Tag Archives: haters

Education, Governance, Politics 2018, Representation, Trump

St. Mueller the Silent

Leave a comment

The “Mueller Investigation” as the “Special Counsel” investigation is known, is a confusing, obfuscatory, scattershot, and stupefying, yet crystal clear example of the failure of American self-government. Mueller has played his role very well: careful, quiet, indictments of several people who a) will never be extradited for trial or, b) have nothing to do with what the public believes is the purpose of his investigation. A cool character, he.

Now the big press controversy is over a pre-election meeting attended by Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump. Jr. and some ostensible carriers of dirty dirt about Mrs. Clinton, Russian origin. The meeting wasn’t illegal and nothing illegal was done for all of its 20- or 30-minute duration. BUT! BUT! Did Trump, Sr. know about the meeting?

If he had known, it still wasn’t illegal. But, if he lied about knowing about it – which some claim, although there’s no evidence – and all one needs to do is accuse Donald Trump of something for certain people to “know” that he did not only that of which he is accused, but much worse, he’s such a terrible human being after all, then maybe Mueller can get him to testify that he didn’t know about the meeting under oath and then he may be accused of perjury because someone like James Comey, an established liar and hater of the aforementioned Mr. Trump Sr., and of Jr., too, most likely, has said he told him he did know of the meeting.

Mueller can choose whom to believe when testimony conflicts, and therein lies the flaw in the grand-jury / indictment system, proving the maxim that a good prosecutor with a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. All he needs is for some homeless witness who claims to have seen the meat inside the sandwich in question, and to accuse the ham sandwich of being, in fact, a turkey sandwich. Soon the prosecutor’s suspicious attention is turned toward the sandwich so accused, with demands to hear what the purported ham sandwich has to say in its defense, only to find that the sandwich refuses to answer! Indictment follows.

Manafort is in big trouble. He apparently committed crimes by hiding income received from some sort of work for the then pro-Russian president of Ukraine. So his crimes were financial. His offense was working for the Trump campaign in 2016, during which time he committed no crimes. But, he breathed the air in Trump Tower and Mueller has treated him very differently from anyone else accused of similar crimes, including revoking his bail and holding him in solitary confinement. All this for a case that Mueller could have handed off to other federal prosecutors as he has other cases his broad investigation uncovered.

Manafort is obviously different because of his direct connection, briefly, with the eeeevil Mr. Trump: Mueller’s real target.

The official charge establishing this unique “Special Counsel” for the DOJ is short and incredibly broad:
ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James S. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

Mueller was head of the FBI for years and worked closely, indeed friendly, with all the people who have lost their jobs there, over the past year: Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Yates, Paige, and others to come. Rod Rosenstein, not yet fired, who appointed Mueller, is also a close friend of his. The investigation team is comprised of anti-Republican and avowedly pro-Democrat, pro-Clinton personnel. It is reasonable to be suspicious of the even-handed application of the “law” likely to be arrayed against a Republican president who defeated “their” candidate. Mueller says nothing, but his treatment of Paul Manafort is louder than words.

Where the average sentence for Manafort’s alleged crimes is less than a year and a half – in a low-security “club fed,” Manfort is threatened with many decades of incarceration. A logical observer would recognize the prosecutorial tactic of squeezing a low-level criminal to get him or her to “rat” on his boss. There is plenty of doubt of that outcome.

But the Mueller probe is masterful in any case. While it makes clear the inability of our rotten, fatuous federal institutions to keep their own houses clean, it also has provided tidbits for rabid anti-Trump forces in media, the establishment parties, and in a thousand “non-profit” activist groups whose lifeblood comes from a thousand rotten grants of socialist funding whereby they separately and collectively weaken the body politic on a daily basis, and most foully from within the very government institutions created and sold to a heretofore “free” people as the fundaments of law and order.

And all of these seize on every tid and bit and crumb… and ham sandwich, with which to assail the President and all who granted him power to do what he is struggling to do. In truth he is neither Republican nor Democrat, yet the states are with him in the hope that our Constitutional republic might be saved.

On a sudden, the long knives of utter socialism are out. “Deminos” (Democrats in name only) are exposing their hatred for the ideas that formed The U. S. of A. Socialism, like the “serpent” that tempted Eve, is antithetical to Americanism. The American Constitution and Declaration of Independence cannot coexist with socialism. One need only to understand our founding and the majesty of liberty to recognize that truth. The heavy oil of socialism chokes out the life-giving waters of freedom and personal sovereignty. Need proof? There are twenty Trillions in proof hanging over our heads.

Mr. Mueller is faithfully serving the haters. Perhaps he knows this – his own past is far from pure.

Responsibility

THE BELIEFS OF LEADERSHIP

Leave a comment

There are lessons to be learned from the reactions of his opponents to the campaign and election of Donald Trump. Those same opponents seem deaf to them… and blind. As history often provides, the lessons will be made clearer, oddly enough, as the lens of time becomes thicker, longer and, in fact, cooler. Are these lessons so earth-shattering? Well, yes, probably.

Some nation is going to lead all nations, like it or not. Since its founding, in a sense, the United States has been that nation. Why? Much derives from the sacrifices of George Washington, a quite spiritual man. Unlike all the kings of history, Washington finished his second term as president and went back to his farm. He could have been president for life; he could have dictated who the next president would be. Instead, he surrendered a power the extent of which he may not have realized. In many ways he was the key man, launching our ship of state with faith in the inherent goodness of the people of America… and little else.

That “goodness” was primarily Judeo-Christian, filtered through all of Europe and the British Isles. Whether steady attendees at churches or not, most “Americans” were Christian – an inconvenient truth. When Franklin answered that the Constitutional Convention had delivered a “…republic, if you can keep it(.)” he expressed his recognition of the need for a morally straight citizenry in order for a representative democracy to function and survive.

Only morally raised children would grow up to live in honesty. Only a moral people would demand and sustain a legal structure of honest jurisprudence, honest, enforceable contracts, written and verbal, and honest money, trusted by every seller and buyer. Only an honest people would allow, even encourage, the least among us to excel, grow and succeed. Our many flaws grew from wrong beliefs and our regret is justified. But, our basic honesty and the strength of our institutions enabled us to change flawed beliefs.

Which is not to say that changing all beliefs is a good thing – our forbears were right about most of it.

Those of us old farts who have worried about the upset changes of the 1960’s, are being proven right, too. That was a decade that saw socialism become a “solution” through the “Great Society,” and indulgence of every youthful abandon begin the erosion of moral institutions, education as a moral institution, and every sort of drug and sexual thrill gain “rights.”
These changes are bearing their fruits… and nuts.

Daily we are challenged over every institution’s role as modern politicians – liberal ones, anyway, and fearful non-liberals – bow to every new idea about how individuals are not responsible for building their own lives and economics. Unfortunately, in a whirlpool of new “rights,” the lives of those citizens who don’t agree with or don’t care about the new licentiousness, the power of government has been turned against the majority of those who give it power in the first place. What are the new beliefs?

A growing minority believe that every form of sexual expression is as valid as all the others. These same believe that resistance to the disappearance of procreative sacredness is the equivalent of Hitler’s incomprehensible pathologies. This same group decries all rules of personal behavior not invented by them, and they are quick to hate while castigating haters. What sort of leaders will they be? With no social norming at work, will nations, in their view, become irrelevant, too?

The ungoverned seem quick to demand that “government” destroy the lives and rights of the traditionalist majority, and there are sufficient psychologists and lawyers to twist their ideas into effective arguments against… whatever. Screams for diversity – whatever that is – turn into screams of rage when diversity of beliefs is placed before them. Technology cannot mask that divide, nor, apparently, can elections. Majority rule is hateful until the disenchanted are in a majority position, however briefly. Since it will be brief, court rulings are sought to make their beliefs permanent policy.

Drugs are becoming mainstream, which might have some positive value if they calmed the hateful. They don’t, evidently. Drugs are a subject for belief and not necessarily truth, or reality. Besides, there are tax revenues to be realized, the purest calcimine that ever touched a brush. Soon we’ll be crime-free. Let’s hope the lights come on and the water flows on that day.

Economics, Race

ARE WE DONE HERE?

Leave a comment

riot-3If you are rescuing a family, maybe several families from, say, a flood, and to do so you are wading through the flood waters, pulling the boat carrying those you are rescuing (you also brought warm food, hot chocolate and dry clothes for everyone), should the people in the boat be whipping you to get the rescue done more quickly?

I can hear sensible people saying “No, how could they?” But, when the process is not taking place in a boat but in our income-redistributing welfare morass, then the rescued can vote their rescuers into greater hustle. Suggesting that they should not be voting is seen as extreme cruelty. Hmmnnh.

Ostensibly smart professors are attempting to “teach” student snowflakes about “white privilege.” Apparently, in their history-debasing opinions, being white means being guilty of… well, everything. Surely there cannot be any differences in productivity, inventiveness or innovation between peoples, groups, races, tribes or religions – those differences that we white people are supposed to celebrate… those differences? When seen in a macro view, “white privilege” is the politically (corrupt) correct way to undermine Judeo-Christian heritage, ethics, beliefs and the enlightened philosophies that underpin the United States.

Law originated among small populations based on self-interest of protecting oneself and one’s family. That meant protecting food sources, safe shelter, wives and children. Very soon it became clear that groups (tribes) of families were a source of safety and better food security. Agreements were made as to what land “belonged” to one group and where the boundaries were. The “laws” between groups or tribes were laws only because of the ability to enforce them.

Within groups natural differences manifested. Some worked harder or smarter than others. Some cheated or stole; some sacrificed to help others; some were better boundary protectors; some were better hunters; some, better gatherers. Economics developed not by theory, but practicality.

“Treaties” were negotiated with other tribes, bound in fact by military power. Wars were prosecuted over various encroachments including of land, of resources and even of women. Slavery of the defeated generally resulted. Still, there was progress, spurred by conflict and deprivation… and shared beliefs, ethics and morals. Groups comprised of members who shared concepts of “right” and “wrong” were stronger. Inevitably, rebellion against those concepts resulted in punishment, death or banishment.

With closer-knit communities of central buildings and surrounding farm or grazing lands, ever more rules of behavior were required and codified. Outside of each “city,” however, military strength made the “laws.” Slavery was common, especially of subjugated peoples, and of them, especially of those who had resisted subjugation the most or who had attacked the victors. Competing religions accentuated conflict and subjugation.

Still, economics spurred trade over greater and greater distances – economics spurred by envy and deprivation. Some tribes or, whole kingdoms, were better at producing certain goods. They may have had the good fortune of possessing lands with suitable ores, or which grew coveted spices or which had good salt. Trade and economics had their own rules and ethics. Soon there were contracts.

Two areas of Earth saw great invention and innovation: China, basically, and Europe from south to north. One, the far East, remained insular and severely hierarchical; the other, the “West,” based in small, competing nations, fought through serfdom and developed democracy, economic freedom and a remarkable urge to explore and colonize. From competition came freedom and the great sciences and mental explorations.

It is all rooted in the sweep of Judeo-Christian philosophy – the heritage the “West” is squandering, undermining and cheapening in a headlong rush to out-think God. Sadly, our federal government – and many states’ governments – have devised new “rights” and sanctions that reach directly to from-the-pulpit homilies and even scriptural readings. This in the one nation founded upon religious freedom.

America was founded by, in effect, Hebrews! That is, as the tribes of Israel and Judah were scattered by the Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians, ultimately migrating into Europe and forming the royal houses of virtually every nation there, out of those nations came very strong people who sacrificed everything to get to the “New Jerusalem.” We are fools to deny the history of, well… white, Judeo-Christian peoples.

Is our success due to the “choosing” of the Israelites? Let’s leave that to religious scholars and recognize what may be proven: that Judeo-Christian mores include intellectual strength and education, strong moral strictures… and sacrifice – for family, for others, for the future. This is not in defense of churches, but of history. The economics derived from that belief-structure produced the greatest personal freedoms, scientific advancement and standards of living. Now we are running away from it, scorching the Earth as we go.

Is the new hatred of whites, Jews and Christians most particularly, rational? We are not perfect and do not claim to be. Neither are those who would destroy us. Will our haters willingly destroy this nation in order to make whites pay a price for imperfection?

Evidently.