Whatever uproar is occurring from and at Monday's (5/14) opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, that change of venue -- promised by several presidents of both parties and mandated by Congress in 1995 but accomplished only by Donald Trump -- constitutes an extraordinary development in the seemingly endless history of the Middle East.

And the suspicion is that, after not too long, it will be seen as a hugely positive one.

This isn't happening because of Trump alone, obviously.  But the man, possibly because of his lack of foreign policy preconceptions, has a unique knack for seizing the moment and moving forward as he is doing in Korea.

He allows his gut to prevail over the advice of a legion of experts.  Thanks to that, and believe it or not, Donald Trump may actually bring peace to the Middle East.

[We all know how desperate Democrats are to rig elections with voter fraud.  Often, it’s the only way they can win.  It’s why they hysterically oppose Voter ID.  Yet as Joseph Stalin said, “It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.”  Today, the “who” is computers.  Here, computer security expert Bruce Schneier explains what to do about this. –JW]

Today, we conduct our elections on computers. Our registration lists are in computer databases. We vote on computerized voting machines. And our tabulation and reporting is done on computers.

We do this for a lot of good reasons, but a side effect is that elections now have all the insecurities inherent in computers. The only way to reliably protect elections from both malice and accident is to use something that is not hackable or unreliable at scale.

Recently, there have been two graphic demonstrations of how bad our computerized voting system is.

Explosives require careful handling. Sometimes they blow up in your face.

After the 2016 election, the so-called deep state was confident that it had the power easily to either stop, remove, or delegitimize the outlier Donald Trump and his presidency.

Give it credit, the Washington apparat quite imaginatively pulled out all the stops. But now the administrative state’s multifaceted efforts are starting to unwind, and perhaps even boomerang, on the perpetrators.

In truth, it’s not just Washington apparat.  The entire multiplex world of the establishment is crumbling in a variety of arenas, from entertainment to Silicon Valley to the workplace.

It would probably give Robert Mueller a nervous breakdown, not to mention James Comey, Andrew McCabe and the rest of the FBI cabal, past and present, but at this point the special counsel seems to be actually causing the reelection of Donald Trump.

Most of the country, other than the greed heads in the media and extreme Democrat Party operatives, no longer gives a hoot in Hades about the "Russia Probe."  They're frustrated and sick of it.

There's a dawning national consensus of "enough already" reflected by Judge Ellis when he demanded to know exactly what Paul Manafort's possible money laundering schemes of years ago had to do with Trump colluding with Russia in the 2016 election. The same might be said of Stormy Daniels, whose Russia connection is even more remote.

But let's skip past the subplots of the moment to the greatest of all unintended consequences of this endless investigation -- the decline and fall of the Democrat Party.

“What did they know and when did they know it?” and “It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up” are two of the biggest journalistic clichés of our time.

But clichés or not, sometimes they are true and they both apply (and then some) to the astonishing Eric Schneiderman situation.

This appalling scandal  should be nothing less than a spiritual crisis for the Democrat Party and so-called liberals and progressives everywhere.

It should.  But it probably won't be, even though the level of hypocrisy is stratospheric.  And that is the essence of the problem.

But the initial question immediately arises.  Since now six women (the NY Post has the latest per the cover story above) have reported near identical pathologies on the part of Schneiderman.

Didn't anyone know about this?

When President Trump presided over a business roundtable in Cleveland last weekend, it was one of several events he has hosted in the Midwest since Election Day.

Trump held a raucous victory rally in Ohio just a few weeks after he won the presidency, and has since made frequent trips to Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan: He will visit Elkhart, Indiana today (5/10)

Trump skipped the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last month and instead campaigned in central Michigan. The president’s courting of voters in the Heartland is a shrewd political calculation by Team Trump.  The POTUS has this figured out:

Democrats have been counting on the Great Lakes to deliver a Big Blue Wave this November to help win back control of Congress, but with no compelling message aside from impeachment, no policy agenda for the economy or national security, and no tactical strategy to lure swing voters back, Democrats might reverse the historical trend of the out-of-power party gaining more power in the midterm election.

Robert Mueller has plenty of questions for President Trump, and maybe he will get to ask them. Most of them are perjury traps rather than real questions for the president.

Surprisingly, they contain very little that wasn’t in the public domain though prior leaks. In other words, the president is not a target because they have nothing implicating him, and so they want to use the interview to create such material.

But the conduct of the investigation by the special counsel and his team has raised a lot of questions as to its foundation, conflicts of interest, fairness and methods.

If you believe the last Harvard Caps-Harris Poll, much of the public supports Robert Mueller going forward with his investigation, although the Washington Post reported yesterday (5/01), “The number of people who say the Mueller investigation should continue is shrinking.’

That shrinking would no doubt continue if Mr. Mueller were required to answer a few questions himself.  In a deposition under oath with threat of perjury.  Such as: