Our country, if you read the 'Federalist Papers,' is about disagreement. It's about pitting faction against faction, divided government, checks and balances. The hero in American political tradition is the man who stands up to the mob - not the mob itself.

And, of course, liberals see no problem with using the government to impose their cultural beliefs on others; they just won't admit that's what they're doing.

I have always seen the Clinton Foundation - yes, they do a lot of charitable good works. But by my lights, the charitable good works were a cost center like the electric bill. The reason why the foundation exists wasn't to do good work. It was to serve as sort of a place to park lugubrious sycophants like Sidney Blumenthal and other henchman, a place to serve as a super PAC, a place park her campaign while they were a government in exile

I think as - all in all, it's better to have a cool president than a not cool president.

I have a simple answer to any American patriot who claims that there is no conflict between his love of country and his desire to hitch our fate to the United Nations: “You're mistaken.” And, therefore, I'm thinking of adding this corollary to my General Rule of patriotism: The more intellectually consistent and pro-U.N. you are, the less patriotic you are likely to be. I haven't thought that all the way through, but it seems right to me.

A lot of the things that Trump needs to do to be a popular president requires annoying his biggest fans.

Getting the support of Syria is the moral equivalent of winning the Klan's endorsement - it might be useful but it doesn't necessarily speak well of you.