Meet the New Dem Heart Throb

Yesterday Rush Limbaugh mentioned that another occupant of the clown car they call the Democrat presidential primary had shocked his fellow Democrats.

He was talking about Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He managed to raise $7 million, which is a shocking number for a newbie. It’s right up there with their beloved Beto. But this guy’s young, gay and has a husband. You can imagine how the virtue signaling youths’ hearts skip a beat.

I was ready to dismiss his cause as hopeless until I ran across a facebook posting from a young man in his upper 30s that I know. He was delighted with Buttigieg; he rejoiced that there was someone under 70 to vote for on the Dem side. He was so impressed he donated money for the first time and promised to volunteer for the guy.

I wondered if this satisfied some need for firsts. He had voted for the first black president, the first woman and now the prospect of a gay guy was just overwhelmingly self satisfying.

But get a load of who Buttigieg is.

According to the Washington Examiner, Buttigieg’s dad was a Marxist. Yep, a full believing Communist who “spoke fondly of the Communist Manifesto and dedicated a significant portion of his academic career to the work of Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci, an associate of Vladimir Lenin.”

In other words, Mayor Pete is a red diaper baby. Awash with Marxist thought throughout his childhood, Pete probably doesn’t fall far from the family tree.

Joseph Buttigieg, who died in January at the age of 71, immigrated to the U.S. in the 1970s from Malta and in 1980 joined the University of Notre Dame faculty, where he taught modern European literature and literary theory…
He was an adviser to Rethinking Marxism, an academic journal that published articles “that seek to discuss, elaborate, and/or extend Marxian theory,” and a member of the editorial collective of Boundary 2, a journal of postmodern theory, literature, and culture.

“Equity, environmental consciousness, and racial justice are surely some of the ingredients of a healthy Marxism. Indeed, Marxism’s greatest appeal — undiminished by the collapse of Communist edifices — is the imbalances produced by other sociopolitical governing structures,” Buttigieg wrote.

Paul Kengor, a professor at Grove City College and an expert in communism and progressivism, said Buttigieg was among a group of leftist professors who focused on injecting Marxism into the wider culture.

“They’re part of a wider international community of Marxist theorists and academicians with a particular devotion to the writings of the late Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, who died over 80 years ago. Gramsci was all about applying Marxist theory to culture and cultural institutions — what is often referred to as a ‘long march through the institutions,’ such as film, media, and especially education,” Kengor told the Washington Examiner.

Pete Buttigieg, an only child, shared a close relationship with his father. In his memoir Shortest Way Home, Pete called his dad a “man of the left, no easy thing on a campus like Notre Dame’s in the 1980s.”

Pete wrote that his dad was supportive when he came out as gay. He and his husband bought a house in South Bend around the corner from his parents, which gave the couple “a good support network despite our work and travel schedules” when they decided to get a dog.

Buttigieg fits in with the other candidates like Sanders, Warren and Beto. They also love Marxism and Socialism.

It is distressing to think that any young people could endorse people who want to subvert our Constitution and turn this country into something very different than the Founders envisioned and that Americans have fought so hard to protect for centuries.

It’s a betrayal of the country in the most profound ways. They would deny it, but there is no denying the evil of Marxism, Communism and socialism. Just look at the millions killed by its implementation.

Don’t look for that to come up with youth. They don’t even know what it is or what happened.

WaPo Laughs at EMPs

I was heartened to read last week that finally an elected official has recognized the grave danger of EMPs and taken action to protect our nation.

An Electromagnetic Pulse from a hostile player could knock out power to Americans and it would take a long time to restore it. It’s a method that fries all electronics. You could be driving a car and an EMP attack hit and the car would stop and be irreparable. Similarly, if you were in a plane, it would fall from the sky. People would be left without heat or cooling, refrigeration, lights, etc. Hospitals would not be able to operate. And the repairs to the electrical grid could not be done quickly. In fact, many of the parts would have to be specially made in a process that could take years.

What this means is that many of us would die. Estimates suggest 90%. It would take us back to the 1800s. Most of us are not prepared to deal with life that way.

President Trump has taken action. He issued an executive order demanding the government “foster sustainable, efficient, and cost-effective approaches to improving the Nation’s resilience to the effects of EMPs.”

The order states that the government “shall engage in risk-informed planning, prioritize research and development (R&D) to address the needs of critical infrastructure stakeholders, and, for adversarial threats, consult Intelligence Community assessments.”

The Blaze says,

It directs that the private sector be involved in modernization, including the privately owned electrical grids overseen by utilities, that the government create protocols for providing warning of natural or man-made surges, and come up with department by department assessments.

It further orders that in one year, the assessments of threat and vulnerability be prepared. In short, it directs both research and assessment of the potential hazards.

But,

As with any action taken by President Trump, the Washington Post immediately had an opinion article masquerading as a science report that sniffed at the President’s rube-level concern over the silly notion that the United States protect its infrastructure and assets.

“Should you worry?” the headline asks. “Nah,” answers the subheading.

The article, labeled as an “analysis” piece, begins with pointing out that the EMP is part of the plot in a James Bond movie. “President Trump believes the danger of an EMP is not just a Hollywood plot device,” it reads. It goes on to discuss the complications and deterrents against a military use of an EMP against the United States, including that it would involve a potential nuclear retaliation from the United States.

The article addresses the idea of a terrorist EMP attack by saying that most governments have “reasons not to give nuclear weapons to terrorists,” and that, if a terrorist had a nuclear weapon, would they really use it though?

Oddly, it goes on to say that there is the real threat of electromagnetic disruption from nature. They do not point out that the executive order expressly lists the danger of “naturally occurring” pulses among the rationale for hardening and modernizing the infrastructure. It conceded that working to “better understand” the hazards involved, which again is expressly the purpose of the order, is probably worth pursuing.

“Will Trump’s executive order help accomplish this?” they ask. “Perhaps,” they answer themselves.

“But the burden of proof remains on the administration to demonstrate whether taxpayer dollars invested in resilience are worth taking away from other national policy priorities,” they conclude. It doesn’t list what the other “policy priorities” are but, judging by the tone and content of the article, one can safely assume those other objectives are something straight off the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wishlist.

This is the same thinking that didn’t foresee 9/11, the immigration problem or Pearl Harbor.

I would much prefer tax dollars be spent on hardening our grid than on fairytale Green New Deal environmentalism. There is a clear danger here no matter what the WaPo says.

Rally Size Enormous

If you listen to MSM nonsense, you would believe that most of the nation despises President Trump. Dems are eying Michigan and Wisconsin for next year’s election. They want those blue areas back.

But looking at the size of the crowd for Trump’s rally last night, they might have a tough time:

Trump campaign maestro Brad Parscale tweeted, “Ready to rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan! Over 100k RSVPs with 14K indoors and nearly 20k in the streets. @realDonaldTrump continues to host the biggest rallies in history!”
An attendee tweeted, “Parked at Van Andel, but had to walk 6 blocks away to get to the end of the line for general admission. Should have had a drone cam do a fly over!”
Here’s a photo of the crowd outside

Doesn’t look like average Americans hate President Trump at all in this formerly Democrat stronghold.

How to Push Back

We’ve all been there. A loudmouth liberal starts attacking Republicans, conservatives and President Trump, sometimes punching a finger into your chest as he/she pontificates.

Sometimes we’re at a loss, not expecting confrontation and not welcoming it either.

On those occasions when you are cornered and dragged into an argument by a liberal/progressive/democrat, don’t forget the ammunition you need to punch back.

Politely, of course, although I find most of these incidents come unprovoked by conservatives. Now that the Mueller report has been a flop for them, angry Dems may feel like lashing out, so beware. Libs rage that Trump lies, Trump was guilty, Trump is a racist, etc.

Jack Hellner at American Thinker gives a good list of talking points to hit back:

Obama and others continually lied to the public, through the media, to get Obamacare passed — and Trump is unfit?
Obama used the IRS to stifle the free speech and freedom of association rights of political opponents — and Trump is unfit?
Obama and his Justice Department, EPA and CFPB shook down corporations and set up slush funds for political purposes and supporters.
Obama and Hillary left people to die in Benghazi while concocting a lie that they told to the public and the families of those who died.
Obama dictatorially and unconstitutionally implemented DACA when he couldn’t get it through Congress.
Obama sent Ben Rhodes and others out to the media with lies to get the Iran deal done.
Obama dictatorially stooped the Justice Department from continuing an investigation into drug running by terrorists to appease Iran.
Obama unconstitutionally stole taxpayer funds from other sources to cover up shortfalls in Obamacare.
Obama abused his power tremendously to protect Hillary, her aides and others, including himself, from prosecution while targeting Trump with massive taxpayer resources.

I’ll add that there is the Fast and Furious gun running that ended in the death of agent Brian Terry.
Then there’s the photo of illegal immigrant kids in cages – that was from 2014 in the Obama administration, yet Trump gets the blame for policies Obama enforced.
Remember his overheard comment to Putin’s underling to tell “Vlad” he’d have more freedom to work with him after the 2012 election?
How about Obama’s acknowledging that there was a crisis on our border with illegal immigrants?
Remember, too, how Obama had a different opinion of abortion and gay marriage during the 2008 campaign, but flipped easily to the other side once he was president. Wasn’t that a lie?
Hellner also reminds us that the media is unfit, too:

Repeated the continuous lies about Russian collusion and obstruction with no evidence, especially the ones at CNN, WP, NYT, NBC and MSNBC.
Set out to destroy Judge Kavanaugh with no evidence.
Ginned up racial hate against Trump, to this day, for his comments in Charlottesville, VA that were clearly talking about the statue issue.
Ginned up racial hate using White Christian boys. It is truly a shame how many people the media is willing to destroy suing fake news.
Ginned up racial hate with a fake hate crime hoax in Chicago.
Ginned up racial hate with the fake hands up don’t shoot narrative.
Ginned up racial hate against Trump for saying exactly the same things Obama and others said about illegal aliens and supporting a wall that Democrats previously supported.
Cheered as Mueller and his cabal set out to destroy people surrounding Trump even when there was never any evidence of collusion.

Then at the American Spectator, George Parry asks these questions about the Mueller probe:

The logical starting point of any Trump-Russia collusion investigation would be the Steele dossier. So, did Team Mueller, in or out of the grand jury, investigate or interrogate Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, or the Clinton campaign and DNC operatives who paid for the dossier?

Did the investigation delve into the FBI and Department of Justice’s use of the dossier to obtain FISA warrants to intercept the communications of Trump campaign associate Carter Page? Did they investigate those who drafted, verified, and submitted the misleading and false-by-omission FISA applications?

Did they investigate or question former FBI Special Agent and Team Mueller staffer Peter Strzok, former FBI lawyer and Team Mueller staffer Lisa Page, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, or other government officials to determine if they or anyone else participated in an effort to spy on the Trump campaign or to overthrow the Trump presidency?

Cohen Misleads

Our representative to Congress, Steve Cohen, appeared on MSNBC yesterday to comment on Attorney General William Barr’s summation of Mueller’s report.

Once again he proved what an embarrassment he is to our city.

Breitbart reports that “Cohen said, ‘First Mueller was not making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. Those are very interesting words. And then as you well said, he did not draw a conclusion one way or the other on obstruction. It does not draw that conclusion. It also does not exonerate the president.’”

Right off the bat he’s misleading. Mueller was special counsel; he wasn’t appointed chief prosecutor. As such, it is not his job to exonerate anyone. Cohen knows this. He’s being disingenuous.

Then Cohen continued, “They said there was no collusion, but there was obstruction. That’s important. The people’s House needs to know and it the people’s House needs to have the complete report so that we can have hearings on this issue and pass laws to protect the American public.”

Appears he’s contradicting what he just said – “he did not draw a conclusion one way or the other on obstruction.” Now there “was obstruction”?

Barr, who is the final arbiter on obstruction as AG, denies that it exists. A rational person asks how there could be obstruction when the process was never stopped or inhibited by President Trump. Or how there could be obstruction of a non crime?

Also, the complete report should not be made public. Cohen knows this, too. Anyone who was called to a Grand Jury or investigated was questioned under the promise of secrecy and discretion. To violate that would be illegal.

And what laws would he pass to protect the American people in this instance? He sure isn’t interested in protecting the people from illegal immigration or radical Islamic terrorism.

Cohen doesn’t stop. He concludes that Barr “was appointed by Donald Trump after he decided Jeff Sessions wasn’t his Roy Cohn; he wasn’t his ace attorney looking out for him, not for the country, not for justice. Bill Barr was put in there for a reason. I don’t doubt he went to a group like the Federalist Society that picked his judges and said, ‘find me my Roy Cohn.’ For him to make that statement, Mueller wasn’t part of it. Mueller wasn’t part of that decision that says we’re not coming to a conclusion of obstruction, that is what Mueller said. They come to the conclusion, nothing there. Well, Barr is there because he’s appointed by Trump, he’s not elected by the people, and you can put very little credence in what he’s saying. He is a Trump appointee put in to protect Trump and why they put him in. There’s just too much out there for the American public to let this go. We need all the facts. There needs to be transparency. There needs to be a release of the entire document.”

Cohen can’t resist referring to Roy Cohn, who was counsel to Joe McCarthy during the hearings on Communists in the U.S. Cohn did do some work for Trump; does that mean guilt by association? The Left loves to bring up Cohn as a big bugaboo. Then Cohen tries to smear the Federalist Society, which has become another bugarbear for the Left, even though it consists of highly honorable intellectuals.

Cohen likes to savage Barr. Barr became confirmed by the Senate in a completely legal appointment. No, the AG is not elected by the people. Do Dems want to change that, too?

When a Democrat talks about transparency, it’s always political. It’s a one way mirror as we all know.

Maybe he’ll get his wish on the transparency. Trump could release all the documents he has and that would be devastating for the Dems.

Be careful what you wish for, Cohen.

Two Trump Loyalists Tee Off

A very interesting and fun article about loyalty and Trump below.

It has liberal snark sprinkled throughout plus a few inaccuracies – imagine that!

For one, Trump is an avid reader. He is said to read several newspapers cover to cover daily. If he read book after book, they’d accuse him of not paying attention to being president, wouldn’t they?

As for tweets, I can’t imagine President Trump would allow others to write them for him. Nor do I think his tweeting is a mistake. The media would love nothing better than to shut him up. As for Romney needing 22 people’s approval before he tweets – that tells you right there why he lost.

Rick Reilly is a sportswriter with work in Sports Illustrated and ESPN. He is also a screenwriter and the author, most recently, of Commander-in-Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump, from which this is excerpted.

President Donald Trump’s two most loyal employees aren’t politicians or fixers or publicity flacks. They’re caddies.

He has a regular outdoor caddy—a 60-something ex-Marine named A.J.—who loops for him faithfully at Trump National Golf Club Washington in Northern Virginia.

And then he has a kind of indoor caddy—Dan Scavino, Trump’s social media director, and one of the very few staffers who’s remained in Trump’s orbit from the start of the campaign—who actually met Trump caddying for him when he was a teenager.

In a way, A.J. and Scavino are the same guy. They’re both mostly unknown, yet they know all the president’s secrets. Both do the same job, and it’s a fairly simple one: They give their man the right club to take shots with. These two work for a human flamethrower and yet somehow haven’t been torched. Cabinet members, attorneys general, chiefs of staff come and go like the Wendy’s drive-thru and yet they stay employed.

What do A.J. and Scavino know about keeping the most powerful man in the world happy that others don’t?

Take A.J. first.

A.J. (who asked that I not use his last name in my book) is so loyal that if someone criticizes Trump, he’ll fight him—and has. One day, when the 2017 Senior PGA Championship was being held at Trump Washington, he overhead one of the Tour pro’s caddies—Brian “Sully” Sullivan—dissing Trump.

“He was running his mouth, sir,” says A.J., who calls everybody “sir” or “ma’am.” “Yellin’ about Mr. Trump. He was sayin’ to somebody, ‘Don’t tell me how I have to feel about him! I hate that motherf—–!’”

A.J. says he came up on Sully from behind and put him in a full military chokehold, yelling, “Now, you listen to me, f—–! You’re not gonna come to Mr. Trump’s course and eat Mr. Trump’s food and then use the word ‘hate’ about my president. I won’t have it, you got me?”

That’s not quite the way the story is told by Sullivan, who caddies for Senior Tour player Joe Durant, but his memory is a little fuzzy. “It’s possible I was hungover,” Sullivan recalls. “I don’t like D.C. anyway and I sure as hell didn’t want to be on a Trump course. Some guys started talking about Trump. I mentioned that I can’t stand the son of a b—-. I said he was the biggest jerk in the world. A.J. got all worked up and said, ‘That man pays my rent. He puts food on my table!’ I said if he has to take money from that horse’s ass, then he ought to find a different loop. He kind of just grumbled off. Of course, as luck would have it, he and I got paired for the first two days. We buried the hatchet.”

Tensions were high because, for seniors, it was a big tournament and Trump’s name was attached to it. There were protesters by the entrance every day that week, and A.J. always made sure to drive his car right by them. “There’d be a bunch a women out front with all their stupid signs, sir. So I go real slow by ’em, see, hit the window button—zzzzzzttt—toss ’em the bird and I yell, ‘F— you!’ They’d start yelling at me and I’m like—zzzztttt—right back up. And I laughed, sir.”

A.J. sticks with Trump no matter how much it costs him. “I used to caddy for a lot of the ladies here, sir,” he says, meaning the female members of the club. “But once Mr. Trump won the election, that all ended. Now I hardly do it at all, sir. I guess they don’t like him. I’m the president’s caddy and they’re not gonna ask for me, sir. So that’s it.”

One time, after a bad drive, Trump slammed his driver back in his bag, as guys will do, and wasn’t really watching what he was doing, and the driver ricocheted back and hit Trump in the head. “A.J.?” Trump asked, pissed. “Did you just hit me in the head with my own driver?”

“Sir, Mr. Trump, why would I do that?” A.J. said. “You’re my president!”

There are more than a few members at Trump Washington who’d love to hit Trump in the head. A valet told me, “We had a bunch of them quit when he won.” Most of the anti-Trump crowd stayed, but they resist in their own small ways.

Every time one member sees A.J., he says, “Is this the day, A.J.? Is this the day?”

“Is this the day for what, sir?”

“Is this the day you take him out for me?”

“This one time, we’re playing through, sir, like we do and, you know, usually the Secret Service has the people standing on the side in plenty of time for us. But this one guy, sir, young guy by the name of Jonathan Wallace, he was taking his sweet time getting out of the way. He was just moseying along, sir, doing it on purpose. Then he gives it one of these”—A.J. flips the bird— “right to Mr. Trump. Sir, that really made me mad. Mr. Trump just asked me who it was. I told him. He said, ‘Let’s go say hello.’ Not me, sir. I went the other way. But Mr. Trump went over there and talked to him. Right away, this Wallace guy caved, sir. He caved.” (I couldn’t get Jonathan Wallace to call me back to hear his side of it.)

None of this used to be A.J.’s life. His Trump days used to be filled with pro athletes or businessmen. Now it’s congressmen and Fox hosts. Among his favorite these days is South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican. “I love hearing that accent of his, sir. Mr. Trump plays pretty good with him. One time, he taught Mr. Trump a game called ‘Hogan.’” This was in 2017. “A Hogan is when you hit the fairway and the green and then two-putt. You do that, you get one Hogan point. So we played it, and, bam, Mr. Trump gets a Hogan on the first hole. And he just keeps going. Mr. Trump got 11 Hogans, sir! Shot 73 that day, I kid you not, sir. He made about four 15‑ to 20‑foot putts on the back and shot 73. Coulda been even lower.”

A 1-over-par 73 on a “wet and windy day” as Graham described it, for a 72‑year-old overweight man? That’s unbelievable. How unbelievable? Well, at that same Senior PGA Championship, at the same course, from the same blue tees, professional golfer Tom Watson never shot better than 74. Tom Kite put up a 75 and an 80. Corey Pavin had an 82. Among them, those three men have won nine majors.

When asked by a reporter how many gimmes there were in that 73, Graham allowed that they didn’t really putt out that often and that “the president is better at receiving than giving.” So, in other words, that 73 had more sugar in it than a family pack of Butterfingers. Now why would Graham tell the truth about Trump’s scorekeeping skills? Perhaps because of the vitriol Trump tweeted about him during the 2016 campaign, calling him “nasty” and “so easy to beat” and a man with “no honor.”

Now, though, Graham is No. 1 on Trump’s golf speed dial.

Graham remembers legendary Republican Sen. John McCain asking him why he kept playing golf with someone like Trump. “I told him, ‘I hope you understand. … The best place to talk to him is in his world.’”

A.J. had Trump and Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker in his world one day—along with no less than former NFL quarterback Peyton Manning—but it didn’t seem to grease any wheels for his boss in Congress. Not long afterward, Corker said Trump needed “adult day care.”

A.J. has no time for another Republican senator, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, whom he calls “a real chooch.”

A chooch?

“Yeah, I don’t know how to translate it, sir. A chooch. He treated me like a peon. Never even tried to fix a ball mark. Treated me like dirt, sir. He’s a rich guy who thinks he’s above everybody. A real chooch, sir.” (Paul didn’t return calls.)

Paul didn’t sound like he had that much fun playing with Trump and A.J., either. When asked who won the golf match, Paul told reporters after the game, “The president never loses, didn’t you know?”

In my 18 holes with A.J., he didn’t say a single negative thing about Trump. He didn’t even say a neutral thing about Trump.

To hear A.J. tell it, Trump has Einstein’s brain, Lincoln’s wit and Nightingale’s heart. A.J. is smart that way. A loyal caddy can go a long, long way with Donald Trump.

Take Dan Scavino.

Scavino was a 16‑year-old summer caddy when he got Trump’s bag one day in 1990 at Briar Hall Golf and Country Club in New York, which was to become Trump Westchester. “I’ll never forget the day his limo first pulled up,” Scavino told Westchester Magazine in 2012. “I was star-struck. I remember his first gratuity. It was two bills—two $100 dollar bills. I said, ‘I am never spending this money.’ I still have both bills.”

The two hit it off. Trump told him, “You’re gonna work for me one day.” Scavino graduated from State University of New York, Plattsburgh, in 1998 and went to work for Coca-Cola, but Trump brought him back soon enough to be the assistant general manager at Westchester. Then Scavino became executive vice president. When Trump decided to run for president, Scavino asked if he could be part of the campaign. Trump made him social media director.

A billionaire and a caddy is a friendship that could only be made in golf, where kings can take orders from cobblers and lifetime allegiances are sealed over 6-irons. It was the perfect match. Scavino is Trump’s Mini-Me. They both speak fluent golf. Both love stirring up liberals. Both are often very short on details and understanding, but long on Atomic Pile Driver slams and face-first personal takedowns.

“They share thumbs,” former campaign adviser Barry Bennett says. “They complete each other’s tweets.” Neither is well read nor a particularly good speller. Doesn’t matter. As a two-man Twitter team, they shout from the rooftops anyway. They find a phrase—“fake news” or “enemy of the people” or “Crooked Hillary”—and repeat it so many times, people start to accept it.

When Scavino took over Trump’s feed in 2016, Trump’s tweets became even more bombastic, ultraopinionated, and, often, a par 5 over the line. They became longer and more punctuated with exclamation points. Former White House communications czar Hope Hicks called Scavino “the conductor of the Trump Train.” One day, in early July 2016, the train jumped the tracks. Trump tweeted out an image of Hillary Clinton, with a Star of David, against a background of money and the line “Most corrupt candidate ever!” It was a Scavino special, cobbled together with cut-and-paste images from the internet and no thought of maybe asking somebody, “Hey, is this too much?”

Within seconds, Trump was blasted as anti-Semitic. Scavino had to issue a statement taking responsibility. He tweeted:

The social media graphic used this weekend was not created by the campaign. It was lifted from an Anti-Hillary Twitter user. The sheriff’s badge, which is available under Microsoft shapes, fit the theme of corrupt Hillary and that is why I selected it.

Except it wasn’t a sheriff’s badge; it was a Jewish star. (It was probably a mistake on Scavino’s part, since his wife is Jewish.)

The more Scavino pumped up Trump’s tweets, the more it sounded like the Twitter feed of somebody else—Scavino. For instance, on March 2, 2016, Scavino tweeted on his own account:

@MittRomney, You will not stop the #TrumpTrain You look like a complete LOSER. Very DESPERATE attempt. #Fail

Hmmm. That’s got a certain ring to it. Another time, just days before the election, Scavino tweeted, again on his own account:

NBC news is #FakeNews and more dishonest than even CNN. They are a disgrace to good reporting. No wonder their news ratings are way down!

A minute later, the same message, word for word, was posted on Trump’s account as his original tweet. Scavino hastily deleted his, but in a world of screenshots, it was too late.

Robert Draper, of the New York Times Magazine, conducted an exhaustive study of Trump’s tweets and estimated that Scavino was “responsible for—at least as a ‘co‑conspirator’”—about half of Trump’s 37,000 tweets. The late-night and early-morning tweets seem to be 100 percent Trump, but the daytime stuff has the patina of Scavino.

Whichever it is, neither of them particularly knows what they’re doing. Scavino may have violated the Hatch Act by tweeting support for a candidate. Trump and Scavino got dragged to federal district court for blocking some followers, which, some argue, is unconstitutional for an American president.

Still, he’s put Trump’s Twitter rants on a kind of steroid regimen. Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly accused Scavino of rabble-rousing against her: “The vast majority of Donald Trump supporters are not at all this way,” Kelly told an audience in Washington in late 2016. “It’s that far corner of the internet that really enjoys nastiness and threats and unfortunately there is a man who works for Donald Trump whose job it is to stir these people up and that man needs to stop doing that. His name is Dan Scavino.”

But just think of it: Trump’s Twitter feed is the most powerful pulpit on the globe, and Trump’s former golf caddy has his hands on it, daily. It’s full-throated Trumpness, even Trumpier than Trump, sent without censure or concern and teeming with what former President George H.W. Bush called Trump’s “casual cruelty.” It’s a flamethrower that sometimes winds up setting the Oval Office curtains on fire. During his 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney had 22 people approve each tweet before it went out. During the day, Trump has two—himself and his caddy. At night, just one. That’s not going to change.

In 2016, CNN asked Scavino if there was anything Trump could do or say that would make him leave Trump’s side. He answered with an unequivocal “no.”

Scavino refused my requests to interview him, but we know he’s a Catholic who once kissed Pope John Paul II’s ring. He was about 40 when Trump was elected. Scavino’s wife, Jennifer, became sick with Lyme disease, and the couple says they spent so much money trying to get her well, they went bankrupt in 2015. Some people say this is why they got divorced after 18 years. “Dan was a great husband, though,” says Ian Gillule, who worked with him at Westchester. “He’s very gregarious, a big personality, a people pleaser and very political.” Also, apparently, not a guy who will ask his billionaire boss for a loan.

What’s A.J. and Scavino’s secret? It might be the Caddy Code: Show Up, Keep Up, Shut Up. It only takes one bad read or one bad club to get fired as a caddy, but A.J. has been Trump’s loop for years now. Scavino has survived Trump’s well-oiled guillotine and remains one of the few staffers who’ve lasted since the beginning.

A president who trusts nobody trusts Scavino. “The president has zero concern that Dan has any interest in anything but serving him,” the New York Times quoted a top administrator as saying. When you’re the only other person who has the president’s Twitter password, you’re trusted.

All of which proves one thing: Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions should have learned to caddy.

A Game of Chicken

I was astounded to learn a few months back that the British will not buy American chicken.

It has been a hot issue there, while completely ignored by the American press. Imagine that!

In all trade negotiations with Britain, the U.S. is continually rebuffed when it comes to Colonel Sanders’ favorite item.

Why do they cry foul over are America’s fowl? We seem to do fine with our birds here.

The Brits are worried about the chlorine dip American chicken takes when it is processed. Chlorinated chicken frightens them. Brits have become convinced that a drop of chlorine in the water will cause them cancer or God knows what.

The other night I watched a British show, Food Unwrapped (which I guess we ripped off for the Food Network). It concerned Brexit and whether there would be “chaos at the checkout” as Brits scramble to have enough food, should Brexit ever take place.

“Experts” had no consensus on what would happen – Armageddon or just another trading day. But the show did zero in on chicken, once again asking whether they should take American chicken. It would be cheaper and there would be a steady supply.

Since British TV is owned by the government, you can guess what the conclusion was. However, it was interesting to see their arguments.

The show visited a lab where a technician took two pieces of chicken. One he dipped in a chlorinated solution, the other he did not. He introduced salmonella and put each in a petri dish. After some time had passed he showed the one that had not been dipped was awash in salmonella. The chlorinated one was 98% free of it, but there were a few dots.

The conclusion they reached? It was better to use the non chlorinated chicken than the chlorinated one. The scientist said the samples in the chlorinated one had a version that had produced stronger versions of the salmonella. Say what?

Was the viewer to believe him or his/her lying eyes?

They then went to a chicken farm where the owner insisted that he had cleaner chickens than we do. Probably true, but he couldn’t produce enough to feed their nation. No one can using that method. In fact, Britain can only provide about half the food it needs at all.

While we in the States can’t prevent salmonella outbreak in chicken 100%, we haven’t had that many cases of it among 300 million plus people. It’s popped up more in romaine lettuce than chicken because the migrants who work the fields often poop in them and don’t wash their hands before they get back to picking romaine.

Food Unwrapped also contemplated that absence of avocados on British tables, should Brexit happen and be disastrous. Currently, the UK imports avocados from Spain. The crew visited a grower who bemoaned that he could lose 25% of his exports to the UK. Why? What would Brexit do to him?

Also, why couldn’t Britain import avocados from Mexico or the U.S.? The explanation was that it would take a month for the product to get there. Really? That seems ridiculous in today’s world of air freight.

No wonder they can’t get Brexit done. The UK is a country dragged down by pseudo science and political correctness.

They may chicken out on Brexit, which would be a shame for a once great nation.

TN Muslim Behind Pirro’s Oust?

It’s shocking, but a Muslim from Tennessee appears to be the one behind Judge Jeanine’s ouster at Fox News.

Here’s what the judge said in her opening statement on March 9 that caused the uproar: “Omar wears the hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

Sounds like a fair question of the Minnesota represenative, Ilhan Omar, who was the one who made anti Semitic remarks, upsetting many in the Democrat party and all Republicans in Congress. I don’t even think there was an organic groundswell of anger against Judge Jeanine; evidently, it was most upsetting to one person, Hufsa Kamal, who is a producer for Bret Baier’s show at Fox News. She describes herself as “Pakistani-American. England born, Tennessee raised. I help make TV happen on @FoxNews.”

She voiced her disgust in this tweet, “@JudgeJeanine can you stop spreading this false narrative that somehow Muslims hate America or women who wear a hijab aren’t American enough? You have Muslims working at the same network you do, including myself. K thx. https://t.co/ZfKhRhlvM3

— Hufsa Kamal (@hufkat) March 10, 2019

In the week after that, Fox decided to pull the Judge’s show, supposedly for two weeks. Fox said, “We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar. They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the matter with her directly.”

Hufsa has attacked many conservatives on Twitter, in particular Michelle Malkin, Candace Owens, Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk.

She has recently suspended her Twitter account.

I suppose most of us agree with this comment, posted at theconservativetreehouse:

What Pirro stated was a fact. Why are Muslims & Islam off-limits? A Muslim producer at Fox was offended by Pirro’s comments. A real Muslim-American should have no problem with Pirro Making a factual statement regarding Ilhan Omar’s hijab being a symbol of Sharia Law. It is, and Sharia Law is the antithesis of what the American Constitution represents. It has no place in Congress… especially when Omar continuously makes hateful, anti-Semitic comments. A Real Muslim- American understands that USA is a Free society, & that it’s important to have a free dialogue on the issues of Omar’s anti-Semitism, and Sharia Law. It is Free Speech. Fox is placating to a Producer at Fox who is Sharia compliant. Of course, they are also allowing the Left, who jumped all over this, to bully & silence them.

We’re in a very dangerous place with freedom of speech. Already people are reluctant to express their opinions or even wear a MAGA hat. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is getting worse.