Before the defeat of Hillary Clinton, the idea that the Russians or anyone else could warp or tamper with our elections in any serious manner was laughed off by President Obama.

Obama was anxious that the sure-to-be-sore-loser Trump would not blame his defeat on voting impropriety in a fashion that might call into question Clinton’s victory.

How ironic that Russian “collusion” was used as a preemptive charge after Trump’s victory from those who actually had colluded with Russians for all sorts for financial and careerist advantages.

“Obstruction” is now supposedly the key to destroying the Trump Administration after collusion imploded. But what exactly would real obstruction of justice look like?

On a Sunday afternoon last month (5/19), Etta Nugent found Marco Cobos, an illegal alien from Mexico, at her doorstep in Houston after his truck had broken down nearby.  Cobos forced his way into the elderly lady’s home and stabbed her in the chest.

Nugent’s horrific fate has become all too common in an America that has bought into the lie that it is “a nation of immigrants,” rather than simply a nation. Increasingly, however, immigrants show little appreciation, often outright hostility, for this nation and its people.

Consider the “Dreamers” of North Carolina, thousands of illegal aliens who were brought, illegally, into the country by their parents. The fact that they have not been deported despite their unlawful presence is, in itself, a benefit undeservingly conferred upon them.

We have tens of millions of the entitled uninvited in our country.  What are we going to do about it?

Twelve years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The decision in effect gave the Environmental Protection Agency massive additional regulatory authority.

This year, another landmark climate case appears headed for the high court: Juliana v. United States. This time, the stakes are even higher.

The “endangerment finding” in Massachusetts v. EPA was a missed opportunity for climate skeptics to have an honest debate on the entire scientific basis of climate activism. The failure of climate skeptics to successfully argue their position in Massachusetts has created a powerful precedent that favors the plaintiffs in Juliana.

Nonetheless, Juliana is an opportunity to challenge every scientific premise of the climate activist lobby.  For example:

Donald Trump’s opponents at home and abroad would love to see him get the U.S. into a messy intervention right before the election.

A big China trade deal, an agreement to denuclearize North Korea and Iran, flipping Putin to become a neutral rather than an adversary, or a Middle East halfway accord could change global realities and empower the U.S.

And so the gambler Trump wagers that he can do overseas what he did at home and pull off land-breaking agreements — all at once.

Can he?  The Democrats and Chinese Communists want him to fail instead, and are actively conspiring to see that he does.

Most Americans are unaware of the long history of comradeship and chicanery between Special Counsel Robert Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey.

For nearly two decades, the pair have held the same jobs, earned the same foes, and swaggered in the same rarified sphere of political prestige and privilege.

This week, the country has been treated to another reminder of how often the twosome operates in tandem.  Now thanks to another grudge-seeking joint stunt by Mueller and Comey, the Democrats and the media are recharged and ready to chase the folly of impeachment in time for the 2020 election.

Robert Mueller should have been disbarred decades ago, along with his enforcer Andrew Weismann; that is how egregious his record of malfeasance is, all matters of public record.

What he did yesterday morning (5/29) was his final IED tossed at the President to placate his Democrat overlords who desperately want to impeach Trump.

But for what?  Mueller gave no list of felonies in his report nor did he detail any crimes of which Trump is even amorphously guilty.

Who made him embarrass himself by offering the Democrats a new path to impeachment?  Who has something on Bob Mueller?

The recent push in Alabama to restrict most abortions has energized the culture war. But despite the seething passions on both sides, nothing has really changed.

Abortion has always been anti-family, always been about convenience, and always been evil.

What has changed is the candor of abortion extremists. The far Left’s recent embrace of late-term abortion on demand is as sign that the time for compromise and “dialogue” is rapidly fading.

Almost all people are still repulsed by overt infanticide—and most well-meaning liberals who aren’t so extreme probably do not realize what they are supporting when they acquiesce to a general “right to choose”—but the embrace of late-term abortion as a serious topic of discussion heralds a nation in decline.

The truth is that abortion is not just a “leftist” issue. It’s a gruesome convenience with which a broad swath of America has made peace.

In key global debates, Russia’s voice has been uncharacteristically timid lately.

Various Russian domestic controversies are developing without the usual heavy-handed interference from the Kremlin—almost as if President Vladimir Putin has lost interest in the affairs of state.

Yet, as might have been expected, this current neglect of domestic matters is not caused by an overabundance of demanding international concerns.  Progressing economic weakness is a major underlying cause of Putin’s political passivity, to the degree that he is aware of this feebleness.

Is he losing his confidence and will?

The entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative was always implausible.

No wonder that special counsel Robert Mueller’s partisan team spent 22 months and $34 million only to conclude the obvious: that Trump did not collude with Russia.

Mueller’s failure to find collusion prompts an important question. If the Steele dossier—the basis for unfounded charges that Trump colluded with Russia—was fraudulent, then how and why did the Clinton campaign, hand in glove with top Obama administration officials, use such silly trash and smears to unleash the powers of government against Trump’s campaign, transition team and early presidency?

The question is not an idle one.