Follow the money.

It’s a strange political fact, but nearly every major anti-gun group has been a front group.  By contrast, the NRA is maligned 24/7 and yet it’s completely obvious whom it represents.

Despite the efforts to tie the NRA to everyone from firearms manufacturers to the Russians (if you can’t tie any random Republican thing to the Russians these days, you won’t be working at the Washington Post or CNN for very long), it represents its five million members.

Anti-gun groups tend to represent shadowy networks. The one consistent thing about anti-gun groups is that that they are usually the opposite of what their name says they are.

March for Our Lives is on every cable channel, but who runs it? The photogenic teen fronts are out front. But it’s obvious to everyone that a bunch of teen-agers in high school don’t have the resources and skills to coordinate a nationwide movement. Instead it’s the experienced activists who are actually running things.

Ever since Donald Trump rode down his escalator and announced he was running for president, a good swath of America, not to mention the overwhelming majority of its media, has been having the collective equivalent of a nervous breakdown.

It got worse when he actually became president and it hasn't stopped since.  The ramifications have been, to put it mildly, depressing  -- families divided, longtime friendships shattered, the society even more sundered than it was during Vietnam.

This has largely been the Left's doing, to be honest -- they tend to react more emotionally -- but some on the Right (“Never Trumpers”) are responsible too.

Enter Roseanne Barr.

The woman whose sitcom with John Goodman broke ground thirty years ago as a symbol of working class progressivism returned, after a three-decade hiatus, Tuesday night, but this time -- oh, apostasy! -- as a Trump supporter in Roseanne.

Late night Friday's (3/16) firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, based on a report from the Office of Professional Responsibility, is only the beginning of what is likely to be the most explosive series of revelations in American history.

Forget Watergate. It will be the distant past once the inspector general's reports—there apparently will be more than one—start to come out. This will be the "Gate of Gates."

From the FBI and across the intelligence agencies an astonishing number of people are going to find themselves accused, one can safely predict at this point, of some atrocious behavior in a free republic. And it will not just be the small change of Peter Strzok (the dimwitted director of counter-intelligence) and his gal pal Lisa Page.

It will include—on one level or another—James Comey, Loretta Lynch, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice and, almost inevitably, Barack Obama, not to mention others known and unknown.

All these people's reputations will be damaged forever for the pathetic purpose of getting Hillary Clinton elected president and later for their determination to manipulate the FBI and intelligence agencies to wound as severely as possible Trump's presidency.

Sometimes the hysteria of crowds causes them to overlook the obvious. Here is a series of 12 questions that do not seem to trouble Robert Mueller, but the answers to these should expose why so many of the people today alleging scandals should themselves be considered scandalous.

1) Had Hillary Clinton won the election, would we now even know of a Fusion GPS dossier? Would assorted miscreants such as Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, or Peter Strzok now be under a cloud of suspicion?

Or would they instead have been quietly lionized by a President Clinton grateful for noble services in the shadows rendered during the campaign?

2) If Clinton had won, would we now know of any Russian-supplied smears against Donald Trump?

Would a FISA judge now be complaining that he was misled in a warrant request? Would likely Attorney General Loretta Lynch be reassigning Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr for his consultations with Fusion GPS operatives?

Two ominous tweets, one written by former CIA Director John Brennan, the other by former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power, openly threaten a sitting president — President Trump. This must be investigated.

Both of these tweets raise enormous questions, not only about what is meant by these threats, but what kind of inside information these former Obama officials might be receiving from unauthorized sources.

Late Friday night (3/16), after the long overdue firing of Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former acting FBI director, the president tweeted to the American people that McCabe’s termination (and possible loss of pension) marks a “great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI – A great day for Democracy.”

Brennan responded with a tweet of foaming rage that was unquestionably a threat, which Power then supported.  The very idea that a Brennan and Power, two former Cabinet-level officials in the Obama administration, are publicly hurling not-so-veiled threats at a sitting American president, is not only beyond the pale, but must be taken seriously by Federal authorities.

All during his 2008 election campaign and throughout his presidency, Barack Obama diligently obfuscated his associations with Antisemites.  Consider his relationship with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Farrakhan is the most prominent and politically powerful Antisemite in America.  He has a four-decade record of viciously Antisemitic statements along the lines of the posts at the Palestine Live Facebook group.

Farrakhan has called Hitler “a very great man.” He has referred to Judaism as “a gutter religion,” and to Jews as “satanic.”

Obama’s relationship with Farrakhan returned to the news in January when photo-journalist Askia Muhammad published a photograph he took of the two men together at a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) meeting when Obama was a serving U.S. Senator.  He had hidden it all these years.

Rather than disavowing Farrakhan, after Askia’s photograph was published, leading Black Democrats in Congress have embraced him.  You can’t wallow in the sewer of Hitlerian hate for Jews more than that.

According to government sources, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper leaked classified information to CNN early last year, prior to Donald Trump’s Inauguration.

He disclosed to CNN the classified briefings given to then President-Elect Donald Trump and President Barrack Obama on the salacious dossier claiming the Russians had compromising information on the president-elect. He was one of four senior Obama administration officials present. The evidence of Mr. Clapper’s leak was collected during the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation.

Yet immediately after CNN ran with the story based on his leaks, Clapper issued an official statement denouncing the leak (January 11, 2017).  He stated his “profound dismay at the leaks,” warned that the leaks were “extremely corrosive and damaging” to national security, and denied any US intelligence agency involvement.

Evidently it was thanks to Clapper’s leaks to CNN that “gave the dossier story legs and news agencies began to publish its contents because it had now become official news,” one congressional source told this reporter.  Thus the Trump-Russia Collusion story was born.

Dear Hillary,

Hey, girl. Good to see you up and about these days. I hear India is lovely this time of year. Watch those steps!

So, listen—we need to talk. I think it’s time you heard directly from some white, married women about why we didn’t vote for you.

Your life plan didn’t end the way you wanted it to, and you’re bitter about it. Apparently, you are really ticked off at your sistren; white, married moms like me who voted for Donald Trump instead of you.

During an event in India the other day you ripped us again. The reason we didn’t vote for you, you said: “Part of this is.. a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

I asked several friends, all married ladies, to respond to your comments. This is by no means a scientific poll, but maybe it will give you some insight as to why you lost our vote. And it might sting: