There are two ways to judge a president or a prime minister. That which is true is based on policy, that which is fake is based on the elites’ code of conduct. This requires non-stop virtue signalling, and like spoilt millionaire American footballers, ‘taking a knee’ to the latest fashionable dogma, such as gender fluidity or hypocritically demanding that CO2 emissions be reduced, even if electricity prices are tripled.

When it came to the American election, I was surprised to find myself as one of the very few commentators here to make a true rather than a fake assessment. This led me to the conclusion that Donald Trump was by far the preferable candidate.

It is equally of no value whatsoever to assess President Trump’s first year on whether he has become, like Australia’s leaders, yet another useless virtue-signaller committed to policies which will wreak untold damage on the people. That he never will do this has long driven the elites into a frenzied determination to destroy him, with the elite media especially outraged because he has outmanoeuvred and disempowered them by speaking directly to the people, often via Twitter.

The only proper assessment of the President must be on his achievements. These include the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, thus ensuring America will have the world’s lowest energy costs which, with taxation and regulatory reform is a sound basis for US economic resurgence; significantly reducing illegal immigration; appointing true rather than politician judges; and upgrading defence. He has done what his predecessors only talked about doing, and not only in the recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. He made it clear to America’s enemies that there is no longer a pushover in the White House. If he were to maintain this record, he will rank as one of the greatest American presidents, up there with Ronald Reagan, also ridiculed by a hostile media.

This true method of assessment applies equally to Australia. That is why Turnbull was a failure from the very day he seized power. Forced to agree to continue Abbott’s greatest successes, he offered no policies of his own. The base knew from the beginning that he would never pass the test. Their code of honour required him do what Keating had done, resign from the Abbott ministry rather than secretly plot against him with his G8 cabal while still his minister. To the base, this is like the dog who turns on his master, for which it is said there is but one cure.

Meanwhile in America, the elites are horrified that along with the President’s successes, the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion is unravelling.





With not even a scintilla of evidence of collusion found, the investigation should be wound up. But taking advantage of sloppily drafted terms of reference and stacked with partisan anti-Trump prosecutors, Mueller has taken it away from finding collusion with an apparent determination to find something, indeed anything, which can be used for an impeachment if the Democrats were to have the numbers after the midterm elections in November.

The stacking of the Mueller investigation is not so surprising given that the FBI leadership has also been revealed to be dominated by anti-Trump partisans.

This was demonstrated by leaked drafts of the revision of Director Comey’s speech improperly deciding that Mrs Clinton not be prosecuted for the crime of using a private server for emails containing state secrets, thus exposing the US to hacking by her enemies, but protecting herself from freedom of information applications and archival requirements.

Then anti-Trump texts were released written by Peter Strzok, an investigator in the Clinton affair and for a time the lead investigator on the alleged Russian collusion, to his mistress, an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page. These included one about an alternative FBI ‘path’ to block a Trump victory. She had proposed this insurance against Trump at a meeting in FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe’s office.

Even worse, the FISA Court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) warrant to wiretap, in the broad sense, the Trump campaign during the election may have been based on a partisan Democrat Party-funded dossier. This had been concocted by ex-British spy Christopher Steel through collusion with Kremlin sources and in collaboration with Nellie Ohr from the research firm Fusion GPS. She is the wife of a top Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, who was then briefed on the Democrat’s project to down Trump by Steele and a Fusion GPS executive.

With this Russian foray, the Obama administration’s approval of Russian control of vast American uranium resources, substantial Russian funding of the Clinton Foundation and a $500,000 ‘speaker’s fee’ for Bill Clinton, it could be said that collusion with Russia was elsewhere than at Trump Tower.

With the successes scored by the President, continuing congressional investigations into these and other scandals, the handing over of the FISA warrants under subpoena since August and the prospect of further Department of Justice investigations, it has not been surprising that the elite Never-Trump cliques would attempt a distraction or two.

First there was the report that the basis of the Russian collusion claim was the bar room boast by George Papadopoulos to Alexander Downer that the Russians had ‘dirt on Hillary’. This will no doubt be exposed as baseless when the basis for the FISA warrants is finally revealed.

The second is the book by the much criticised and self-acknowledged unreliable author Michael Wolff. This is in the tradition of political exposés filled with unverified gossip and rumour such as Kitty Kelley’s vile diatribe against Nancy Reagan. ‘Authors’ can be as vicious and as nasty as they wish, especially about public figures, because Supreme Court judges have almost repealed the law of libel through an activist interpretation of the First Amendment contrary to the clear intention of the Founding Fathers. Another reason not to have a bill of rights.

In the meantime, the best advice one can give Donald Trump is: ‘Keep on tweeting, Mr President, keep on tweeting.’

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.