FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY FIRED

President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey today. Since Comey’s role is the presidential election pleased no one, lot of people expected this much sooner.

Is Comey a great guy? I don’t know. My guess is that Trump did not think Comey sufficiently dependable under pressure. When I say that, I don’t mean it as a putdown of Comey. I could not handle that job either. Few people could.

During the presidential election, the shenanigans of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration put Comey under enormous pressure. The fact his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, met privately with Bill Clinton on same airport tarmac in Phoenix on June 27, 2016 surely did not help (Loretta Lynch ‘regrets’ Clinton meeting aboard plane: ‘I wish I had seen around that corner’ (washingtontimes.com)).

Unfortunately, Democrat Liberals don’t seem to want to give up their war against Trump. So they are using Comey’s firing as another absurd excuse to call for a special prosecutor. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is happily leading the charge. CSPAN has the video here (Senator Schumer Remarks on Director Comey Firing (c-span.org)). Of course, as usual, Schumer is effectively lying (see Flashback: Schumer was against Comey before he was for him (washingtonexaminer.com)).

Consider that Schumer is doing his absolute best to pressure the Deputy Attorney General to appoint an independent prosecutor when no one has ever presented any evidence that one is needed. Yet the Democrat Liberal media will do what Schumer just did. They will try to make it appear that Trump fired Comey as part of a coverup.

When we partake of the news media, we must understand the meaning of this word.

innuendo

noun, plural innuendos, innuendoes.
1. an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.

2. Law.

a. a parenthetic explanation or specification in a pleading.
b. (in an action for slander or libel) the explanation and elucidation of the words alleged to be defamatory.
c. the word or expression thus explained.

Without any evidence, Democrat Liberals are trying to destroy the reputation of President Trump and officials in his administration. When ordinary citizens do this sort of thing to other ordinary citizens, we call it spreading gossip. The fact that supposedly honorable politicians and respectable journalists do this sort of thing, gossip against people they oppose, does not make it any more acceptable.

NEW MILESTONES IN OPPOSITION RESEARCH

As a nation we are at least halfway to being totally deranged. What this post is about is two examples of our insanity.

The first example is a column by Bill Gertz of The Washington Times, Warfare goes digital in the 21st century. The primary subject of the column is information warfare. What is Gertz’s complaint?

American adversaries have found asymmetric ways to attack and are waging sophisticated information warfare operations — both technical cyber-attacks and soft power influence and disinformation campaigns designed to achieve strategic objectives.

The U.S. government remains completely ignorant of the threat and lacks ways to deal with this new form of warfare. The Cold War-era U.S. Information Agency (USIA), the last semi-autonomous agency used for promoting America was disbanded in 1999. Its functions were folded into the State Department and the result has been diplomacy-impaired information programs. (from here)

That sounds innocuous, but what is odd is that Gertz’s column also included this observation by Matthew Armstrong, a former official involved in government radio broadcasting and associate fellow in King’s College Center for Strategic Communications.

Mr. Armstrong said he was told by a Russian information official that state-run RT broadcasts would have no audience in the United States “if the American media was doing their jobs.”

The failure of America’s news media in this sphere stems of the Balkanization of news outlets. Coverage by mainstream press outlets today is biased by three central liberal narratives of gender identity, racial issues and climate change, while the conservative media outlets are heavily weighted toward opinion and lack a needed hard news focus. (from here)

The news media is not doing its job? The news media is too biased to do its job? What happened to journalistic objectivity?

The second example is about a civil war.

The recent revelation about Susan Rice seems to be causing the war to swing Trump’s way.  That is what this report, Tucker vs Dem who called him Trump ‘smokescreen salesman’, considers. Here we see much of the news media has definite conclusions about the Susan Rice story: Steyn: Media annoyed someone has outfaked their fake news.

So what are we to make of all this? How are these news items related? Gertz’s column points out that the news media is failing to do its job in a very fundamental way. Instead of getting the true story out, the news media is leaving a vacuum that  foreign propagandists have filled. What is the news media doing? Lately the talking heads have argued over two distinctly horrific possibilities.

  • Did the Donald Trump betray America by colluding with a foreign power to steal a win in our last presidential election?
  • Did the Obama administration abuse America’s national intelligence systems by conducting “opposition research” on the Trump campaign and transition team?

Stories like this have not filled the airwaves for decades, but such has been more common in recent years, and the seriousness of the charges keep getting worse. Yet there is almost never any resolution. Apparently, the primary concern of our leaders is spending our money, not honest government.

What does Gertz propose in his column? Is it a fix for America’s news media? No.

The Trump administration urgently needs to recreate a new USIA for the digital age, something I call “Information America.”

This new institution can be established as a government entity similar to the USIA, or a nongovernmental organization funded by philanthropists. A third option would be set up Information America as hybrid government/private-sector organization.

Its mission should be to use truth and facts to counter lies and disinformation. Information America also must begin anew to promote fundamental American ideals and values. (from here)

Good idea? Maybe, but what about the America’s news media? Isn’t there some way we can get the press do its job instead of warring with words, effectively acting as rabid advocates for our two national political parties? I think so. We need to get our government out of the education business. We need to reduce the scope of the Federal Government’s responsibilities so that it is primarily focused national defense.

What is happening is Washington DC looks more and more like war because it is. Listen to different news media sources, and pretty soon it will become apparent the Democrats want Trump gone yesterday. Is he guilty of something?

Listen to different news media sources, and pretty soon it will become apparent that somebody was spying on Trump’s campaign and transition officials. Was that legal?

Unless we the people of America are properly educated, few of us will be able to appropriately review the facts and answer such questions. Instead we will be propagandized.  Unless we the people of America are properly educated, we will not understand how our government is supposed to work, and we will not fulfill our role as good citizens. Instead of electing officials who serve us, we will elect officials who will eventually demand that we serve them.

What the increasing acrimony in Washington DC indicates is that the crisis is coming to a head. When the crisis does come to a head, it is going to be ugly. Because the prize is huge, people will fight over it and not just with words.

If we want our children to be properly educated, we have to get our government out the business and take responsibility ourselves. If we want to understand how our government is supposed to work, we have to ignore news media propagandists and look up what the founders of our country had to say about it. We have to throw out the bums who just think their job is to spend as much of our money as they can.

I KNOW NOTHING, NOTHING!

Whenever I turn on the broadcast news, it is not long before I realize I am wasting my time.  What is the latest drivel or “fake news” filling up air time? Donald Trump and the Russians stole the election.  What’s the evidence? Since when do gossipers require evidence?

So is the drivel/fake news/gossip important? Yes. The Bible has much to say about the power of our words. Here is an example.

Proverbs 18:21 New King James Version (NKJV)

21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue,
And those who love it will eat its fruit.

What does that mean? Here is a translation that puts it more plainly.

Proverbs 18:21 Good News Translation (GNT)

21 What you say can preserve life or destroy it; so you must accept the consequences of your words.

The news media is partisan, and their talking heads are glib; they can also be most intimidating.  Therefore, so long as major Democratic Party politicians are willing to say the most outrageous things, the news media will happily report their accusations — as presented. They will also quite happily assume the guilt of any Republican politician who does not go along to get along.  All that seems to matter is the seriousness of the charge. The glib can talk all around the absence of evidence.

Meanwhile, because we have allowed glib gossipers to distract us, we risk neglecting real problems.  Instead of protecting ourselves from the far more likely mechanizations of our fellow citizens, we now worry endlessly about how the Russians supposedly tampered with our election system.

Not too long ago I posted EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD. One commenter, a bright fellow who calls himself marmoewp, focused on the poor quality of a few statistical studies I cited.  Since the author of those studies did not have much confidence that those studies proved voter fraud, I did not waste much time defending them. Instead, I pointed to the obvious. Nobody is looking for fraud. So those pathetic studies are the best evidence we have.

If policemen made a point of looking the other way, how often do you think the police would arrest anyone? Think about it. The police would still arrest people, just not the powerful. Such policemen would arrest the victims of crime for complaining about the lack of law enforcement.

So what is the real threat? What does the evidence indicate? What question should we be asking?

Will the Democratic Party do anything for votes?

In this nation, we run our election system at the state and local level.  So let’s look here in Virginia. Before the last election, our governor, Terry McAuliffe did everything he could to put hundreds of thousands of felons back on the voter rolls (see Va. Supreme Court strikes down McAuliffe’s order on felon voting rights). He did not care whether what he was doing was unconstitutional or violated the spirit of the law.  Therefore, when the court got in his way, McAuliffe got out his autopen (Virginia’s McAuliffe to announce restoration of voting rights to 13,000 felons).

Apparently, whereas Barack Obama only has a pen and a phone, McAuliffe has an autopen and an iphone.

McAuliffe is a busy man. What is McAuliffe’s latest affront to justice? He is engaged in various coverups. Here are a few.

Stop and think about how silly we have gotten.  When we register to vote, look at how we handle the question of US citizenship.

In most places in the U.S., the question is handled solely on the honor system. When people register to vote, they check a box attesting that they are U.S. citizens. Election administrators verify identity by looking at driver’s license or Social Security numbers, for example, but under federal guidelines, they may not ask for proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport. (from here)

When illegal aliens have to violate our laws to get into our country, what makes us think an honor system will keep them from voting?

Let’s expand upon that first little video. Let’s consider the problem Sargent Schultz had to deal with. The longer he avoided reporting the shenanigans of Hogan’s Heroes, the more difficult it became for him to break his silence. Was Schultz on the the right side to start with? No, but it was not any special virtue that kept him from reporting on Hogan. His laziness, his greed, and finally his cowardice silenced him. What appeared to be funny was not so funny after all.

HOW HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

Lincoln swearing-in at the partially finished U.S. Capitol. (from here)
Lincoln swearing-in at the partially finished U.S. Capitol. (from here)

It is late, a long day.  So I reviewed the comments on WHAT IS THE POINT OF LIMITED AND SECULAR GOVERNMENT? with both astonishment and dismay. What should I say? I have got to go and get some sleep. Should I say anything? I decided that I would have to. Why? Why have I and others tried to make an issue limited and secular, constitutional government?

On Friday, January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will become our president.

President-elect Donald Trump told “Fox & Friends” co-host Ainsley Earhardt that he doesn’t mind Democratic members of Congress boycotting his inauguration, saying “I hope they give me their tickets.”

At least 60 Democratic members of the House of Representatives have opted to miss Friday’s ceremonies, most notably Georgia Rep. John Lewis, who said last week that he did not consider Trump a “legitimate” president.

“I think he just grandstanded, John Lewis, and then he got caught in a very bad lie, so let’s see what happens,” said Trump, referencing Lewis’ initial claim that Trump’s would be the first inauguration he’s missed – despite having previously boycotted George W. Bush’s 2001 inauguration. (continued here)

What the Democrat’s boycott reminded me of was the start of the American Civil War.  How did that begin?

In the November 1860 election, Lincoln again faced Douglas, who represented the Northern faction of a heavily divided Democratic Party, as well as Breckinridge and Bell. The announcement of Lincoln’s victory signaled the secession of the Southern states, which since the beginning of the year had been publicly threatening secession if the Republicans gained the White House.

By the time of Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven states had seceded, and the Confederate States of America had been formally established, with Jefferson Davis as its elected president. One month later, the American Civil War began when Confederate forces under General P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina. In 1863, as the tide turned against the Confederacy, Lincoln emancipated the slaves and in 1864 won reelection. In April 1865, he was assassinated by Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C. The attack came only five days after the American Civil War effectively ended with the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee at Appomattox. (from here)

The Democrat’s boycott of the inauguration obviously is not as serious as states seceding from the Union, but it is a clear sign we risk loosing our nation’s capacity to peacefully transfer power from one party to another. Just as the Democrats once demanded slavery, they now demand unquestioned obedience to …… to what? When it comes down to it, big government is a nebulous thing. What is it that the Democrats don’t want to control?  What is the property they refuse to give up? Who are their precious slaves now?

Where does the root of the Democratic Party’s power rest? It rest upon their ability to buy votes with other people’s money, what we call redistributing the wealth. Thus far I have been unable to convince some commenters, two in particular, that redistributing the wealth is toxic to a constitutional republic. Just calling it stealing does not seem to work. So this weekend I will write a post that uses a starkly  different approach.

Again, I thank those who commented. Interesting, to say the least.