This is from The Guardian no less, If Trump were a woman: play swaps presidential candidates’ genders in which the 2016 presidential debates were recast onstage in New York, with Trump as a woman and Clinton as a man.

Would we allow a female leader to speak like Donald Trump?

That question inspired a new play that restages parts of the three 2016 presidential debates word-for-word and gesture-for-gesture – but with a woman depicting Donald Trump and a man playing Hillary Clinton.

And this is what they found, with the following comment typical.

“When a woman says it, it doesn’t sound as crazy.”

In fact, it never sounded crazy at all but that’s just me and sixty million others. Read the story through.

I don’t know whether this was what Trump intended but the stories about Russian hacking the election have gone absolutely dead, as have almost all stories related to Obama having placed some kind of phone surveillance on Donald Trump himself. Having become blindingly clear that the Obama White House had indeed initiated that surveillance, with the virtual certainty that none of it would have been done without Obama’s complicity, the entire episode seems to have vanished into air. Since there is nothing that can any longer be used in bringing Trump down, it has gone into hibernation across the media and will remain that way unless something happens that the left and the media believe can be used to undermine Trump.

This is part of what disturbs me about the blog support network on the right. It is entirely defensive. A story that was utterly preposterous, that Trump and his associates had collaborated with the Russians was, and is, treated as a genuine issue that needs to be sorted out, rather than as a pathetic and disgusting ploy by a bunch of leftist loons and their scribes to harm Trump and short circuit his election. Same for the story about electronic surveillance on Trump during the election. Now that it has been dropped by the media, it has been dropped almost across the board. Yet as had been said by many, this is a far worse crime than Watergate and if true, was a blatant attempt to subvert the democratic processes of the United States and steal the election. Spying by a president on political enemies is an evil, bringing us within close proximity of a police state. Had it been a Republican president involved, no other stories short of World War III would have made it to the top of a front page for the next six months until whoever it was had been hounded from office.

So let us have one final look at this surveillance story, old and stone cold news though it may now be. The table above comes from this: FISA Court: Whatever Obama Wanted Obama Got. This ought to be seen as a massive scandal:

FISA became a rubber stamp for the Obama administration. Between 2010 and 2015, FISA did not deny even one of the 9,400 applications submitted by the federal government. These applications sought “to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes,” according to reports filed by the U.S. Justice Department. . . .

The court denied a grand total of zero government FISA applications from 2010 through 2015. However, the court did modify some applications that it approved. And the government withdrew some of those it submitted.

That is to say:

9,391 of the 9,400 applications submitted were approved. The court modified 217 of those it approved. And the government withdrew 9.

But the story is dropping off the radar if it has not entirely disappeared since there is no glory in it for the left. To which we may add this: SAME NY Times Reporter Said Trump Team Was Wiretapped In Jan., But Said TRUMP Lacked Evidence In March. Go to the link for details, which will only confirm everything you already know.

And then, of course, there’s this: Obama v. Trump: Strictly Correct & Misleading v. Not Strictly Correct But Fundamentally True. Everything they say is dependent on how you parse the word “ordered”, as in whether Obama ordered the surveillance. The point:

What Obama and his minions (and the Democrats and many in the media) say is likely to be correct, strictly speaking, but fundamentally misleading. In contrast, what Trump says is often incorrect, strictly speaking, but captures the fundamental truth.

This is what almost certainly happened. The Obama White House via FISA or some other agency bugged Trump’s phones. To wait for definitive evidence – and I find it unimaginable what such evidence could be short of a taped conversation – in such a fluid area where you know nothing could have happened unless Obama had given his OK in one way or another – is to let them get away with their efforts to undermine the democratic process. The right side of politics are the worst political fighters I have ever seen, and it is not only a disgrace, but is putting all of us in deepest jeopardy.

Donald Trump accuses Obama of ‘wire-tapping’ his office before election.

If this is true, you are looking at a genuine effort by a sitting president to subvert not just the election but the Constitution. This is not, as Trump has declared it, “A NEW LOW!” This is beyond the farthest edge of any previous attempt to undermine the democratic process. This is how this should be judged.

Trump’s tweets follow claims made by conservative radio host Mark Levin on his Thursday night show about the alleged steps taken by the Obama administration to undermine the Republican candidate’s campaign to win the White House.

The presenter called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and called for a congressional investigation into the issue. That contrasts with demands from across the US political spectrum to examine Russian interference in the presidential election.

Levin’s comments were followed up by Breitbart News, the “alt-right” website founded by Steve Bannon, who ran the Trump campaign and is now the president’s chief strategist.

The article stated: “The Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorisation to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA [National Security Agency] rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.”

Russia “hacked the election” is known to be a lie. Meetings with Russians or even with Putin represent no issue of any kind about the governance of the United States. These are media lies that have been fostered by political deceit, and most treacherously, the ring leader of these efforts has been the former president. What can one make of this: Obama Officials Set Up Jeff Sessions’ Meeting With the Russian Ambassador. Do you get that? The meeting between Sessions and the Russian Ambassador was a casual meeting that had been arranged by Obama. Here are the two meetings that are at the centre of the controversy.

The first came at a conference on “Global Partners in Diplomacy,” where Sessions was the keynote speaker. Sponsored by the U.S. State Department, The Heritage Foundation, and several other organizations, it was held in Cleveland during the Republican National Convention.
The conference was an educational program for ambassadors invited by the Obama State Department to observe the convention. The Obama State Department handled all of the coordination with ambassadors and their staff, of which there were about 100 at the conference.

Apparently, after Sessions finished speaking, a small group of ambassadors—including the Russian ambassador—approached the senator as he left the stage and thanked him for his remarks. That’s the first “meeting.” And it’s hardly an occasion—much less a venue—in when a conspiracy to “interfere” with the November election could be hatched.

Sessions also apparently met with the Russian ambassador in September. But on that occasion, Sessions was acting as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, not as a surrogate for the Trump campaign. That’s why the meeting was held in his Senate office. His DOJ spokesperson, Sarah Isgur Flores, says they discussed relations between the two countries – not the election.

There was nothing unusual about this: Sessions met with more than two dozen ambassadors during 2016, including the Ukrainian ambassador the day before the meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Obama depends on the ignorance of his supporters and the duplicity of the press (and press ignorance as well), on which he can count to the fullest extent. The original story I found was at The Guardian while the story at Drudge is from The Sun, both British papers. This is how it is reported in The Sun:

‘THIS IS WATERGATE’ Barack Obama denies ‘ever ordering surveillance on any US citizen’ following bombshell accusations he tapped Donald Trump’s phone during US presidential election

The story is the denial. More interesting, if you look at the words, Obama doesn’t deny it may have happened, or even that he had known it was going on, only that he had not ordered it. There is no doubt that Trump has been sitting on this for a while but has finally realised that these attempts to rout his presidency are not going away and need to be dealt with head on. Couple all of this with the following which is already an old story: How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency:

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

To say we are in uncharted waters is beyond understatement.

Via Instapundit

Here’s the title from The Diplomad, Madness and Chaos: the Left in the Time of Trump with the stress in the article on madness. Others are certain to start picking on this, since it gets truly nerve wracking to live in an asylum, even if the inmates are no longer in charge. This is the quote that matters in which the he is Donald Trump and the them is the left:

He has, in short, exposed them as, no other word for it, crazy. Yes, crazy.

He then asks the question I have asked. My way of asking it is to wonder what will become worse by the lights of the left if Trump pursues his agenda. Here the question is put about what the left is in favour of, but you will see the point.

So they hate Trump but what are these protestors and their media enablers for?

As far as I can tell they are for children but also for killing unborn ones with no restriction, no apology, and no need for a fee. They are for LBGT and women’s “rights,” but ally themselves with Muslims who practice FGM, oppose abortion, treat women like cattle, and promote and engage in honor killings, and advocate death for LBGT people. They are for women’s rights, but want men who think they are women to use women’s washrooms. They are for free speech, but shut down anybody who disagrees with them, and, of course, ally themselves with Muslims who oppose freedom of speech and thought as part of their core dogma. They are against racism but try to stir up old racial animosities and conflicts that had long been resolved, buried, and forgotten. They are for poor working people, but oppose the tax and the regulatory structures that create jobs. They are for poor working people but favor unrestricted immigration that drives down wages, crowds out jobs, and absorbs the funds of public welfare schemes. They want free education for all, but oppose letting poor and middle class people have the right to choose their schools, unlike the rich people who do. They shout “Love Trumps Hate!” as they bash opponents with bricks and poles. They have spent decades denouncing the military, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI as oppressors of the people, but now want those agencies to sabotage an elected president. The wealthy ones denounce gun ownership and walls but live behind protective shields of men with guns and walls around their exclusive properties. Hollywood stars who made millions living in the land of make-believe denounce non-existent Trumpian “brownshirts” and bravely proclaim their resistance! They are for the environment and prove it by flying to environmental rallies in their private jets. They, well . . . you can go on with this sad litany.

And at the end he comes back to the same point that he began with:

I think when all is said and done we have to conclude that there is a large element of mental disturbance. Facts don’t matter. Logic is absent and even abhorred and shouted down. The emotion is the thing. The posturing is the thing. The slogan is the thing.

They are crazy.

They are psychotic.

And they are not just fruit loops but dangerous as well.