Watch And Listen To Sam Elliott Narrate A First-Person Account Of The D-Day Invasion

“31 men jumped off that boat. Just seven made it to the beach.”

Should be a must-listen for every U.S. citizen.

This was war. This was true heroism. This was good vs evil. 


Image result for sam elliot memorial day




“A thought-provoking thriller and a dire warning of an America that has dangerously lost its way.”

“Brutally honest yet uniquely entertaining. One of the best reads of 2019.”

“If you love what America used to stand for you must read this book.”

Mr. Diaz's Revenge by [Ulsterman, D.W.]




World Celebrates Defeat Of Socialist Fascism Even As U.S. Democrats Embrace It

This week’s 75th-anniversary D-Day celebrations were a beautiful, somber, and reflective affair for a generation that risked everything, including life and limb, for generations that now risk nothing and seemingly know even less about the sacrifices that made their lives of phones and 24/7 social media self-importance, possible. 

Where once we fought and died to make certain socialist fascism was defeated, so many today embrace that historically bloody and dangerous political monstrosity out of both greed and institutionalized ignorance. 

Image result for d-day celebrations

Image result for d-day celebrations

Image result for d-day celebrations

Related image

Image result for d-day celebrations

Related image

Related image


Related image




“A thought-provoking thriller and a dire warning of an America that’s dangerously lost its way.”

“Brutally honest yet uniquely entertaining. One of the best reads of 2019.”

“If you love what America used to stand for you must read this book.”

Mr. Diaz's Revenge by [Ulsterman, D.W.]




Meanwhile, the “story of the century” might be unfolding right now in Italy . . .

While some might complain of the slow pace of the “investigation into the investigators” (a complaint which is unwarranted given it couldn’t actually get going in earnest until the whole Mueller Report saga could be concluded first) there are major developments happening almost every day that are being purposely ignored by the far left media.

Case it in point – George Popadopolous, a minor player within the Trump campaign who has become a major player in the investigation of the investigators,  and the Italian government:

If some are wondering why Democrats have suddenly become much more quiet about the “impeach Trump” push that dominated headlines just last week, it’s because of developments like the one outlined above.

Indictments are coming. The only question is how high up in the D.C. Deep State food chain those indictments will go.

Image result for Deep State vs Trump


“Robert Mueller’s Sinking-Fast Reputation”

For nearly two years the radical far-left pinned their hopes of destroying President Trump on the conclusion of the now-despised and largely ignored, Mueller Report.

It’s author, once held up as the epitome of competent fair play, has been exposed as a politically-motivated hack who appears to have been little more than another Deep State pawn who miserably failed to successfully conclude his anti-Trump mission.

Image result for Robert Mueller is a joke

Real Clear Politics:

…Mueller should have known at least a year ago, and perhaps earlier, that Trump and his senior aides never cooperated with the Russians. He had a duty, Republicans say, to disclose that in a timely way to the American public. He failed in that duty, leaving an unnecessary cloud over Trump and impeding his presidency. Why? And why didn’t Rod Rosenstein, who was supervising the investigation for the Department of Justice, step in and resolve these issues?

Of course, Republicans think the real subversion of justice was committed by the Obama administration’s DoJ, FBI, and intelligence agencies, both in their investigations of Trump and in whitewashing the email case against Hillary Clinton. Attorney General William Barr is already looking into those charges, as are DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorneys John Durham and John Huber. The chief judge of the secret intelligence courts, Rosemary Collyer, has already delivered a report to DoJ saying that the court was not given full, truthful information in warrant applications.

These investigations could burgeon into a catastrophic scandal, involving not only leaking, lying, and illicit spying but possibly collusion by U.S. government agencies to affect the outcome of an election. We don’t know that yet, and we don’t know the role the Obama White House played, but we need to know.

Image result for Robert Mueller Obama

…How do these issues affect Mueller’s reputation? First, his entire investigation was based on two fragile pillars, which Mueller never questioned. If they collapse, Mueller is buried in the rubble. The first pillar is the FBI’s dubious “origin story.” The bureau states, and Mueller explicitly accepts, that its Trump investigation began in late-July 2016 after a low-level campaign volunteer, George Papadopoulos, spoke about Russia to an Australian diplomat in a London bar. Apparently, Papadopoulos also made exculpatory comments, which were not included (as legally required) in a subsequent search-warrant application.

But there is mounting evidence that Papadopoulos was not the first target and July 2016 was not the real starting date. Counter-intelligence investigations of Trump and his associates apparently began earlier and were never disclosed. Neither was widespread illegal spying on Americans by intelligence agencies and their private contractors. Still more surveillance was outsourced to friendly foreign intelligence agencies, which relayed their findings to Washington. Mueller never mentioned these problems — and possible crimes.

These omissions matter. They illustrate bias against Trump and suggest the report’s evidence may be tainted by omission and commission. They show Mueller’s extraordinary efforts to protect the law-enforcement institutions where he served for so many years. That protective shield is a problem because misconduct at DoJ and FBI is central to the inquiry.

Image result for Robert Mueller Obama

The bias issue burst open again after Mueller’s press conference on May 29. Its purported aim was to erect a “Going Out of Business” sign. Since that could have been done with a short, written statement, its real purpose has been debated. Three seem likely. First, he was obviously spinning the report’s conclusions, perhaps to counter what he considered Barr’s spin. Second, he was signaling Congress that, although he could not indict, they could certainly impeach. Finally, he was saying, “I don’t want to testify and, if I must, I won’t say more than the report does.” His invitation to impeach the president infuriated Republicans. His “I won’t say any more” declaration may be meaningless since Congress can subpoena his testimony and demand answers. Trump and Barr have already indicated they will not block it.

Perhaps the worst self-inflicted damage was Mueller’s “not not guilty” statement about Trump. His exact quote: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” That statement is a frontal assault on the oldest, deepest principles of Western law:

No one has to prove their innocence; everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that includes the president, Supreme Court nominees, and anyone else; and
Prosecutors should never pronounce guilt before a verdict or assert someone committed crimes or “bad acts” without charging them. Either charge a crime or shut up. Mueller missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

In violating these fundamental legal principles, Mueller mirrored the infamous 2016 press conference by then-FBI Director James Comey, where he detailed Hillary Clinton’s (alleged) misdeeds and then declined to charge her. The charging decision should have been made by the DoJ, not the FBI, and the allegations should never have been mentioned unless they were charged. Comey’s press conference is an act that will live in infamy.

It is stunning to see an experienced prosecutor like Robert Mueller repeat the error. The best explanation comes from a classic comedy sketch by Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore. It ends with Moore asking his friend, “Do you feel you’ve learnt by your mistakes here?” “Yes,” Cooke replies, “and I think I can repeat them almost perfectly.”

That, sadly, is how Robert Mueller is ending his public service. He learned from James Comey’s mistakes. And he repeated them almost perfectly.

Image result for Robert Mueller Obama


Watch Pro-Trump Mike Huckabee Shred With Korn Metal Guitarist Brian Welch

Pro-Americanism is the new counter-culture. This actually started back in the days of Ronald Reagan but in the Age of Trump has become an even more vital and increasingly powerful counter-culture movement. 

Liberalism equals group-think collectivism. It’s a mindset that attacks and attempts to destroy anything it deems a threat to its authoritarian rule. We see this daily in the far-left media and entertainment industry where group-think outrage works to silence any and all opposition. Conservatives, libertarians, and plain old common working class people are the opposite of that mindset. They welcome different ways of thinking and while they might not always agree, they’ll defend the right of others to hold views counter to their own.

That’s America—the way it was meant to be.

Here’s just such an example. Two seeming opposites enjoying a moment of music together and finding out they have much more in common than the differences the far left would rather use to divide them. Something to think about…

Image result for Huckabee shreds with Korn


The World Is In Awe Of The Grace & Beauty Of First Lady Melania Trump

While her husband has always been the more outspoken and opinionated of the two, Melania Trump is quickly (and rightfully) earning high marks for the timeless grace and beauty she has brought to the position of First Lady of the United States. This week’s state visit to England is no exception as even the far-left media has been forced to grudgingly admit this current First Lady might very well be the most impressive FLOTUS in quite some time.

If her husband was a Democrat she’d likely be gracing every cover of every fashion magazine many times over.


Trump Family Shines In London

They carried themselves as the epitome of American strength, class, and dignity. Despite the 24/7 far-left anti-Trump media coverage, the Trump family has undeniably represented the United States well during the president’s visit.

Has there ever been a more glamorous First Family?


Remember When Joe Biden Lied About Marching For Civil Rights? We Do . . .

Joe Biden has long been known to be uniquely self-involved when it comes to his own version of truth. This often gets him into trouble just like the time he told an audience about the civil rights marches he was involved with.

The problem then (and now) for Mr. Biden was that those marches never actually happened.

Image result for Dumb Joe Biden

Via Redstate:

A candidate who has never managed to break out of the bottom tier in any of the past presidential primaries in which he’s run, has become the clear frontrunner in the 2020 race. This speaks volumes about the quality of the 2020 Democratic field.

Joe Biden has run for the presidency several times and has never been able to gain any traction. Now, we are slowly remembering some of the reasons why.

The New York Times’ Matt Flegenheimer reported on Monday that during a 1987 primary event, Biden claimed to have marched for the civil rights movement. This has been found to be a lie.

At a February 1987 campaign rally in New Hampshire, Biden said, “When I marched in the civil rights movement, I did not march with a 12-point program. I marched with tens of thousands of others to change attitudes. And we changed attitudes.”

According to Flegenheimer, Biden’s aides “cringed” knowing that he was lying again. He wrote, “More than once, advisers had gently reminded Mr. Biden of the problem with this formulation: He had not actually marched during the civil rights movement. And more than once, Mr. Biden assured them he understood — and kept telling the story anyway.”

It wasn’t this particular lie that ended his first run. He had plagiarized during his campaign speeches, and had embellished “his academic record. Reporters began calling out his exaggerated youth activism.”

He frequently touts his knowledge and experience in the area of foreign policy, “comparing himself favorably to Henry A. Kissinger, the former secretary of state.” Yet in his memoir, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote, “I think he’s been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Asked last month if he still believes this, Gates said he stands by his comment.

Unbelievably, Biden also said recently he was the most progressive of the current candidates, which is obviously false.

…Biden has always been gaffe-prone, both as a candidate and as a politician. His aides have often said that his tendency to “improvise” has hurt his career. Flegenheimer wrote that his aides would pass on copies of his prepared remarks to reporters ”with a semi-wry warning in capital letters atop the page” which said: “Senator may stray from prepared remarks.”

Thirty-two years have gone by since then and surely, Biden has learned from his long political career and has become more disciplined. But, he remains a self-described “gut politician.”

The fact that Democrats are so familiar with Joe Biden and that he has not veered as far to the left as most of the candidates may account for much of his lead.

He also faces some strong headwinds. His son’s business dealings with China and the Ukraine will continue to be a challenge for Biden. His threat to withhold aid to Ukraine until they fired the official who was about to investigate his son will require some explaining. And Biden’s age will be an issue. He certainly lacks the energy of President Trump.

In and of itself, news of a lie told 32 years ago is not a major obstacle for Biden. But it reminds voters of all of the reasons his earlier runs for the presidency ended in failure. And that is a problem.

Image result for Dumb Joe Biden


BREAKING: Fake Trump Dossier Author Christopher Steele To Be Brought In For Questioning

The investigation into those who helped to carry out the attempted Deep State coup of President Donald Trump is now fully underway as clearly indicated by the breaking news that the author of the infamous anti-Trump dossier, paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and then (illegally) used as justification by the Obama intelligence agencies to spy on the rival Trump campaign, will be sitting down soon for an interview with U.S. investigators. 

Image result for Christopher Steele Obama Hillary

Via Fox News:

Former British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the anti-Trump dossier of salacious and unverified claims about the president’s ties to Russia, has agreed to be questioned by investigators from the United States, according to a report in Britain.

The Times (UK) cited sources close to Steele on Tuesday in reporting that the 54-year-old is set to be interviewed in London within weeks. The development comes as attention has returned to the dossier authored by Steele — especially since its more sensational claims were not substantiated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose report found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

The paper did not specifically say who Steele would be interviewed by.

But there are several ongoing investigations in the U.S. related to the origins of the Russia probe, and federal investigators are probing how the Democrat-funded anti-Trump dossier written by Steele was used to secure surveillance warrants for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016.

…Last week, Barr said he has not received answers from the intelligence community that are “at all satisfactory” in the early stages of his review into the origins of the Russia investigation.

“Like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on,” Barr told CBS News. “And I assumed I’d get answers when I went in, and I have not gotten answers that are at all satisfactory.”

…Separately, congressional Republicans have questioned whether British officials supported intelligence-gathering activities targeted at Trump associates or coordinated in any way with Steele. (They almost certainly did, meaning the Clinton campaign and likely the Obama administration were working closely with foreign powers to meddle/manipulate a U.S. election, something that would place it among the greatest/most dangerous political scandals in American history.)

Image result for Christopher Steele Obama Hillary


POTUS Trump & The Queen vs “Stone Cold Losers”

President Trump’s trip to London has been a remarkably successful and classy affair even as quickly-dwindling numbers of anti-Trumpers attempt to grab some empty headlines by speaking out against his presence there. The President and First Lady were warmly welcomed by Queen Elizabeth as large crowds of Londoners cheered.

This is leadership the likes of which the world has not seen in quite some time.

Image result for Trump visit to London


Queen Elizabeth Gives Warm Welcome To POTUS Trump & Cold Shoulder To London Mayor Sadiq Khan

When Queen Elizabeth extended a state visit invitation to President Trump the anti-Trumpers were predictably outraged. The queen ignored that outrage and in her own steely-eyed way, swatted them aside with a public warm welcome to a president some have said she holds a great deal of respect and admiration for and who reminds her more than a little of the legendarily brash and outspoken Winston Churchill who the queen worked with many decades ago. 

The Queen’s most notable rebuke came against London Mayor Sadiq Khan who she apparently detests. Khan, a radical anti-Trumper, was left off the guest list for the state dinner. 

Image result for Queen Elizabeth with Winston Churchill

Image result for Trump and Churchill


Wounded War Veteran Dan Crenshaw Blasts Bernie Sanders’ Refusal To Help Solve Border Crisis

Not so long ago Democrats and the media were declaring there was NO crisis at the U.S. southern border.

Now they are declaring it’s a 24/7 crisis of epic proportions—but doing NOTHING about it beyond making it a political talking point.

Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is front-and-center for that kind of do-nothing hypocrisy and decorated wounded warrior and Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw just called Senator Sanders out BIG TIME on that fact:

Illegal crossings into the  United States are stretching border security resources beyond thin and to date, the only ones attempting to do anything about it are President Trump and a handful of Republicans unafraid of taking on the increasingly dangerous issue.

Secure the border. Reform immigration so that good people wanting to legally become part of the United States can have the process expedited and not have to wait months and years to do so.

It’s basic common sense but in Washington D.C. it seems common sense is about as rare as an honest politician.


Bikers Promise To “Descend On D.C.” If Radical Dems Attempt To Impeach Trump

The Bikers for Trump movement that began in 2016 has since grown to several hundred thousand members and should the radical D.C. Democrats push forward with an impeachment vote against President Donald Trump after all evidence appears to show conclusively that the president did nothing wrong, those bikers are declaring their intent to descend on D.C. in protest. 

If that happens will millions more Americans join them?

Image result for Bikers for Trump

Image result for Bikers for Trump


Robert Mueller: The Deep State Verbal Troll

He spent ten minutes saying nothing substantive while attempting to provide some cover for those responsible for a Deep State coup against a duly elected president.

So many lies. So many deceptions. So many people who should be sentenced for their own legitimate high crimes and misdemeanors against the citizens of America.


CAUGHT! Ex-FBI official leaked ‘sensitive’ info, improperly accepted gift from media

In yet another example of how corrupt the Obama-era Deep State had become, a high-ranking FBI official has outed by the Inspector General for accepting bribes in exchange for “sensitive materials” leaks to the media.

Image result for Deep State corruption

Via The Washington Examiner:

The Justice Department’s watchdog said a high-ranking FBI official leaked “sensitive” information to reporters multiple times with authorization and had improperly accepted a gift from the media.

A one-page report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz released Wednesday concluded that a now-former deputy assistant director with the FBI “engaged in misconduct” by disclosing information to the media that had been filed under seal in federal court, maintaining dozens of unauthorized contacts with reporters, and accepting a $225 ticket from a member of the media to attend a dinner sponsored by the media.

Despite these violations of FBI policy, the inspector general said “prosecution of the [deputy assistant director] was declined.”

The investigation was initiated by the Office of the Inspector General in response to allegations from the FBI, and the inspector general said that it is now “providing this report to the FBI for appropriate action.”

The inspector general said in its report Wednesday that the investigation stemmed from one of many episodes referenced in the office’s bombshell 2018 report titled “Review of Allegations Regarding Various Actions by the Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Advance of the 2016 Election.” That inspector general inquiry, which focused on the conduct of the DOJ and FBI during the “Midyear Exam” investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, concluded that members of both the department and the bureau acted improperly.


What the above so clearly outlines is a pay-to-play culture that infested the Obama-era intelligence communities largely created by an agenda-driven far left media who were only too happy to reward those who (illegally) fed them information.

It’s Deep-State swamp politics at its very worst—the very same thing that has been attacking President Trump the moment he announced his intention to run for the White House in 2015.



“Everyone who loves what America was and could be again should read this book.”

“This story is so much more than you might think. You have to read it.”




Mr. Diaz's Revenge by [Ulsterman, D.W.]

A teacher on the brink. A father and military combat veteran seeking justice.
Their paths are about to cross and their lives will never be the same…


REPORT: The Many Lying Faces Of Robert Mueller And The Deep State Democrats…

Image result for evil Mueller

Via Fox News:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has peddled two different stories. Only one can be true.

In his final act before resigning his position, Mueller told the gathered media on Wednesday that his non-decision decision on whether the president obstructed justice was “informed” by a long-standing opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. But according to William Barr, that’s not what Mueller told the attorney general and others during a meeting on March 5, 2017. Here’s what Barr told Senators during his May 1st testimony:

“We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

Barr said there were others in the meeting who heard Mueller say the same thing – that the OLC opinion played no role in the special counsel’s decision-making or lack thereof. The attorney general repeated this in his news conference the day Mueller’s report was released to the public:

“We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.”

Yet, on Wednesday Mueller was telling a different tale. He seemed to argue that he could not have accused the president of obstruction because he was handcuffed by the OLC opinion. Why, then, did Mueller allegedly inform Barr that a special counsel can abandon the opinion if the facts merit it?

“He (Mueller) said that in the future the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.”

Mueller did not abandon the OLC opinion in this case because he surely knew the facts and evidence did not support the law of obstruction. Instead, in his 448-page report, he implied presidential obstruction in a remarkable achievement in creative writing.

He set forth in luxurious detail “evidence on both sides of the question.” But this is not the job of any chief prosecutor, anywhere.

Image result for evil Mueller

Mueller was not retained to compose a masterpiece worthy of Proust. He was hired to investigate potential crimes arising from Russian interference in a presidential election and make a reasoned decision on whether charges were merited.

Mueller’s actions were not only noxious but patently unfair to Trump. The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality.

This is what prosecutors are never permitted to do. Justice Department rules forbid its lawyers from annunciating negative narratives about any person, absent an indictment.

How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion.

If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so. If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent.

In this regard, Mueller shrewdly and improperly turned the law on its head. Consider the most inflammatory statement that he leveled at the president in his report. It was guaranteed to ignite the impeachment fire:

“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

To reinforce the point, Mueller stated it twice in his report. He then reiterated the argument on Wednesday when he said: “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

Prosecutors are not, and have never been, in the business of exonerating people. That’s not their job.

Image result for Mueller and Obama

An experienced federal prosecutor, Mueller certainly knew this. It appears he had no intention of treating Trump equitably or applying the law in conformance with our criminal justice system.

In a singular sentence, Mueller managed to reverse the legal duty that prosecutors have rigidly followed in America for centuries. Their legal obligation is not to exonerate someone or prove an individual’s innocence. Nor is any accused person required to prove his or her own innocence.

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is the bedrock on which justice is built.

Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring charges they must have, at minimum, probable cause to believe that a crime was committed.

The special counsel took this inviolate principle and cleverly inverted it. He argued that he could not prove the president did not commit a crime.

Think about what that rationale really means. It is a double negative. Mueller was contending that he can’t prove something didn’t happen.

What if this were the standard for all criminal investigations? Apply it to yourself.

Let’s say you deposited your paycheck at the bank on Monday, the same day it’s robbed. A prosecutor then announces publicly that he cannot prove you didn’t rob the bank, so you are neither criminally accused nor “exonerated.”

The burden of proof has now been shifted to you to disprove the negative. How would you feel? You’ve been maligned with the taint of criminality and no longer enjoy the presumption of innocence.

This is the equivalent of what Mueller did to Trump. The special counsel created the impression that Trump might have engaged in wrongdoing because he could not prove otherwise.

The consequential injustice and harm that inevitably follows is what happens when we reverse the burden of proof and abandon the innocence standard that are revered in a democracy as fundamental rights.

Yet, this is what Mueller did. He improvised a new standard that applies only to Trump —presumption of guilt. Under this novel “guilty until proven innocent” paradigm, it is up to the president to prove the allegations are false.

Attorney General Barr recognized that Mueller had mangled the legal process, describing his statement as “actually a very strange statement.”

Image result for evil Mueller

Barr told Congress that he was forced to correct Mueller’s mistake. “I used the proper standard,” said Barr. “We are not in the business of proving someone did not violate the law –I found that whole passage very bizarre,” he added.

Our system of justice in America is designed to protect the innocent. This is why there are laws that prevent disclosure of grand jury testimony and even more expansive rules at the Justice Department that prohibit prosecutors from disclosing derogatory information about uncharged individuals. It is, in a word, unfair to smear people who have not been charged with anything.

Mueller was well aware of this. In the “introduction” to Volume II on obstruction, he recited the duty of prosecutors to be fair by refraining from comment. In the case of a sitting president, wrote Mueller, “The stigma and opprobrium could imperil the President’s ability to govern.”

Ironically, the special counsel then proceeded to ignore his own warning. He produced his own “dossier” on Trump that was filled with suspicions of wrongdoing.

He refused to make a decision to charge the president in a court of law but was more than willing to indict him in the court of public opinion.

His report was a non-indictment indictment. It was calumny masquerading as a report.