Some are More Equal than Others

Some are More Equal than Others

As a retired FBI Agent, I can state unequivocally that in the many cases I investigated and presented to the United States Attorney for prosecution, I never once told the USA what to do with the case. Several of my retired friends have assured me they had similar experiences. Somewhere, there probably is an ex-Agent who will tell you he made such a decision himself on behalf of the USA; stranger things have happened. But the decision as to whether to prosecute a case lies entirely within the purview of the USA or an Assistant USA—or the Attorney General of the United States--NOT the FBI.

Some Agents have tried to persuade the USA to prosecute a case that they felt strongly about, mostly with limited success. However, if the Agent is unable to prove any of the elements of the crime as set out in the United States Code of Criminal Justice, then the matter is dropped—period.

It is difficult to imagine a bona fide Agent setting out in a report for the prosecution all the elements of the crime, stating affirmatively that the subject had violated each and every element of that crime—and then averring that it does not rise to the level of a prosecutable case. He has just assured his listeners of the obverse, and now he says he does not recommend prosecution. That is insane.  

I have heard that COMEY might have chosen this route so that the people could be apprised of the facts, because a lengthy Grand Jury might prolong indictment until after the election. Fine. That is one way of doing it. But why not do the right thing and present the evidence to Attorney General LORETTA LYNCH? If she refused to prosecute or to immediately put the evidence before a Grand Jury, COMEY should have tendered his resignation, with an even fuller explanation that he is compelled to resign because of inaction on the part of the Attorney General in prosecuting a very viable case. By his failure to pursue this prosecution vigorously, COMEY soiled the reputation of the FBI and American justice in general.

The Director tried to assure anyone who would listen that the decision rendered in this matter was not to be construed as favorable to the rich and powerful—that there is not another system of justice that applies to the poor and unimportant. Were you reassured by that statement? Neither was I.

Confidence in our system of jurisprudence has been steadily eroding since the administration of President Bill Clinton. The Director of the FBI made this decision in the matter of Hillary Clinton’s misuse of her email while serving as Secretary of State so that the Attorney General would not have to. That she would have made the same decision is little doubted. Taking it out of her hands saved Ms. LYNCH and the President from embarrassment and criticism. I believe the result will be a further hastening of the loss of confidence that the American people feel they can place in the very system that is ostensibly there to protect them.

Reaching the Point of No Return

Reaching the Point of No Return

We are rapidly approaching a point of no return in American politics. Never have there been such radical differences in the direction that the separate parties are attempting to lead us.       

The secular humanists—you may prefer ‘progressives’, ‘liberals’ or ‘Democrats’, but henceforth I intend to call them just what they are; Secular Humanists—desire to lead our country away from the foundation laid by our forefathers. That foundation had a basis in English common law, bolstered by the Judeo-Christian ethos. It distinctly delineated right from wrong and suggested that its citizenry be gently taught to freely and voluntarily go beyond simple obedience of those laws so as to not infringe upon the rights of others.

Read this next part slowly, because I believe it is one of the fundamentals of our Constitution: Freedoms never experienced by any civilization from the beginning of time were deliberately provided in our founding document. Why? Was it because the founders believed that man is inherently good and continuing day by day to get better? No, I don’t think the founding fathers were of that opinion. Those freedoms were set in place with the firm belief that the people of America would never purposely choose to separate themselves from the beneficence of a loving God nor reject His easily understood rules for the conduct of a civilized society. They rightly believed to do so would be the epitome of folly.

For close to two hundred years, that prophecy held mostly true. However, something happened in the sixties that started first a slow, almost indiscernible erosion of God’s authority and the rule of law. That erosion was slowed temporarily in the eighties, but then rapidly picked up speed again in the nineties and continues until it threatens to sweep away everything good, honest and worthwhile in its path.

The enemy of our society, the republican form of governance and of capitalism itself is—Secular Humanism.

 

Donald Trump and Character

Donald Trump and Character

No individual can rise above his core character—an integral part of that person’s very being and almost fully developed by the time he has reached the age of fifteen or sixteen. That combination of traits and attributes which go into the make-up of character defines a man or woman. Further, input into the development of that character which is most important is that of the individual who must carry it and live with it. The vast majority of his actions will be guided by that core character for the rest of his life. Of course, he can pretend to be a person of greater character, superior attributes—but that is a charade, and it cannot be sustained over a long period of time before he will revert to his basic self.

Donald Trump’s character is such that he needs no proof at all to conclude that Ted Cruz was the guilty party behind the publishing of a nude photo of Trump’s wife, even though the Super Pac that admits responsibility is not one that supports Cruz. Rather, it is an anti-Trump Pac called ‘Make America Awesome’. No matter. Trump knows, and he does not want to be confused by facts. Trump said, “He knew about the picture. He may have even bought the rights to the picture, (meaning his campaign). And the super PAC had it. He's very close to the super PAC. I didn't start this. He did.”

So we are to be persuaded Cruz found out about the photo of Melania, bought the rights to it, and directed ‘Make America Awesome’ to release it. In addition to being disgustingly low-brow, such an act would be illegal. One would think a Constitutional lawyer would be aware of that fact and would be loathe to risk a fine or prison term. As an article in the Washington Post reported, “We expect this from Trump by now. Trump says things, and they are wrong. People note that they are wrong, and Trump and his supporters don't care. That's the pattern.”

 

On the other hand, The National Enquirer, which might as well be owned by Trump (do you think he would admit it if he did own it?) prints an article accusing Cruz of not one but five marital infidelities. It is known that the owner of record of the Enquirer is an avid supporter of Donald Trump and has printed articles critical of other opponents of Trump (Dr. Carson comes to mind). Trump, however, demands he be given plausible deniability when he says he was not behind publishing of that article on Cruz, and all his loyal followers plus other haters of Ted Cruz will gladly grant him that.

Really, in terms of the damage done, at this point it doesn’t matter who was responsible for the Enquirer story--a fact of which Trump is keenly aware. There are enough people who will believe it that it is likely to sway the electorate in the next few primaries. Between that article and the unfathomable continuing campaign of John Kasich, by the time the truth is known, Trump will already be the de facto winner of the Republican nomination for the presidency. He should be congratulated. Only . . .

Everything about Donald Trump shouts that he is a self-absorbed narcissist who only wants to make Donald Trump look great. If America can be helped at the same time, well, that would be alright. He has proven time and again that he is willing to destroy campaigns, reputations careers—whatever is necessary to vanquish anyone who opposes him. It doesn’t matter whether the sometimes ridiculous accusations he makes are true. All that is important is that they denigrate, belittle, humiliate and embarrass that person towards whom his poisonous venom is directed. If you are willing to destroy the lives and/or reputations of others, why should you concern yourself with whether what you say is true or fair? The only objective is to win.

Whatever Cruz is or has done, he is correct in his assertion that Trump is a sniveling coward. Yes, Trump is a bully, but only a verbal bully as opposed to one who would enter the ring himself to take on an opponent. He hides behind someone else and claims he doesn’t want to believe what he has just accused his opponent of, but “this is out there . . . It might be true”. How many times have you heard him say that? Decorum, honesty and fairness dictate that you should not, cannot just throw out a baseless allegation unless . . .  your goal is to tar someone’s reputation and character in order to disqualify them as an opponent in order to gain something you want. Well, in the minds of many, that prize might well become less valuable once Trump has acquired it than it is now, with an Islamo-fascist as president. If Donald Trump is elected, America's trajectory is not upward towards being a better nation. It will mean enough Americans are accepting of the kind of coarseness that should shame the most tawdry of us. In any event, Trump’s methods are cowardly. They are unseemly AND unmanly.

It can be hoped that most Americans do not want a cowardly or unmanly president, but . . . will you have a choice come November?

 

Lois Lerner's "Surprising" Collusion With the FEC by Bill Brown

 

Lois Lerner’s “Surprising” Collusion With the FEC.

 

In a Townhall Magazine ‘Tipsheet’ article published September 15, 2013, Carol Platt Liebau wrote about revelations from the emails of Lois Lerner while she was actively employed for the IRS:

 

Perhaps one of the most sinister statements in the newly-released Lerner emails is the following: After receiving an article about Democrats complaining about anonymous donors financing attack ads against them, Lerner wrote, ""Perhaps the (Federal Election Commission) will save the day." 

Hm.  So is it a coincidence, as reported here on Townhall, that Lois Lerner colluded with a lawyer from the FEC to try to influence the record before the FEC -- at least twice -- and illegally sharing confidential information?  The answer has always been obvious; now it is increasingly so.

The more the facts in the IRS targeting scandal emerges, the more obvious it becomes that this was a partisan operation, in which law-abiding Americans were discriminated against based only on their political views.

 

The following is an article that appeared in the Daily Oklahoman newspaper Sunday edition August 12, 2013, on its editorial page:

 

IF there was any doubt that IRS officials' recent partisan activities threaten citizens' free-speech rights, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin just eliminated it.

Durbin, D-Ill., is on a witch hunt targeting financial supporters of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators across the country who promote free markets, limited government and federalism. Durbin has mailed a letter to those whom he believes financially support ALEC, demanding they reveal whether they support “Stand Your Ground” laws. ALEC helped develop model legislation on that topic that was subsequently adopted by numerous state legislatures. Durbin vows to make those responses public at a congressional hearing later this year.

ALEC doesn't publicly identify its funders. It doesn't have to. American citizens have the right to associate and engage in free speech without government interference. This clearly upsets Durbin. Apparently, free speech is only for those who share his liberal views.

In light of the IRS's recent abuse of conservative groups, Durbin's threats take on added meaning. Officials with the National Organization for Marriage have reported their group's tax records were illegally leaked to help opponents harass donors. Durbin's letter may signal a new effort to do the same thing to other people for the “crime” of engaging in the U.S. political process. The implied message is clear: Exercise your constitutional rights at your peril.

Durbin's efforts could have repercussions in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a free-market think tank, is active in ALEC. Jonathan Small, fiscal policy director for OCPA, serves on ALEC task forces and is a regular contributor to ALEC policy. Numerous state lawmakers participate in ALEC. Gov. Mary Fallin is a former ALEC Legislator of the Year.

If Durbin is successful in intimidating ALEC's backers and suppressing conservative advocacy, what's to stop similar vendettas against Oklahomans who financially support groups like OCPA or even local churches whose teachings oppose abortion?

 

 

Now.  I’m going to make one more attempt to explain the symbiotic relationship between Illinois Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Election Commission and Lois Lerner.

In the Illinois Senate election of 1996, challenger Democrat Dick Durbin sought and obtained the assistance of the Federal Election Commission in defeating a well-funded and popular Republican candidate.  Lerner, who headed up the Enforcement Office of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) that investigated allegations of wrongdoing and sought prosecution of those she deemed guilty, at the behest of Dick Durbin began an investigation of his Republican opponent, Al Salvi.  Salvi’s campaign had to answer many lengthy and invasive inquiries and prepare to defend the candidate in court, thereby leaving little time for trivial matters like running a campaign for Senate.  As a result, an election that appeared to favor Salvi became very close, and eventuated in a runaway victory for Durbin.  Salvi was out more than $100,000 in legal fees before a judge dismissed all charges..  He stated he was unable to get his message out to voters because the Chicago newspapers and other media were full of items about the FEC investigation.

There is an excellent article on this event in the May 31, 2013 Illinois Review.

 

So, does it come as a complete surprise to Republican officials that Lerner should be up to her old tricks—that she should have excellent and cooperative contacts at the FEC, willing to launch investigations at her suggestion or direction?

That tactic worked wonderfully well in the Illinois Senate race in 1996 (and I’ll wager in other years and races as well), so why get off a winning horse?.

The Democrat Party does not play fair. Why should they?  There is nobody to stop their unethical, yes, and often illegal practices.  The back-alley media have their own agenda, and it has nothing to do with the protection of conservatives’ rights.

When are the Republicans going to catch on and fight back?

WILL they ever do that?

The IRS targeted 471 conservative groups seeking 501( c )4 status ; those with “Tea Party” or “Vote” or any word that could have a conservative connotation in the title of the applicant.

Three (3) liberal groups were allegedly targeted.  I say “allegedly” because none of these three complained about wrongful treatment.

That, for the Obama Administration, comprises parity—471 to 3.

You see, everybody is equal under the law.  It’s just that some are more equal than others.

 

Allow me to ponder in print whether President Obama and his sidekick Eric Holder, the inestimable Attorney General of the United States, have ever considered the aftermath of an unequal application of the law.  Is either of them intelligent enough to recognize that an unfair application of the law invites defiance of the law?  I am not in any way attempting to encourage such defiance, but the most cursory study of world history would corroborate the accuracy of that statement.

 

This President and his Attorney General see no violation in gun-running to the Mexican Cartels, find absolutely nobody culpable for any part of the Benghazi massacre of four Americans, find no fault with the IRS slow-walking approval for conservative groups seeking to band together in support of conservative causes, and see nothing wrong in the Attorney General lying to a judge to gain his approval of a search warrant for James Rosen’s (a Fox News reporter) telephone records.  But they arrest producer Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, who made a cheap movie critical of Islam and seen by tens—not thousands, or millions—of people, and accused him of being the instigator for the Benghazi terrorist attack.  Almost a year later, Nakoula was still in jail.  Shameful. 

The government of the United States is being run (ruined?) by children.  Is there an adult in the Obama Administration?  Just one? Someone capable of and motivated to making a reasoned decision based upon doing what is right—in the interests of America and its citizens!

Conservatives stand by and allow the progressives to steal elections, build unsustainable debt and rule by executive fiat rather than the rule of law—equally applied. What does that say for the compliant majority which simply follows along and does nothing to end the travesties that this government is foisting upon its citizens?

‘Conservative’ politicians—either make a principled stand for what is moral, ethical, honest and in the interests of our country, or get the hell out of the way so that principled leaders who will at least TRY to accomplish the people’s will CAN be elected!  

 

 

 

 

WHY I AM A CONSERVATIVE

To condense into a short essay the reason I’m a conservative is no mean feat. From my perspective In order to represent my reasoning I need to address not only what it is about conservatism that first captured my attention, but also how I believe that the principles of conservatism best suit humankind’s natural inclinations and that of society as a whole.

My initial introduction to what conservatism embodies was through Russell Kirk’s magnum opus “The Conservative Mind”. Kirk’s rendering of conservatism’s legacy fascinated me primarily because I found it to be such a noble heritage and I was intrigued by conservatism’s persistent quest for seeking the high moral ground. Kirk’s book was consistent with other works on conservatism I read in their respect for virtue, humility, tradition, and piety grounded in the natural laws of Judeo-Christian beliefs. I found it interesting how those wonderful values are also very much rooted in the formation of local communities that serve as the building blocks for the world’s greatest civilizations, epitomized by America’s founding. I also came to appreciate that conservatism’s respect for ancestral wisdom has served as a guiding principle for leaders from Burke, Washington, Disraeli, and Lincoln to Churchill, Thatcher and Reagan

However in keeping with the conservative’s propensity for prudence I’ll do my best to refrain from pontificating too much on conservatism’s rich historical heritage or hazard excluding essential elements. I’ll defer to the more capable writings of doyens such as Kirk or George Nash to impart conservatism’s legacy, or recommend the musings of Hawthorne, Chesterton, Tolkien, Orwell or O’Conner or any of the other many brilliant writers with conservative leanings to express the merits of a conservative mindset through life’s lessons.

I’ve mentioned the influences that led me to conservatism, but it’s more challenging to express how I actually became a conservative. To read about a philosophy and admire its principles is one thing, but it is altogether different to actually embrace it as a beacon for how one conducts their life. So I feel the best vehicle for articulating that thought is through the metaphor of sports. Now I was never what one would characterize as a magnificent athlete, but I certainly wasn’t a “spaz”. I wasn’t gifted enough to play on any of my high school squads (for the record I vied with 2,500 other boys for spots on the squads), but I played basketball, football and baseball in pickup games on sandlots and playgrounds with passion and verve, savoring the thrills and tribulations of each stretched out triple, missed layup or Hail Mary reception.

It always appeared to me that athletics represent a microcosm of the qualities necessary to subsist in life. Athletes must develop and hone their skills, be prepared for sacrifice, dedication, self-discipline and exhibit a competitive spirit. Sports also have a communal quality. Coaches, trainers, teammates, family, friends, fans, and even fellow competitors are part of the athlete’s overall community, support system and sphere of influence. Most sports also have time-honored traditions, rules, modes of behavior and conduct that the participants and officials hold in high esteem and are maintained as much as possible in consideration of changing times and events.

The athlete also has a sense of humility and piety. They realize their gifts are special and more often than not express an appreciation to a higher power for their unique talent. And of course the ultimate goal of any athletic endeavor is the sweet sensation of victory. How many times have we heard the star player humbly declare that they would forego individual accolades for a team championship? This is the attitude of the dedicated competitor who places their team above personal gain, and their individual accomplishments are only fulfilled if their team earns the admiration of their peers as the best in class.

The attributes of sports are analogous to the values of conservatism on many levels. If we dedicate ourselves to our missions in life, take advantage of our God given talents, respect our fellow man’s person and place, appreciate our obligations to those truly in need, contribute to our community, have a sense of humility, pride and piety, learn lessons from our own decisions and those of other’s, and in the course of life’s journey accumulate some property then, whether we know it or not, we’ve led a life of conservative values. Conservatism, like sports, is the anti-entitlement philosophy. We are only entitled to the spoils of that which we have earned, and respectful of those who endeavor toward greatness.   

Russell Kirk once characterized the conservative life as that which strives to live a life of grace. He wrote, "A poor man, if he has dignity, honesty, the respect of his neighbors, a realization of his duties, a love of the wisdom of his ancestors, and possibly some taste for knowledge or beauty, is rich in the unbought grace of life." Although I may not always hit Kirk’s marks in how I conduct my own life, I couldn’t craft a better testament as to why I am a conservative.