Here are my observations and opinions on my selected news of the day.

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! – We are in a “Constitutional Crisis.” Nancy Pelosi and Jerrold Nadler said so. So, it must be true. Frankly, my old friends from the television series, “Lost in Space,” encountered worse in their imaginary world.

The Democrats are simply pathetic. Obviously, they don’t know a crisis when they see one. They called the crisis on our southern border, a “manufactured crisis.”

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who has carried a grudge against the president from his early days in New York, triggered the so-called “crisis.” Pinning a contempt of Congress label on the president’s attorney general gave him his 15 minutes of fame. However, those Americans who witnessed his committee of 22 ill-informed Democrats in action know a Kangaroo Court when they see it.

ANOTHER CASE OF DEMOCRAT AMNESIA – During Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing to consider contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Bill Barr, Democrats again referred to a letter signed by umpteen former prosecutors who said they could successfully prosecute the president on obstruction of justice; however, their memories seem to evade them.

Certainly, most Americans will recall the words of the disgraced former FBI Director James Comey, who, while citing extensive evidence against Hillary Clinton’s for “extremely careless” abuse of state secrets, concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

That statement in 2016, resulted in a number of well-known former federal prosecutors to similarly state that they could easily have won such a case. Where were Democrats then?

LEST WE FORGET – Hillary Clinton was guilty of mishandling classified documents, punishable under Federal law … 18 U.S. Code 793, 794. Bill Barr is guilty of following the law, a law that prohibits him from releasing a document containing grand jury testimony and material pertaining to active investigations.

AGENTS OF INFLUENCE – That’s how former CIA Director John Brennan and former DNI James Clapper are referred to in a piece by David Forsmark in PJ Media. He describes Agents of Influence, not as individuals employed by the enemy, but as people who spread enemy propaganda from a lofty position that influences ordinary people to believe it.

And with the Mueller Report revealing no collusion between the Trump team, or any American, and Russia, Brennan and Clapper continue to trade on their former insider knowledge on CNN and NBC (MSNBC). “Willfully and maliciously,” writes Forsmark.

“WHY ARE CLAPPER AND BRENNAN NOT IN JAIL?” writes Angelo Codevilla in American Greatness who believes they could be guilty of Section 798, 18 U.S. Code, widely known in the intelligence community as “the Comint Statute,” or “the 10 ands 10.” “You violate it, you are guilty, and punished accordingly,” he writes.

On December 9 and 10, 2016, the New York Times and the Washington Post independently reported anonymous senior intelligence officials had told them that, based on intercepted communications, the intelligence agencies agreed that Russia had hacked the Democrat National Committee to help Donald Trump win the election.

“Incontrovertibly, the officials who gave these stories to the Times and Post violated the Comint Statute,” says Codevilla, who alleges that Clapper and Brennan are those “senior intelligence officials. “Beginning in January 2017, (they) made essentially the same statements on national television.

If you’re wondering why there have been no prosecutions, Codevilla asserts that the offenders are big people in the permanent government and in the Democrat Party. The have a great many friends in the U.S. Justice Department.

Codevilla cites Brennan and Clapper as living proof the United States has dual system of justice. The example of their impunity speaks louder than any speech and reassures their leftist successors in the intelligence agencies that their channel to the Times and Post are as safe as ever.

Kramerontheright wants to believe that Attorney General Barr and DOJ IG Michael Horowitz will have the last word.

MEANINGLESS APOLOGIES – To me, when you apologize for writing or saying something, you are making a mistake. You said it because it was what you believed at the time. Stand with your belief. Apologizing may make you feel better, but it doesn’t erase what you know you still believe.

Ben Domenech, who publishes The Federalist, a publication I often quote, apologized for his tweeting against “Late Night” host Seth Meyers. His initial tweets were in response to Meyers’ treatment of Meghan McCain, Domenech’s wife.

I found it unusual that a professional journalist like Domenech didn’t stop and think before pushing “send.” Domenech obviously didn’t have second thoughts when he got a bit carried away, using profanity while criticizing Meyers’ for being a “hack,” an “awful person” and “untalented,” which tells me his apology is hollow, so why do it? Political correctness at its worst.

PAUL KRUGMAN, the Nobel prize winning New York Times columnist, again made a fool of himself in print. You may recall it was Krugman who predicted dire expectations for the economy under President Trump within minutes of his 2016 victory.

On May 6, 2019, when Krugman tweeted @paulkrugman: “I’m old enough to remember when Presidential Medals of Freedom were given for showing courage and making sacrifices on behalf of the world,” while criticizing the presenting of the medal to Tiger Woods, who “hits golf balls for money.”

Consider, if you will, a few recipients of the 19 medals presented by President Obama: Meryl Streep, Robert DeNiro, Barbara Streisand, Tom Brokaw and Saturday Night Live’s Lorne Michaels … oh, and the courageous Joe Biden, who sacrificed on behalf of the world.

REGARDING THAT MYTH OF WOMEN VOTERS and President Trump. The Center for Responsive Politics, using publicly available FEC data on donors, reveals that more women donated to President Trump in the first quarter than any of the Democrat 2020 presidential candidates.

While his average per donor is lower than his top female opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand – $1,321 vs $141 – 10,375 women donated to Trump, more than double than that of Gillibrand’s 960 women donors, and the nearest Democrat challenger, Kamala Harris, who had 3,850 donors.

                             May God bless the United States of America.