. If liberals have media and cultural control to dictate perception and outcomes. Then, again, why are they so enraged and unhinged? 

Paul Pelosi. 

The elite liberals—politicians, news media, Hollywood—like the old system, wherein they control public information. Meaning: news of events and, specifically, news that involves them. All of them, and all their failures and crimes, to include drunk driving arrests. 

As comedian George Carlin put it: “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” 

In other words, liberals like the way things were before Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and conservative, or more accurately, legitimate, media. In the former arrangement, elite liberals could do whatever they wanted and get away with anything. This whole Pelosi matter would not have disappeared, because it would have never appeared in the first place—like Pelosi’s first drunk driving charge.

Discreet compensatory cash, an invite to a Napa Valley wine tasting in the company of glamorous Hollywood celebrities and political dignitaries. This Pelosi trouble would have never occurred—as it didn’t the first time.  It’s how embarrassing and criminal elite problems were, managed.  

This used to be the standard. Or rather, used to be standard elite club practice. Then Limbaugh appears and starts pointing out the lies, hypocrisy, and double standard of the club, the club that “you ain’t in,” and the exclusive treatment members receive and enjoy.  

Or as Limbaugh used to phrase it: “In packaging the daily news, isn’t it interesting what the mainstream news media [the club] leaves out?” 


Limbaugh was ridiculed and vilified by the club, of course, because he dared to drag the club and its members into the exposing and disinfecting sunlight. Then Fox News came along and was likewise ridiculed and vilified for the same reason—and is still.  

Simply, Limbaugh and Fox News made doing normal club business impossible.  

Club members used to be able to get away with a simple drunk driving incident. Like Ted Kennedy, for example. Who, in a drunken stupor drove Mary Jo Kopechne off the Dike Bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, and abandoned her to die in the Atlantic Ocean. Then, like Michael Corleone, he goes home to the Kennedy compound and ultimately gets away with it.  

The club managing everything. 

That’s how it used to be—how comfortable and reassuring it used to be for club members. And now here’s Limbaugh and Fox News making things difficult—all these embarrassing/criminal news stories on radio and television. This new conservative media brand that is currently digging up stories of Paul Pelosi’s past, reporting both alcohol and a “drug” present in his system. As well as another passenger in his vehicle at the time of his accident—likely Pelosi’s 20-something-year-old mistress.  

Blond. Beautiful. Buxom. And a problem for the club. 

Club members one and all: “Those conservative bastards. How dare they!” 

Were it Trump or Mitch McConnell in a drunken stupor and caught with a 20-something buxom mistress in their vehicle, the club would be playing the video on loop 24/7. Just to remind everyone of republican and conservative unworthiness. But not Pelosi’s failure—or any other club member’s failure for that matter.  

In fact, Fox News had to threaten Napa County with litigation just to get Pelosi’s mugshot, which still took weeks to get. This, after Pelosi’s “fixer” claimed: “… there is no mugshot.”  

No mugshot? After an arrest? Strange. 

The police department and district attorney also have dashcam and body-cam video of Pelosi’s arrest, which they won’t release. Where is that video, Madam District Attorney? Fox News demands. And this other passenger and witness to the accident, and the 911 call? The public has a right to know! 

“Those conservative bastards. How dare they!” 

Incidentally, how is it we have whistleblowers and witnesses and transcripts by the tractor-trailer load when it concerns Trump’s, republican’s, and conservative’s supposed failures and crimes, but never when it involves those of club members?

Evidence in these instances is about as plentiful as covid-era toilet tissue. 

In the former “arrangement,” there wouldn’t be all these demands and all this publicized unpleasantness. But now there’s Fox News and conservative media—Limbaugh’s acolytes carrying the torch. And this is precisely why club members are so enraged. Fury which has been decades in the making for the club losing incremental control over information, and becoming more and more exposed as the corrupt, immoral frauds they pretend and manufacture themselves not to be. 

Thus, where club members were once merely irritated, they are now enraged. Furious because they don’t have complete media control anymore; because they can’t then manage personal failures and crimes privately and to benefit; because they can’t control the way they appear to the American public; because they can’t make themselves pillars of the community and wonderful, warm, compassionate human beings without it being revealed otherwise by … legitimate news media.  

Or rather, the enemy. 

Club members are still attempting all these things, obviously. It’s just becoming less and less believable and effective. And for the increasing lack of effectiveness, and for the subsequent inability to manage club business, club members establishment wide pillory Fox News and conservative media. It’s either that, or start being honest and forthright and moral.  

The club’s reaction: {{shiver}}. 

It has been a slow devolution into their current fury. At first, club members could coolly laugh the opposition away, “Oh, Limbaugh’s just an entertainer.” And Fox News, “Great. Just what we need—more conspiracy theories.” Fox now the nation’s Number One cable news agency wiping the ratings floor with all the rest, and holding the club members’ feet to the fire over their collusion and laptop crimes, as well as their drunk driving failures. Well, the cool, dismissive laughter is over, and has been replaced by profane, red-faced, vein-bulging fury and aggression.  

Add the fact club members fancy themselves humanly superior, and therefore unaccountable, and the club attitude is: How dare these average people challenge and expose their superiors!  

If you’re superior, then you cannot and will not tolerate inferiority, which means you must always be right and never wrong. If wrong, just one time: your ideas, your beliefs, your opinions, your arguments. Then you aren’t superior, but in fact, inferior. And any descent into the ranks is, well, insufferable.  

Thus, the solution: you’re invariably correct and righteous, even when it’s proven otherwise. 

In sum, the luxuries of liberaldom have been slowly taken away. And like spoiled, petulant children forced to share their toys, club members resent it. Thus, it’s easy to understand the fury of actual club members. Life is pretty good when you are above the law and can do whatever you want, and when you can abuse whomever you choose and emerge Mother Teresa on the other side.  

But, what about liberal voters? They aren’t club members. So why are they so enraged?  

What do they care if a politician gets caught driving drunk, committing collusion hoaxes, and enriching themselves via a son’s business they claim to “know nothing about?” What difference does it make to liberal voters? Why would they be so enraged when the lies and corruption of dirty, dishonest politicians, news people, and celebrities are exposed? 

Answer: club members aren’t merely politicians, news personalities, actors and actresses to liberal voters. They’re gods. And if their gods are superior, then liberal voters get to pretend superiority, too. Hence, they can never allow their gods to be revealed as inferior, or less than gods. Club members set the cultural terms and, choosing those terms and club leadership, liberal voters get to pretend they’re in the club, too—though they’ll never venture further than the velvet rope. 

It is all to say, liberal voters are enraged because their gods are enraged. 

That’s it. That’s all.

The truth is their rage has gotten progressively worse for the opposition—conservative media, or rather, legitimate media, growing more credible, influential, and powerful. The transformation to this rage is not unlike the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. For decades liberals denied this legitimate media threat to their control of information and outcomes. In 2016 they finally made their feelings of supremacy public and official, going all-in with a treasonous and communist transformation of America. A brazen crime for which they were not only caught red-handed, but that ultimately proved every-single-aspect of the club—the Democrat Party, the news media, Hollywood— not merely corrupt, but conspiratorially corrupt. 

Since, and with each desperate attempt to prevent their exposure, liberals have grown more desperate and thus angrier—angrier for having to feel desperate and to behave desperately in the first place. Supremacists don’t do desperation; they do rage, which is where we find ourselves currently—enduring these fits of red-faced, vein-bulging, childlike liberal rage. 

The problem going forward is that there will be no bargaining, depression, or acceptance, because neither supremacists nor their followers would ever stoop to such inferior actions. Lying, cheating, and stealing? Treating fellow human beings like inferior garbage?

No problem.

Finding humility? Not a chance.  

The truth is liberals are enraged because they’ve been bested. Bested by Limbaugh, by Fox News, by conservative media, and moreover, by the truth—which is what always happens in the end, and yet another thing the club should’ve seen coming. 

As former house speaker, Newt Gingrich, recently said about the unprecedented FBI raid of Donald Trump’s Florida residence: “[Liberals] are, in fact, the representatives of a dying system. And as it starts to die, it grows more desperate. And what you saw last night at Mar-a-Lago was the desperation of a national machine that knows it’s on the edge of being defeated and then being eliminated. And I think that you’ll see more desperation in the weeks to come.”

And more fury.

So, relax. The rage isn’t personal. It’s just a symptom of red-ass and club closure. 

©JMW 8/2022 
All Rights Reserved 

JMWs Latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside.

Attack of the Effeminate Men

It isn’t just the women of feminism out to dispense with traditional masculinity. It’s effeminate men, too—if we can call them men. 

Upset that the Saudi-backed LIV golf event at Donald Trump’s establishment, Bedminster Golf Club in New York, was taking place so close to the World Trade Center where the 911 attack occurred, carried out mostly by Saudi nationals. Sportscaster Bob Costas didn’t take too kindly. 

For clarity, a brief situational analysis: the Saudi’s invest in a professional golf tour. They invite professional golfers to participate, many of whom join the tour. Trump is asked to host their golf event at his club, and he approves.  

All these many people involved in a new business venture and productive commerce, and is Costas mad at the Saudis? At professional golfers? No. It’s Trump who draws not just his ire, but his telling visceral disdain

“If we learned anything about Donald Trump, which it shouldn’t have taken very long to learn, is that he doesn’t care about any principle, including American democracy or any person, he cares about nothing other than his own perceived self-interests. And then there’s the aspect of grievance and revenge. He was upset because the PGA pulled out following Jan. 6 the last year. Following those events, they pulled the PGA tournament from the Bedminster course. So this is an element of grievance on his part because, as we all know, he is, after all, the most persecuted man in American history, and he’s qualified to say that because he’s a scholar of history.” 

That Trump is such a meanie. 

People can continue getting upset at the belittling remarks of these effeminate liberal males, like Costas, and NBC’s Chuck Todd, and Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook. But when you understand their motivation, well, you pity them, instead. These are guys who have spent their whole lives, particularly their childhood, getting sand kicked in their faces and being picked on—never any respect, only secondary attention from girls, if any at all. Theirs is a nightmare of humiliation and obscurity that they deeply, deeply resent … still. 

Doctrine and beliefs driving everything, the liberal cult accounts for much of these effeminate’s behavior. Liberalism is a grievance organization, drawing angry malcontents from every disgruntled and dissatisfied segment of the human experience.  

Unhappy? Bitter? Resentful? Victimized? Well, do we have the religion for you! Liberalism: where we payback the world and make everyone as equally miserable as you! Join TODAY! 

And really angry with genuinely masculine men, and with the traditions that validate them, these effeminate liberal men really thrive there. 

Hence, it isn’t just the women of feminism out to dispense with traditional masculinity. These effeminates want the same thing—boy do they want the same thing! Don’t misunderstand, I know and have known many of these unassertive effeminate types in my life who were quality, tough in their own way, dudes. They may not throw a great right-hook or be very athletic, but they were men of their word you could count on. Men of principle and integrity and courage.  

These sorts account for many of my best relationships, in fact. An A-type myself, I appreciate the personality and perspective differences. Personally, I don’t want a friendship sphere full of alpha males. It’s unhealthy, I think. It’s good to have A-type friends—iron sharpening iron, and all. However, men need that B-type presence and perspective, too, that quieter strength that these less assertive men bring to the masculinity table. And vice-versa—the B-types need the A-types, too. 

Men, real men, masculine men, are supposed to stand up for what is true and good and right. They’re supposed to be tough, not just physically and emotionally, but in spirit and resolve. These B-types in my sphere are all these things—albeit less visibly, less distinctly. Their toughness simply manifests differently, at different times and in different ways.  

One friend in particular, for example, is soft-spoken and extremely averse to confrontation. But, he’s nonetheless a tough competitor in athletic contests. Thereto, he managed to build and run a large and extremely lucrative company for decades, which demands all forms of toughness. He isn’t the guy to hurl cocky and incendiary remarks, but he ultimately aligns with things true, good, and right. The difference between men like him and these liberal effeminates—Costas, Todd, Sullivan—is they fear standing up for anything true and good and right.  

Being a real, masculine man takes stones.  

Here’s Costas, for example, knowing full well Hillary Clinton ran a treasonous collusion hoax that employed a huge cast of his fellow effeminates: Sullivan, Mook, Barrack Obama. Nothing says, I don’t care “about any principle, including American democracy or any person” and “about nothing other than [my] own perceived self-interests” any more directly and clearly than a treasonous coup. Yet, Costas can not only disparage Trump. He falsely disparages Trump.  

Keywords: character, integrity—and the courage to display both when it’s difficult and unpopular, but the right thing to do.  

This defines genuinely masculine men, and is precisely what these effeminates reject and neglect. If these effeminates are standing up for anything true, good, and right. It isn’t because it’s true, good, right. It’s because they get the attention, approval, and applause they crave, and in fact need, and have always been denied. Like, say, praising women and feminism at a National Organization of Women conference.  

Effeminates, the sleazy dudes at the bar: “Girl, you deserve so much better, to be listened to.”  

Ask them to get involved in, say, the scrum of a physical altercation. They run the other way.  

How do we know it’s true? 

Among countless other examples, the collusion hoax: knowing full well treason was committed by fellow effeminates—the quintessential example of human betrayal and low-lifedness, but disparaging Trump as the contemptable traitor and unprincipled lowlife, instead. 

This is them, these effeminates, running the other way. 

Costas couldn’t do what was true, good, and right because he would be denied the attention, approval, and applause he so desperately craves, and in fact, needs, from the cult. Like all the rest in his effeminate crew. 

This is masculinity? 

Well, it’s how these effeminates apparently define it. And why? Because the traditional definition—character, integrity, and the courage to display both when it’s difficult and unpopular, but the right thing to do—is too risky. Plus, it doesn’t provide the needed validation and ego rush.  

To effeminates, masculinity is money and prestige and power. Look at me; I’m a media/political success! Know me! Love me! Respect me!—they say twirling in circle, arms spread wide, huge smile.  

And it’s sad to say but, the money, prestige, and power do indeed go a long way toward getting both the notoriety they have been denied their whole lives, and the attention and affections of women they would not otherwise entertain.  

So, instead of getting mad at the remarks of these effeminates, one need only understand who they are characteristically. Bob Costas is an effeminate male; that’s what and who he is. It isn’t a cutting remark or condescension. It’s just, true. He isn’t flamboyant and a gay sounding effeminate who extends his pinking at tea time. He’s just isn’t the traditional definition of masculinity. And like the rest, it bothers him. Can you imagine him playing The Outlaw Josey Wales on film? 

Him a shadowy figure leaning against the cantina wall: “Dyin’ aint much of a livin’, boy.” 

You can imagine it, alright. And justifiably so, you’re chuckling.  

This sort of masculinity simply isn’t in the effeminate’s characteristic purview. 

And that’s okay with everyone … but them. 

When is Costas or any one of his fellow effeminates casting aspersions and accusations at Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or an entire cast of coup conspirators? When are they challenging feminism and taking up for masculinity?  

They do neither. And why not?  

One, they’re gutless effeminates who never stand up for what is true, good, and right—like real men do, both A- and B-types. Two, they’re liberals. Acolytes beholden to the liberal orthodoxy and religion, which means they are obligated to live a lie. For instance, one that deems Trump a greater threat to democracy than actual coup conspirators. And most importantly, three, they do neither because, selfishly, and in service to the religion, they want to neuter masculine men and redefine masculinity with their characteristics.  

It’s payback for all the sand rinsed from their eyes and brushed from their hair. Restitution for all the girls that ignored them and dates they didn’t get. Penance for the focus, attention, and respect they so craved and deserved all those miserable years, but was denied them. Neutering masculine men is the way to get revenge. A way to level the playing field, and to get that desperately needed attention, approval, and applause.  

And what are these new masculinity characteristics?  

Emotional incontinency. Anxiety. Passivity. Senselessness. Dishonesty. Cowardice. Gender subordination. And on the physical side: exquisitely manicured facial hair. Skinny jeans. Better butts and bellies via shaping apparel. Skin treatments for those, problem areas …  

I’m sorry but, are we still talking about the male gender?  

No offense to women, by the way. They’re supposed to be effeminate, and we real, masculine men love it. And the fact is, the traditional masculine brotherhood would gladly take most of them as replacements. 

Understand, however, it’s a “Drama-free” club, ladies. Just so we’re clear. 

Otherwise, Welcome! 

The point is simple: not only are these Costa-styled effeminates not good men. They aren’t good human beings. Masculine men, types A and B, do the hard stuff, and these effeminates don’t—that’s their calling card. Is it a good, and truthful, and right thing to disparage Trump after you and your fellow effeminates sold a Russian collusion scam to the world?  

No, it’s not. And, it’s pretty pathetic.  

Come to think of it, calling them “effeminates” seems a disservice to women. 

So, I’m open to suggestions … 

©JMW 8/2022 
All Rights Reserved 

JMWs latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside.

Wanted: Justice, and A Cult Vaccine

Imagine you had an expensive Picasso hanging under a warming display sconce that, for years, you were giddy to see every time you unlocked and entered the front door of your home. There it is, can’t miss it. You grin delightedly each time. 

Now imagine you opened the door one evening and, looking to the wall, the painting was missing—the display light warming only the faint, dusty outline of a former frame. 

The shock should be the same when two iconic political brands go missing for six years. 

“If you’re going to be indicted, you keep your mouth shut,” said attorney and former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, about criminal cases. We should add to his remark, “… keep your mouth shut, and disappear.” 

No interviews. 
No public appearances. 
No horsing around and ass-grabbing. 
Be invisible. Stay invisible. 

Being indicted is serious business. Thus, the rules—that only fools break. This sage advice in mind, a question: where have Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton been? Sure, they pop their heads up on occasion in controlled settings—Twitter, in friendly interviews with fellow news media conspirators, where they aren’t exposed to questions—just to say, See? Here we are; we’re not hiding in guilt.  

Another question: all the extraordinary political phenomena that have occurred in the last six years—Trump, rigged elections, Russian collusion, Russia-Ukraine, impeachments, China, bioweapons, economic shutdown, masking protocols, voting fraud, national turmoil—and these two internationally known political icons have been reduced to, like Wilson, popping their heads-up from behind the hedges? 

See? Here we are; we’re not hiding in guilt. 

Where is the daily stage lighting and soaring speeches? 
Where is the world travel? The routine photo-ops in impoverished locations, and with international dignitaries and celebrities? 

These world-renowned political figures always with something to say and a fawning mainstream news agency to help them say it. Yet they’ve been reduced to clandestine iPhone grabs of incognito walks on the beach in hats and sunglasses, and inspecting the construction of their new Hawaiian mansion? 

No more feminism and racism conferences?  
No more lectures about “deplorables” and the “oceans ceasing to rise?”   

How could people who’d make such arrogant remarks ever stay away from the public stage and out of the public eye? How could they be reduced to whack-o-mole status, popping their heads up from behind the hedges periodically? 

This is Obama, fer chrissake! “The One!” The first “Black One!”  
And Hillary, the “smartest woman in the world,” co-founder of the “Clinton Machine!”  

These two international brands aren’t making themselves front and center in American politics? Aren’t soaking up the international media oxygen, as they have for decades?  

Yet another question: why am I, a writer of zero distinction, making this point and asking these questions? All that “legacy” news media out there. All those “brilliant,” Pulitzer Prize winning journalists in the nation’s leading news institutions, all that super-galactic journalistic brainpower. Yet, it’s me recognizing that two internationally known, iconic, political brands are in hiding and exploring the reason why? 

Employing a little arrogance of my own, perhaps the Pulitzer board should consider my work. Then again, if they are giving awards to these people, is a Pulitzer on my credenza really to be all that impressive? 

Thanks, but I think I’ll stick with the 5X7 of my beautiful wife and daughter.  

Now there’s a couple of impressive achievements! 

Remember how inspired and dogged all those premiere journalists were, and still are, toward the utter destruction of Donald Trump? The daily White House Press Room contentiousness. The ceaseless accusations. The nightly lies and distortion and character assault.  

Where are they now? On this issue?  

Obama and Clinton are in hiding, and its an obscure, unsung writer informing the public. 

The entire industry, save Fox News, not only peddling the Russian collusion hoax, but actual conspirators themselves. What purpose does the industry serve? Do we really need them? It is patently obvious Fox News is the only agency doing real news work anymore—and of course, me. Take Hunter Biden, for example.  

The wayward youngest son is under grand jury investigation for tax fraud, and who knows what else. There are his infamous laptops, too, with lurid videos drip-drip-dripping out to the public for the last two years, along with damning evidence of financial crimes involving his father, the “president” of the United States. There are text messages of the crimes. There are corroborating confessions from business associate, Tony Bobulinski. There are even books written about the laptops by people who have reviewed their content. 

There’s all this verified, juiciest of juicy news involving sex and drug scandal and historic political crimes, things over which the news media normally salivates and can’t wait to expose and publicize. Yet, Fox news is the only news agency reporting on the incontrovertible “Biden crime spree.” And when are the other news agencies going to get involved and do their jobs? When the Biden clan is in federal court facing the music? 

Well, if we’re using John Durham’s Russian collusion case as a guide, wherein Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook recently testified the whole thing was a Clinton hoax. We can be confident the liberal news media is going to continue what it’s doing: nothing.  

“Mr. Biden, how do you plea?”—a videoed query and response only to be seen on Fox News. 

Clear for all to see, here is an entire news media ignoring a story lethal to a president, a political party, a political ideology, and most critically, the liberal establishment. Further, two international political icons have virtually disappeared from public view for six years and counting, and they are ignoring that story, too.  

Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Page, Strozk, McCabe, Halper, Mifsud, the entire cast of now known treasonous hoax conspirators—have they all died? Is this the reason the news media can’t find and interview them over the Mook revelations? The reason Obama and Clinton can’t be found and interviewed? 

Have they passed, too?  

Surely there’d have been reporting about that—the first black president and the “smartest woman in the world,” and all. The memorial services in the Capitol Rotunda. The parades and half-masted flags. Did we miss all that?  

Let’s do a quick internet search … 

No. Just Wally Cleaver—dead before he was dead, interestingly. Amazingly, data reveals every news agency reported that news, if prematurely. 

So. All the conspirators alive and available, it appears as though people are covering for other people. Like, say, what would be the case had a conspiratorial coup attempt occurred. 

How to make sense of all of this liberal hiding and negligence … 

Let’s keep this simple. Most things are simple, actually; it’s just certain issues get unnecessary crap intentionally mounded atop to bury the truth—truth which might expose, say, a treasonous coup, for example. 

Why are Clinton, Obama, and the coup conspirators hiding?  
Why is the news media derelict in its duties regarding the coup conspirators’ crimes? 

Author Lee Smith: 

“Obama’s FBI had run an espionage operation against [Donald Trump’s] presidential campaign, which [Obama’s] CIA, FBI, and national intelligence directors rolled into a coup … Without the news media’s absolute commitment to the anti-Trump plot, the coup would never have stood a chance.”* 

And note: it was Hillary Clinton’s “espionage operation.” 

And in the larger picture, a liberal establishment coup. 

Senator Bernie Sanders was cheated the first time, in the 2016 democrat primary, because it was Clinton’s turn to be president, and because Obama had chosen her to complete his communist “transformation” project of the United States. Sanders was cheated the second time, in 2020, because Obama and Clinton needed a fellow conspirator, Joe Biden, in the White House to manage the Durham problem, and the legal fallout from their treasonous coup attempt. 

That is why the conspirators are all hiding.  
Conspirators themselves, that is why the news media is derelict in their journalistic duties. 

Smith again: 

“‘A successful coup,’ says Edward Luttwak, the author of Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, ‘requires the conspirators to take over a small but sufficient part of the government apparatus. For instance, if the country has a million soldiers but they are on remote fronts, a garrison of three thousand men in the capital can make and unmake governments.’”  

“Imagine that the top military brass is plotting the overthrow the commander in chief. Now move them out to the Pentagon and drop them into the same high-level posts—number ones, their deputies, deputy assistants, and so on—at the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation. It would be a bloodless uprising, not a military putsch. They’d encircle the White House not with tanks but with paper: memos, letters, and legal documents as well as falsified reports, such as the Steel Dossier. Also news stories. 

“The media, as Luttwak wrote in his 1968 book, are central to the success of any coup: ‘Control over the mass media emanating from the political center will still be our most important weapon in establishing our authority after the coup.’”

As Tin Cup said of reptilian David Simms in the beer garden: “I swear to God, Doc, this man is not who you think he is.” 

Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Robby Mook, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Sally Yates, James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, Rodney Joffe, Igor Danchenko, the entire conspiratorial cast. And most importantly, the news media—save Fox News. These people aren’t defenders of democracy wielding the light of truth and committed to justice. 

They’re treasonous criminals, one and all. People with whom any one of society’s low-life offenders could share a cell—resumé being the only difference. 

And incidentally, just how does one stop criminals who control all the levers of power and communication, and ultimately the dispensation of justice?  

Well, tough as it may sound, it begins with extracting millions of liberal voters from the liberal cult, and getting them to see who their political gods really are: liars and common criminals.  

If only there were an elixir to break the religious spell. Or perhaps a mandatory vaccine and perpetual boosters. Now there’s a surefire delivery mechanism! 

International political icons don’t hide for six years, especially narcissistic ones.  

News media’s that treasure exclusives and ratings supremacy don’t ignore salacious, criminal, and historic news stories.  

And binding it all together, criminals don’t confess their crimes. 

Per legal advice, they keep their mouths shut and, wisely, remain unseen. 

*The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History by Lee Smith 

All Rights Reserved 

JMWs latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside.