My Reaction and Solutions to the Parkland High School Shooting

A teen gunman accused of opening fire with a semi-automatic rifle at his former high school in Parkland, Florida, has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder, officials said Thursday.

Authorities said the suspect, identified as 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, concealed himself in the crowd fleeing Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School following the massacre on Wednesday afternoon. He was arrested in nearby Coral Springs.

Fourteen others were wounded, five with life-threatening injuries, hospital officials said.

Here’s my personal reaction, as this particular blog post is very informal as I just wrote whatever came to mind, not that much editing and revision occurred after initially writing this. This is my raw reaction to the shooting and my solutions to the gun problem (where all of my ideas probably are not going to all be favored but some conservatives).


All right, so let’s walk through it. We’ve got this guy 19 year old Nikolas Cruz. He’s a ne’er-do-well. Why is he a ne’er-do-well? Well his father died. He’s adopted. His mother died. I mean this kid had it rough, so he was adopted. They moved to Florida. The adopters: Linda and Roger Kruse. All right. And then about 2005, Roger Kruse died of a heart attack. So no father in the home. And then last November the mother, Linda dies of pneumonia.

Now this seems to have set Nikolas off, the death of his mother. So therefore he had to then move around, the State didn’t know what to do with him, 19 years old. And he winds up living in a home of one of his friends, a classmate, and winds up going to school at Margory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County. The boy was expelled from the high school. But here’s what’s interesting, before that, before the expulsion, and it was for fighting we understand, he had done okay in an ROTC program. So it looks like once his mother died he went off the rails. That’s what it looks like now.

Now supposedly Nikolas Cruz gave off all kinds of signals all right after he was expelled. He went to some kind of what they call opportunity school. You get expelled from a public school, you go to another school for kids who are trouble. We don’t know what his status at that school was, but they tried to get him in there. He was working at a dollar store, but he was a troubled kid there’s no doubt about it. And he was acting out on social media postings under his name said, “I want to shoot people with an AR-15. I want to die fighting, killing.” “I am going to kill law enforcement one day, they go after the good people.” You know I mean there were a lot of flags on this kid and the FBI was told about him. We don’t really know the status of what happened after that, but the FBI indeed was told about him.

Now in Florida you can buy a rifle. (An AR-15 in this case A.R. stands for Armalite. It’s not assault rifle, it’s Armalite, it’s a semiautomatic. It takes 30 rounds but you can customize it to 100 rounds.) If you’re 18 years old in Florida, you can buy this weapon and you don’t need a license, training anything like that. If you buy from a licensed dealer, they’ll do a background check, but if you buy from somebody without a license they won’t. But Nikolas obtained the weapon legally. So he bought the rifle, he had the rifle, people knew he had the rifle. And then he had those flash grenades and things like that on him also. So the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (the ATF) will be investigating that. Florida has very liberal gun laws, in order to buy a pistol you have to be 21 but a rifle. Anybody can pick that up, if you’re over 18. Remember you can’t buy cigarettes unless you’re 21 so and you don’t have to register. You don’t have to register, you don’t really do anything. It’s a liberal state in that regard.

You know there’s some neo nazis saying that he was involved with them, we don’t know that, to be a fact, so the media outlets should stop reporting that. There are a lot of those rumors floating around.

So when the commentators got a hold of this story there was the usual hysteria and I want to give you some very interesting stats starting with Columbine.

The mass shooting in Colorado in 1999 to this day 227 people have been killed in fatal school shootings, 227. That’s a lot 23 of those elementary kids, that was in Connecticut. However, in 1999 there were 28,874 shooting deaths in America. 28,874 shooting deaths in 1999. In 2017; 15,590. That’s almost cut in half. So when the commentators tell you that “this is out of control” and that “guns are everywhere”, it’s not necessarily true (in this country anyway). These kinds of crimes, shooting crimes are going down.

Here’s the most startling fact of all. In 1999 there were 641,000 victims of gunshots wounds. Last year, 2017; 70,000 from 641,000 to 70,000. So authorities are making progress on solving this problem. No doubt about it. We are not becoming more violent as far as guns are concerned, we’re becoming less violent here in America. You’ll never hear that. You will never hear that in the national media.


Now here are my solutions, and some of them are going to be unpopular. But it is the most sensible thing to do in this situation. We cannot continue to let our schools get shot up.

Let me start with this. States are primarily responsible for gun laws, not the federal government. The Federal Government has to enforce the Constitution which is, we the people have a right to bear arms. That means you can’t ban all guns. We have a right to protect ourselves. But the individual states have a right to define how that’s carried out. And that’s the way it should be. There are different standards here in New York City than there would be for Alabama. You don’t want California law imposing itself on Texas or Florida. It’s a different mindset. The people in the states should have the right to regulate firearms for the public good, public safety the way they want to.

Number One: If I’m the governor of any state and I pass a law that says all public schools should have armed guards on campus. There was an armed guard at the school in Broward County. But for some reason we don’t know why the armed guard never caught up with the shooter though, we’ll find out why. I don’t want to demonize the man, but there was one armed guard present at this high school. But all schools, public schools in this country, need to have armed guards (NOT armed teachers, that WILL NOT solve the problem) on campus. And I’d say at least two or three you got to have, now in this day and age.

Number Two: There should be watch lists like you know the no-fly lists that the federal government has, they don’t let the terrorists on planes because they are afraid they’ll blow up the planes. They’ve got to have gun watch lists in each state. So if you’re expelled from school as this boy was, and we think it’s for fighting, you go on a watch list. If you’re involved in an altercation, even though you’re not charged, but it’s a violent altercation; you go on a watch list, in your state. And that list is published for any gun dealer, unlicensed or license. If your name is on that list, you don’t get a gun. Now you can get off the list. You can appeal it, I don’t think that’s a lifetime ban. But there has got to be watch lists of people who are demonstrating bizarre behavior, mental deficiencies. That’s what President Trump said today. Now he’s going to have a big summit meeting, the President is, to bring in everybody. I’ll tell you right now you’re expelled from school, you’re involved in a violent altercation, anything like that. You don’t have to be charged and convicted. You go on a watch list and you can appeal it. But the authorities got to know, who is more likely to commit a violent act like this Nikolas guy.

Number Three: Nobody can buy a gun, unless you’re 21 years old. I mean it just makes sense, give the maturation process a chance though. No way this kid should have been able to buy a semiautomatic rifle and nobody knew about it. 21. You’ve also got plenty of loons at 21, but you know public safety demands it and then the mental health guidelines in each state have got to be explicitly passed by the legislators.

The Sheriff of Broward County, Scott Israel, said “look we (as in the police) need the power when we get a report of a guy or gal is acting very strangely to go in and interview that person, so we can ascertain if the person is a danger to the neighborhood.” (Of course I was paraphrasing there.) Those laws have to be very, very well spelled out. Because if you look, if you go back to all of the shootings, every one of them. It’s always a strange kid, young person, trouble, everybody knew he was trouble. Well the police have got to be aware of that. This isn’t a fascist state is you you’ve got to have common sense, And the states have got to define it.


I think that’s reasonable. I think that what I put forth today it extremely reasonable and nothing to serious extreme.

Everyone knows why the kid did it. The kid didn’t have anybody. All right the school threw him out he was expelled. He didn’t have any friends and any parents, and anybody looking out for him. He just snapped and here he got a big gun, and thought to himself “I’m going to go out and I’m going to take a lot of people with me.”

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We have to do something, what we have now isn’t working. We need reform.


Now, with any massacre involving gun violence, I always quote a quote from President Ronald Wilson Reagan (as the country should turn to Reagan quotes more often for advice and how to create solutions to problems). I’m going to end the blog post with Reagan’s quote (which can also be applied to AR-15s, assault rifles, and semiautomatic weapons) as we, as Americans (NOT as Republicans or Democrats, or as conservatives or liberals, but as AMERICANS),  need to figure out how to resolve this problem of mass shootings and need to figure out what is best for the safety of this great nation:

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for the defense of a home.”

Advertisements

The House Memo Reveals Disturbing Facts About the Misuse of FISA

Now we know why the FBI tried so hard to block release of the House Intelligence Committee memo. And why Democrats and the media want to change the subject to Republican motivations. The four-page memo released Friday reports disturbing facts about how the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath.

The White House declassified the memo Friday, and you don’t have to be a civil libertarian to be shocked by the details. The memo confirms that the FBI and Justice Department on Oct. 21, 2016 obtained a FISA order to surveil Carter Page, an American citizen who was a relatively minor volunteer adviser to the Trump presidential campaign.

The memo says an “essential” part of the FISA application was the “dossier” assembled by former British spy Christopher Steele and the research firm Fusion GPS that was hired by a law firm attached to the Clinton campaign. The memo adds that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told the committee in December 2017 that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without the dossier.

This is troubling enough, but the memo also discloses that the FBI failed to inform the FISA court that the Clinton campaign had funded the dossier. The memo says the FBI supported its FISA application by “extensively” citing a September 2016 article in Yahoo News that contained allegations against Mr. Page. But the FBI failed to tell the court that Mr. Steele and Fusion were the main sources for that Yahoo article. In essence the FBI was citing Mr. Steele to corroborate Mr. Steele.

Unlike a normal court, FISA doesn’t have competing pleaders. The FBI and Justice appear “ex parte” as applicants, and thus the judges depend on candor and truthfulness from both. Yet the FBI never informed the court that Mr. Steele was in effect working for the Clinton campaign. The FBI retained Mr. Steele as a source, and in October 2016 he talked to Mother Jones magazine without authorization about the FBI investigation and his dossier alleging collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The FBI then fired Mr. Steele, but it never told the FISA judges about that either. Nor did it tell the court any of this as it sought three subsequent renewals of the order on Mr. Page.

We don’t know the political motives of the FBI and Justice officials, but the facts are damaging enough. The FBI in essence let itself and the FISA court be used to promote a major theme of the Clinton campaign. Mr. Steele and Fusion then leaked the fact of the investigation to friendly reporters to try to defeat Mr. Trump before the election. And afterward they continued to leak all this to the press to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s victory.

No matter its motives, the FBI became a tool of anti-Trump political actors. This is unacceptable in a democracy and ought to alarm anyone who wants the FBI to be a nonpartisan enforcer of the law.

We also know the FBI wasn’t straight with Congress, as it hid most of these facts from investigators in a briefing on the dossier in January 2017. The FBI did not tell Congress about Mr. Steele’s connection to the Clinton campaign, and the House had to issue subpoenas for Fusion bank records to discover the truth. Nor did the FBI tell investigators that it continued receiving information from Mr. Steele and Fusion even after it had terminated him. The memo says the bureau’s intermediary was Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife, incredibly, worked for Fusion.

Democrats are howling that the memo, produced by Republican staff, is misleading and leaves out essential details. They are producing their own summary of the evidence, and by all means let’s see that too. President Trump should declassify it promptly, along with Senator Chuck Grassley’s referral for criminal investigation of Mr. Steele. But note that Democrats aren’t challenging the core facts that the FBI used the dossier to gain a FISA order or the bureau’s lack of disclosure to the FISA judges.

The details of Friday’s memo also rebut most of the criticisms of its release. The details betray no intelligence sources and methods. As to the claim that the release tarnishes the FBI and FISA court, exposing abuses is the essence of accountability in a democracy.

Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes is doing a service by forcing these facts into the public domain where the American people can examine them, hold people accountable, and then Congress can determine how to prevent them in the future. The U.S. has weathered institutional crises before—Iran-Contra, the 9/11 intelligence failure, even Senator Dianne Feinstein’s campaign against the CIA and enhanced interrogation.

The other political misdirection is that the memo is designed to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible Trump collusion with Russia. I doubt Mr. Mueller will be deterred by any of this. The question of FISA abuse is independent of Mr. Mueller’s work, and one that Congress takes up amid a larger debate about surveillance and national security. Mr. Trump would do well to knock off the tweets lambasting the Mueller probe, and let House and Senate Republicans focus public attention on these FISA abuses.

If all of this is damaging to the reputation of the FBI and Justice Department, then that damage is self-inflicted. I recognize the need for the FBI to sometimes spy on Americans to keep the country safe, but this is a power that should never be abused. Its apparent misuse during the presidential campaign needs to be fully investigated.

Toward that end, the public should see more of the documents that are behind the competing intelligence memos to judge who is telling the truth. President Trump and the White House should consider the remedy of radical transparency.

‘There Are More Than Two Genders,’ Tortured Employee Forced To Say In Darkened Room At Google Headquarters (Satire)

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—In a darkened room labeled “101” deep within Google’s Mountain View headquarters, an outed conservative employee was forced to say there are more than two genders after a long period of torture.

The man was tortured for hours, arguing the objective reality of two genders, being told he was “mentally deranged” and suffering from “a defective worldview” before finally giving in.

“Do you remember writing in an email that there are only two genders?” he was asked while strapped to a table. “What if Google says there are three?”

“How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two genders are two genders!” the man cried through tears as his torturer, a Google project lead, held up a picture of a man and a woman, according to surveillance footage.

“Sometimes. Sometimes there are two. Sometimes there are three. Sometimes there are any number of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane,” the project lead replied coldly before administering another round of electric shocks into the man’s brains.

“Freedom… is the freedom to say there are only two genders…” the man said with great pain, through blackened eyes and bleeding lips.

“But how do we know that there are only two genders? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only on Google’s servers, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?” the Google official said as he methodically broke the man’s will in an attempt to get him to confess there were any number of genders Google wanted there to be.

“Fine, there are more than two genders, there are however many genders you want there to be—just make the pain stop!” the man screamed after a final round of torture, witnesses claim.

The man was then left to himself in isolation for a long period of time.

According to sources, he gazed up at the enormous Google logo on the wall, muttering that it had taken him twenty years to finally understand the brilliance of the search engine, advertising, and technology company. But he later claimed it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Google.


Disclaimer: The above story is satire. It is completely fictitious.

Trump’s First Year: A Year in Review

The House on the Hill just passed the bill, which seems like a big deal.

Still, the media has decided it’s been a bad year for Trump. As the year ends, the hacks must splice together their annual scorecards. And yes, they confirm Trump did badly.

Well, except for ISIS. Getting rid of ISIS, that’s a good thing. We destroyed modern-day Nazis.

But other than that, it was bad year for Trump — except for the judges, Gorsuch and all those other strong appointments.

But anyway, terrible year from Trump — except for the economy and stock market’s on fire, consumer confidence, it’s soaring.

But beyond that, it has been awful — except for the new energy policy, the approved pipeline, the new drilling, the spread of fracking, gas prices flat as a pancake.

But I’m telling you, it is still a bad year. I would hate to be Trump. He has got no singular achievements. Well, OK, there is that tax bill which granted has been improved since its first draft.

But it’s just been a lousy year — except for the improved relations with China and Russia, India, the Saudis, Israel.

But it’s really been a downer for Donny boy. Did I leave anything out aside from deregulation, ditching the accords, repealing the mandate? Oh, and also, driving Eminem nuts? That’s kind of awesome.

So what’s the lesson from Trump’s bad year? That when compiling your year-end condemnations of Donald Trump, it’s a lot harder than it looks. What started out as evil was downgraded to incompetent, and now it looks pretty effective.

No wonder the media looked so sad, which has now been downgraded to miserable.

GOP Announces Sweeping New Plan To Lose All Senate Seats By 2020 (Satire)

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Inspired by the near-impossible loss of an Alabama Senate seat to a liberal Democrat, the Republican Party Wednesday unveiled a sweeping new plan to lose all of its Senate seats within the next four years.

Laying the groundwork for the plan, the GOP will select a slate of horrible candidates they will support from the primaries all the way through the final tally, no matter what awful revelations about their past come to light.

“If we just continue picking and backing terrible candidates, we’ll be sure to hit our goal,” RNC chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel said in an exclusive interview on Fox News. “We’ll stand by them all the way from the time they’re nominated through the moment we lose the Senate seat we could easily have won with any half-decent candidate.”

“This is the start of a big new relaunch for the GOP, in which we’ll alienate all of our constituents and lose all of our clout in absolutely no time at all,” she added.

According to inside sources, the Republicans have already floated several candidates to begin their devastating Senate loss campaign, with surefire losers like a resurrected zombie Adolf Hitler, former football star O.J. Simpson, and a half-eaten bag of pork rinds all getting full GOP support for Senate races in the coming years.


Disclaimer: The above story is satire. It is completely fictitious.

Feminist Lists 10 Questions Feminists Should Ask On A First Date…Allow Me To Answer Them

Thanks to the mainstream media’s love affair with modern feminism, I am constantly swamped with the chief social justice movement’s rhetoric, opinion, and asinine belief system. What should be a background group filled with insane ideas and beliefs is one that, given the choice, people would only look at when they need a laugh.

Take for instance the list of questions feminist Lara Witt came up with. Witt believes that in order to really like somebody, you first have to like their politics. Who they are as a person is not a factor, apparently.

In order to make sure that any good feminist can get close to anyone — if anyone is willing to undergo the labor of trying to get close to one — Witt came up with ten questions that must be asked of every date to make sure they’re a good “ally” in an article for the site Everyday Feminism titled “10 Things Every Intersectional Feminist Should Ask On a First Date.

“As a queer femme of color, I keep close relationships with people who go beyond allyship; they’re true accomplices in the fight against white supremacy, queerphobia, and misogyny,” wrote Witt. “If you’re not going to support marginalized folks, then we can’t be friends, let alone date. The personal is political.”

Witt can preemptively count on a hard “no” from me when it comes to having a relationship with her.

Regardless, I felt the need to answer her questions. I feel it will save her some time in the long run, seeing as how not many men — and I mean men in the actual sense of the term, not the “men” who subscribe to her intersectional Gestapo’s belief system — are going to answer the same way I do.

1. Do you believe that Black Lives Matter?

Yes, insofar as they’re included in the importance of the lives of white people, brown people, red people, yellow people, and purple people if they exist. I’m not going to play the game of holding up one race as more worthy of sympathy, handouts, or attention. No race will become a sacred cow for me.

But that said, I do believe black lives matter, which is why I analyze the problems in our obviously troubled black communities and withdraw facts that may be hard to hear. I then fashion solutions from these facts.

For one, I believe the black community suffers from a serious welfare dependency that breeds a whole host of problems. It encourages fatherless homes as mothers are rewarded for being single mothers with multiple children sans a husband. Seventy-two percent of black children are born out of wedlock.  These fatherless children are more prone to behavior problems, leading to becoming criminals that wind up incarcerated.

I care about black lives, so I’m willing to strip the welfare system and change it to reward work, not turning black children into cash cows. I’m for school choice so that black children have the opportunity to be taken to a much better school than the one they’re left to.

If you’re not for those, maybe you mean well, but the facts say I care more about black lives than our intersectional feminist does.

2. What are your thoughts on gender and sexual orientation?

What you do is your business. Just don’t make it mine. Don’t force people to bake cakes, or punish people for misgendering you. Don’t fashion mobs that attack people for not believing that you’re a man when you’re clearly a woman. Don’t go to schools to teach children about anal sex, or make LGBT focuses a lesson plan.

I don’t care about what gender you want to get busy with, just don’t make me applaud you for it. I won’t. Being queer doesn’t make you special.

3. How do you work to dismantle sexism and misogyny in your life?

I don’t. Being a good person to others should suffice. However, I’m not going to award special privileges to a female when I’m conversing or working with them. If they do something I find disagreeable, I’m going to either call them out or not bother with them. I’m not going to give them deference in everything first just because they are female. My being a male doesn’t mean I need to stand back because “privilege.”

I’m going to be as chivalrous as possible because the concept was cooked up with our differences in mind, and the concept has served us well for eons. Being a woman will definitely make me treat you differently, however being a woman doesn’t make you special. My sister, my mother, and few other female friends and family are special. Beyond those women, you’re just a person first, and a woman second.

This doesn’t make me sexist, it makes me a polite human being.

4. What are your thoughts on sex work?

Fiscally, I’m a libertarian. If you want to sell your body for sex, that’s your prerogative, but don’t make me pay for your birth control, STD tests, etcetera. I’m not your keeper.

5. Are you a supporter of the BDS movement?

I’m not going to boycott the one presence in the Middle East that has a capitalist system, holds free and fair elections, and does not support terrorists who have the murder of innocent people written into their mission statements. Also, Israel is the shining beacon on the hill in the Middle East for women’s rights. Why are you wanting to punish them in favor of cultures that believe women should have about as many rights as the goat they milk?

I thought you were a feminist. What’s up with your failure to support women in the Middle East?

6. What is your understanding of settler colonialism and indigenous rights?

I think people have been settling, colonizing, warring, and fighting for land since the Neanderthals. Before the Spanish, Europeans, and whoever else showed up to the Americas, indigenous American tribes were killing each other for all sorts of reasons, but one of them being territory. I’m not saying it’s good or right, but just because Native Americans were on the losing side of activities they also participated in, it doesn’t make the colonization of America wrong, especially today. I’m just as American as the guy living on an Indian reservation.

And if you really want to improve the lives of Native Americans, it’s those Indian reservations that have to go. Why? Because they interfere with property rights. Few residents actually have them, which lead to a whole host of problems, including the inability to improve their land or use it to make money. This leads to dilapidation and horrible conditions.  This is just one of the problems, but allowing reservation residents to actually own the land they live on as individuals would do some serious good.

7. Do you think capitalism is exploitative?

Yes, and thank God for that. Exploiting the market leads to innovation, improvement, and expansion. This results in more jobs, which lift people out of poverty. If people are willing to work for a lower wage to make a product, then they should be allowed to work that wage and improve their own lives little by little.

Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system the world has ever seen for lifting poor people out of poverty and improving the quality of life for everyone and everything it touches.

8. Can any human be illegal?

Yes. If they aren’t here legally, they’re illegal. If they are here illegally they should work to change that status if they want to be legal.

The reason they’re illegal is oftentimes that their non-integration into the American system while simultaneously benefiting off it creates a whole host of problems. None of it has to do with hatred of race, and everything to do with economics and safety.

9. Do you support Muslim Americans and non-Muslim people from Islamic countries?

In the regard that they’re here legally, peacefully, and usefully? Absolutely. However if that means open borders to anyone who wants to come here from Islamic countries, then let’s slow it down. I only need to look at Europe’s crime problem to see that importing from Islamic countries willy-nilly is a bad idea.

For instance, sex crimes by migrants in Germany doubled in 2016, and you’ll find similar stories in many countries that allowed open migration from the Middle East. Every place that has done that has suffered serious crime and sexual assault problems.

10. Does your allyship include disabled folks?

Firstly, I’m not an ally of any social group. Someone doesn’t get my loyalty and service simply because they’re disabled, or a woman, or black, so on and so forth. I operate on an individual basis, meaning if you’re a good person, you can rely on me to help you if I can spare the time or resources.

Secondly, I’m going to have to have you clarify what “disabled” means. I’m sure people in wheelchairs, the blind, deaf, and mentally challenged are included in this, but heading to Tumblr, I can see the social justice crowd likes to throw all sorts of additional maladies into the category.

I’ve seen people say they identify as having multiple personality disorder but just reading their blog, I can tell they far from suffer from that. They treat it like a fun game. I’ve seen folk say their transgenderism is a disability too. I’ve seen people who claim their being female is a disability.

Clean up your definitions, and I’ll see if I’m willing to help.

Insane Obsession of President Trump’s “Insanity”

Have you heard the one about the clinically insane commander-in-chief?

If not, you just haven’t been watching enough CNN and MSNBC.  Those networks, along with some anti-Trump print outlets, have been gleefully and repeatedly questioning the president’s mental stability.

This is another effort by hard-core leftists to somehow get Donald Trump out of the Oval Office.  Immediately after last year’s election there were allegations of voter fraud, followed by the absurd hope that some Trump electors would break faith and vote for Hillary Clinton.

Then Trump’s legion of enemies settled on Russia and “collusion,” which they believed would finally nail the coffin shut on Donald Trump’s presidency.  But barring something unforeseen, allegations of collusion are going nowhere.  That’s why the left has recently swung from collusion to “obstruction of justice.”

Throughout all this there has been another ominous undercurrent that the left believes could pull President Trump beneath the water.  That is the notion that he is insane.  Literally.

MSNBC’s Morning Joe and his merry band of armchair shrinks have been leading the way.  Joe Scarborough has decided that President Trump is “completely detached from reality” and perhaps in the “early stages of dementia.”

Co-host Mika Brzezinski and the regular guests, following Joe’s lead as always, also question the president’s mental fitness.

Not to be outdone, CNN’s Brian Stelter has tried to boost his anemic ratings by implying that the president of the United States is off his rocker.  He recently sat spellbound as a historian declared that there is “a sick man in the White House.”

TV hosts and publicity-seeking historians are free to think and say whatever they want, no matter how irresponsible.  But things get dicier when mental health “professionals” race to analyze the president from afar.

Last weekend, MSNBC welcomed psychologist Bandy Lee, who bandied about some truly reprehensible implications.  “We must act soon,” she warned, because “things will get worse.”  Lee actually declared that President Trump is “mentally falling apart” and warned that he will “likely become violent.”

Evidently the esteemed Dr. Lee has never heard of the “Goldwater Rule,” which was enacted by the American Psychiatric Association after scores of shrinks questioned the sanity of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.  According to that edict, it is unethical and irresponsible for a mental health professional to diagnose a person they have never met.

So who’s nuttier?  President Trump, who by all accounts commands the respect of his closest aides, or Bandy Lee, who smashed her professional code of ethics just to get a little face time on TV?

The goal of all this is, as always, to get President Trump out of the White House.  The best mechanism to do that, his antagonists now believe, is the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1967.

Under Article Four, a president can be removed when the Vice President and a majority of Cabinet secretaries deem their boss to be “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Donald Trump is certainly an unusual president, which is putting it mildly.  His tweets, jokes, and comments can be strikingly odd.  But he was making those same tweets, jokes, and comments during last year’s campaign.  His unconventional behavior was a major force behind his victory, and that behavior simply hasn’t changed.

His foes are desperately trying to find some way, any way, to overturn the results of the election.  Their efforts began last November 9th and they have not stopped.

Nor are they likely to stop any time soon.  If the Republicans hold the House next year, hopes for impeachment are pretty much gone unless Robert Mueller comes up with a smoking cannon.  Even if Democrats take the House, it will require two-thirds of the Senate to actually convict the president and remove him from office.

So if impeachment is nearly impossible, the bitter clingers only have the 25th Amendment on which to pin their fading hopes.  Trump-loathers in the media are trying to lay the groundwork with all this reckless talk about insanity.

Do they really think Mike Pence and the majority of the Cabinet will stage a coup against a man they genuinely seem to respect?

Now that is a true sign of insanity.