Beliefnet
At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

After former FBI Director James Comey decisively undermined the Big Lie, the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy that President Trump and/or his associates “colluded” with “the Russians,” his enemies in the Government-Deep State-Media Regime began to switch tactics.

There was no collusion, or even any necessarily inappropriate contacts between Trump and the enigmatic “Russians.” However, the anti-Trump forces declared, there was an attempt on the part of the President to “obstruct justice.”

As everyone now knows, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who was Trump’s National Security Adviser, was fired by the President not long after acquiring his position.  Flynn, as it happened, had misled Vice President Mike Pence after failing to disclose that he had discussed with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak the sanctions that Barack Obama slapped on Russia immediately before leaving office.  The President, as well as many others, maintains that in having these discussions, Flynn acted unobjectionably, much less criminally.

Still, because he misled Pence, Trump asked for his resignation.

In a private conversation regarding Flynn, Trump expressed his “hope” to Comey that the latter could “see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”  “He is a good guy,” the President added.  “I hope you can let this go.”

Comey agreed with Trump’s assessment of Flynn’s character. “I agree he is a good guy.”

There are two considerations to bear in mind here.

First, if Comey has reason to believe that General Flynn is indeed “a good guy,” then doesn’t this suggest that he felt as strongly as his boss that this good guy is not a criminal?  Is it morally possible for anyone, to say nothing of the head of one of our nation’s leading law enforcement agencies, to consistently commend a man for his character while suspecting that he is a criminal?  I have yet to hear anyone raise this question.

Second, as has been said by even Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter Alan Dershowitz, famed Harvard University Professor Emeritus of Law, Trump, being Comey’s boss, does indeed have the authority to tell his subordinates who they will and won’t prosecute: The heads of the intelligence agencies serve at the behest of the President. This being said, this president did not direct this FBI Director to prosecute or not anyone.

Republican Senator James Risch made sure that Comey established this.  Risch quoted Comey’s own words back to him when questioning him about “allegations that the President of the United States obstructed justice.” Alluding to the page and paragraph numbers of those parts of Comey’s memo in which the latter quotes Trump, Risch reminded him that Comey placed in quotation marks the President’s use of the words “I hope” during their conversation over Flynn.  The dialogue between Risch and Comey was as follows:

Risch: “Now, those are his exact words; is that correct?”

Comey: “Correct.”

Risch: “And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes.”

Comey: “Correct.”

Risch: “Thank you for that. He [Trump] did not direct you to let it go” (emphasis added).

Comey: “Not in his words, no” (emphasis added).

Risch: “He did not order you to let it go” (emphasis added).

Comey: “Again, those words are not an order” (emphasis added).

Risch: “No. He said, ‘I hope.’ Now, like me, you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases, charging people with criminal offenses.  And of course you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there where people have been charged.  Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or for that matter any other criminal offense where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?

Comey: “I don’t know well enough to answer.  And the reason I keep saying his words is, I took it as a direction.”

Risch: “Right.”

Comey continued, explaining that he felt that the President was attempting to derail the investigation into Flynn.  Risch didn’t relent:

“You may have taken it as a direction, but that’s not what he said.”

Comey: “Correct.”

Risch: “He said, ‘I hope.’”

Comey: “Those are exact words, correct.”

Risch: “You don’t know of anyone that’s been charged for hoping something?”

Comey was forced to capitulate: “I don’t, as I sit here.”

Of course, no one has ever been prosecuted for expressing a hope.

Nor is Flynn a “key figure” in “the” Russia probe, as Fake News outlets would have us think.  Even a professional Trump-hater like MSNBC’s Chris Mathews had to concede that both the Russian “collusion” conspiracy (that he has busily peddled) as well as the Regime’s line on Flynn “came apart” during Comey’s testimony.

As it turns out, Mathews said, “Flynn wasn’t central to the Russian investigation.”

There was no Trump/Russian “collusion.”  The President was never the subject, or even a part of, a criminal investigation.  Trump never sought to obstruct justice, and Flynn is anything but a “key figure” in some “Russian probe.” This is what came out of James Comey’s testimony.

There were, however, other damning things to take away from it. Yet it is Comey, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and, by implication, former President Barack Obama who were damned.

Comey—the head of the most powerful law agency in the country—when asked why, potentially in violation of the law, he refused to report what he supposedly suspected was an attempt on Trump’s part to obstruct justice, replied that he lacked the strength and courage to do so!

He further reinforced the impression of his weakness of character when he expressly said that Obama’s AG, Loretta Lynch, directed him to mislead Congress and the nation into thinking, counterfactually, that Hillary Clinton was not under a criminal investigation.  It was Clinton, Comey admitted, not Trump, who was indeed the subject, the target, of a criminal investigation.

It was Lynch, not Trump, who opened herself to the charge that she sought to “direct,” or “misdirect,” an FBI investigation.

It was Obama, Lynch, and Comey, not Trump, who politicized law enforcement for the sake of protecting, not Flynn or anyone else on Team Trump, but Clinton.

Trump’s enemies can continue trying to push the Vast Left-wing Conspiracy of Russian Collusion. They are the only people who care about it.  But since this Big Lie came at a price, those who spread it must be made to pay their share of the cost.

The Trump administration is now, reportedly, looking into pursuing Comey for being a leaker.  This is a start. The Clintons, Obama, and Lynch must also be investigated in due time and the Deep State Swamp finally drained.

On June 8, former FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress.

His testimony drove a nail straight into the heart of the Big Lie that the D.C. Regime has spent months advancing.

Shortly after Donald J. Trump and the 63 million Deplorables who voted for him defied the world and won the presidency, the Big Lie began: Trump’s election was illegitimate, for “the Russians,” led by none other than Vladimir Putin, “colluded” with Trump and his campaign to “hack” into DNC emails and steal the election from the candidate, Hillary Clinton, that rightfully won it.

Some of us knew from the jump that this was the stuff of third-rate spy novels.  Such is the scandalously outlandish nature of its plot that, odds are, the architects and peddlers of the Big Lie have always known that it is fiction.

But, or so the Regimists in the Democrat and Republican Parties have hoped, the Big Lie could prove effective in undermining the collective will of the electorate by undermining the man that they duly elected (You read this correctly: It is not “the Russians,” but President Trump’s Democrat and Republican enemies, both within and outside of the Deep State, that are guilty of trying to subvert an American, a “democratic,” election).

On June 8, Comey exposed the Big Lie for what it has always been.

Outside of some publicity-hungry, intellectually shallow politicians, most of the merchants of the Big Lie try to avoid explicitly using the language of “collusion”—though this is what all of its merchants (and consumers) mean to imply when they talk of “contacts,” as the New York Times spoke on February 14, between Trump’s campaign staff and “senior Russian intelligence officials.”  It was this Times articles that, perhaps more than anything else, lent an air (but only an air) of legitimacy to the Big Lie.

When asked today by Republican Senator Jim Risch whether this “report” was true, Comey responded categorically: “It was not true.”

For months, Democrat and some Republican politicians, their fellow travelers in the Regime’s Propaganda Ministry, and Deep State actors have colluded to affect a coup of a duly elected President, even going so far as to compromise national security by antagonizing the world’s second most heavily armed nuclear power.

And, within seconds, one of those Deep State actors, Mr. Comey, admitted that none of it was true.

There was never any “collusion” between Team Trump and “the Russians,” or even anything that could remotely be used as a pretext for conjuring this fiction.

Comey’s testimony on this score alone vindicated in spades Trump and his campaign staff.  The Big Lie is just that.

Yet there was more that Comey said that further proved that the Democrats and their GOP allies owe the President—and, for that matter, the American people—an engraved apology:

Comey corroborated Trump’s claim that, on three separate occasions, he assured him that he was not under investigation.

Now, had there been anything at all to the Big Lie of “collusion” between Trump and “the Russians,” then, obviously, one of the two colluders would have had to have been under investigation.  That Trump had never been so much as a part of an FBI investigation, let alone a target of it, proves that no one in the Intelligence community thought that they had any more reason to investigate Trump for acting inappropriately with respect to “the Russians” than they had reason to investigate your or I for doing the same.

The second time that Comey assured Trump that he wasn’t being investigated transpired at a dinner that the FBI Director had with the President.  Trump was livid and disgusted over the bogus dossier that had just been leaked about his alleged connections with “the Russians.” The fake dossier, published by such prominent Fake News outlets as Buzzfeed and CNN, contained laughable, though truly repulsive, assertions that Trump visited Russian hotels, slept with Russian prostitutes, and deliberately urinated on the Russian bedsheets that he knew Barack and Michele Obama would sleep upon when they visited Russia.

Initially, the President “said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen,” Comey testified. “I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t….” (emphasis added).

Interestingly, Comey added as another reason for not exposing the fake dossier as a fraud that “it was very difficult to prove a negative.” Exactly right. The Regimists who want Trump’s head know this all too well, which is exactly why they started this “witch hunt.”

The third occasion that Comey assured Trump that he was not being investigated came when the President urged him to assure the public of this truth.  At this juncture, Comey even attested that Trump favored an investigation into his “associates” and for publicizing any wrongdoing, should any such be found. “The president went on to say that if there were some ‘satellite’ associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him” (emphasis added).

Trump, justifiably, was upset and frustrated that the Big Lie, which, according to Comey, Trump referred to as a “cloud” that “was interfering with his ability to make deals for the country,” could have been put to rest by an FBI Director who refused to do so.  Comey’s testimony also makes it abundantly clear that Trump was in no way trying to run interference for any of the members of his team who may have acted illicitly.

The Big Lie is done, as even MSNBC’s Chris Mathews had to acknowledge on Thursday night.

“The assumption of the critics of the president, of his pursuers, you might say, is that somewhere along the line in the last year is the president had something to do with colluding with the Russians…to affect the election in some way.”

“And yet,” Mathews concluded, “what came apart this morning was that theory.”

Indeed. However, Mathews is among the President’s “critics,” “his pursuers” who has aggressively advanced the key “assumption” of the Big Lie.

President Trump shouldn’t hold his breathe for an apology.

 

The Antifa is comprised of self-avowed “antifascists,” largely young, mostly (but not solely) white millennials who dress in black and cover their faces with masks and bandannas.  These anti-Americans are the latest species of leftist political violence.

They are also domestic terrorists. Along with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, CAIR and other ethnic supremacist organizations, these anti-Americans constitute the Democrat Party’s strong arm wing.

Less militant or mainstream leftists in the Democrat Party’s unofficial Propaganda Ministry—the Fake News media—spare no occasion to make explicit, if not create from their fevered imaginations, links between Trump and Republicans, on the one hand, and, on the other, “extremists” who may (or may not) have made favorable remarks about them.

Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and everyone and anyone associated with the Democrat Party should be made at every available opportunity to expressly, unequivocally, and loudly disavow this radical terrorist organization known as “Antifa.”

On June 4, just a week or so after Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein supporter Jeremy Christian stabbed three men, killing two of them, in Portland, hundreds of patriots and Trump supporters—let’s call them the Deplorables—descended upon the city to hold a “free speech” rally.  Predictably, the anti-Americans showed up to meet them.

Portland’s Finest helped to keep the peace—even as the anti-American thugs hurled obscenities and some other objects at them. The police made some arrests and, as reported by the Washington Post, among other outlets, confiscated an arsenal of weapons ranging from bricks, axes, and crowbars, to “dozens of sticks and makeshift clubs, canisters of mace, knives, hammers, batons and even a set of brass knuckles.”

Yet the Post, unsurprisingly and not unlike the Democrats’ other centers of disinformation, implies that it was both the Deplorables and the anti-Americans from whom the PPD confiscated this weaponry. This is a lie. The Deplorables, as is their way, were law-abiding and respectful toward the police.  It was the anti-Americans who came armed and ready to inflict violence.  The anti-American, as always, was “the bad guy.”

It was these anti-Americans who a few days earlier released a flier that featured Donald Trump being decapitated and a call to all fellow anti-Americans to meet the Deplorables for violence.

Yet since the Deplorables, beginning with a “March 4 Trump” rally in Berkeley in March, began fighting back against the anti-Americans, things haven’t been working out too well for the latter.

Grassroots patriots, appalled by both the viciousness of the attacks on innocents that were captured on video the month prior when the anti-Americans besieged Berkeley to suppress Milo Yiannopoulos and the unwillingness of the authorities to restore order, converged on Berkeley once more. They refused to be intimidated.  Some of them came prepared for violence, expecting for the police to “stand down” as they had in February.

In spite of the numbers against them, the Deplorables held their ground against the anti-Americans.  One person in particular, Kyle Chapman, adorned in Captain America-esque colors and sporting an American flag shield, protective goggles, a helmet, body armor, a gas mask, and, critically, a stick, instantly became an internet sensation, a meme that symbolized for untold numbers of patriots the fighting spirit needed in order to confront and defeat leftist thugs who would do them harm.

In April, another rally was held at Berkeley.  This time, undoubtedly inspired by the example of “the Based Stickman,” many more Deplorables from around the country attended. The police stood down once more as the anti-Americans, launching makeshift bombs, stones, bricks, and canisters of mace, went on the offensive.

The Deplorables, this time, didn’t just hold their own.  Being the decent, law-abiders that they are, they had already complied with the police and disarmed before they were attacked. No matter. They fought back against the anti-Americans and beat them.

And they beat them decisively.

In fact, the beating suffered by the anti-Americans was all that much more humiliating, for the Deplorables not only pummeled them; they chased them out of their hometown of Berkeley.

Two weeks later, Ann Coulter, who had sworn that she would speak at Berkeley even though the administration put her on notice that it couldn’t guarantee her safety, decided at the eleventh hour to back out (and back down).  This was a mistake. Large numbers of Deplorables from various parts of the country came to Berkeley to defend and protect Ann. They did this expecting to meet with violent resistance from the anti-Americans.

Evidently, the latter and their enablers in the city’s government learned from earlier in the month what could happen when enough people decide that they aren’t going to tolerate being pushed around any longer.  Thankfully, there was no violence.

The left, and not just its militant, extreme fringe, seeks to dominate by instilling fear in its opponents.  This is how leftists have been able to operate—until now.  Kurt Schlicter, a writer for Townhall.com, is among those popular conservative writers who have repeatedly warned the left that it will indeed reap what it sows, that the right would fight back.  Nationally syndicated talk radio host Mike Gallagher recently, but briefly, flirted on air with the notion of a Trump supporters’ march on Washington D.C.

Why not?  Over the Memorial Day weekend, about 900,000 bikers and others gathered in the nation’s capital to remember America’s Prisoners of War.  In early February, some 400,000 people braved the weather’s elements for their annual March for Life. With just a little prodding from Gallagher and his colleagues in talk radio, they could easily arrange a pro-Trump/pro-America rally in Washington.  The numbers could very well exceed one million. We could call it a “One Million Deplorable” march, or maybe “A Day without Deplorables.”

This could be an effective and peaceful way of fighting back while showing the left that the silent majority will no longer remain silent—or invisible.

Last week, I wrote two articles on Jeremy Christian, the “white supremacist” or “terrorist” “Trump supporter” from Portland who was none of these things.

In the second of my two essays, I quoted from the affidavit for this case and Christian’s own Facebook history to show that the standard leftist spin on this event was false.  I won’t rehash the details, but they can be found here.

Christian, however, was indeed “vermin,” as I described him, who was guilty of stabbing three people, three white men, murdering two of them. For this, I expressly said, he deserves nothing less than the ultimate penalty, death.  His victims, I added, deserve our sympathy.

I received some emails.  By now, I’m all too familiar with “hate mail.” Most of what I have received, admittedly, has never actually risen to the level of genuine hate. Most of what I have received from those on the left is more accurately labeled “arrogance,” “ignorance,” or “idiocy” mail.  But last week, I received a genuine hate mail.   I reproduce it here:

“Hey,

Just read your in depth analysis of the Jeremy Christian article.  I would like you to know that you’re an absolute piece of f**king sh**.

YOU are no more than Jeremy Christian. Your ‘sympathy’ towards the end is complete bulls**t.  You are ignorant, out of touch, and simply do not understand what the f**k goes on around you or in this country for that matter. I’m not even 21 and I can see through your fake bulls**t.

I hope you die a brutal death someday and have it be reported, blurred and relayed with the same transparent, bulls**t you are giving those victims who did more for a fellow human (with active human rights) than you’ll ever do for anybody.  I hope you family experiences this too. F**k you a**hole.  Rot in f**king hell.”

The person did not sign his name.  Ordinarily, I simply discard imbecilic emails from disgruntled “progressives” and the like. But the raw hatred and irrationality embodied here provoked me to take a different course of action.

First, I googled the address of the person from which this email was sent. The person who I found does indeed appear to be under 21 years of age.  If he is the same person as the hate-filled emailer in question, then he attends a college in Connecticut where he plays on a sports team.  I found as well that he takes an interest in, among other things, “human rights.” I tracked down this punk’s work history and located his professional aspirations.

Now, to be sure, the name of the person in the email address of the sender was an unusual one. At first I suspected that it was a fake name. It is not—however uncommon it is in the English speaking world. So, when, upon googling this name, I immediately found a match and the person’s profile revealed him to be of college age, i.e. “not even 21,” I felt confident that the person in the profile and the hate emailer were one and the same.

Still, I can’t be 100% certain that this is the case. And this is why I took the next step that I did:

I showed the piece of hate mail to the local police and had officers read it. The police explained that if I wanted to file a complaint that I could.  But a subpoena would first have to be issued to Google in order to determine with absolute certainty the identity of the person who owns the email account from which the hate mail was sent.

As things stood at the present moment, the content of the email warranted a “disorderly persons” charge.  No subpoena would be forthcoming for such a charge.  Given the vile content enclosed, however, the police suggested the possibility of going after the sender on a “terroristic threats” charge.  The only challenge with this last route is that the emailer didn’t directly threaten me or my family.

If, though, he sent me any follow up emails of this kind, then he would expose himself to a “harassment” charge, in which case Google could be subpoenaed.

Third, I decided that, for now, I would not pursue any charges.  Several people suggested that I send his email to the administrators of the institution that he attends, the coaches of the athletic team for which he plays, and his connections on Linkedin.  Admittedly, I was tempted to take some, if not all, of these measures.  The unreasonableness and toxicity of his emails, including and especially the mentioning of my family, made me see red.  But I chose, for now, what I think is a higher road.

I decided that I wouldn’t even reply to the hater directly, for fear that I would inflate this pathetic little person’s ego further than it undoubtedly already is. Instead, I would share his email with this substantial audience and hold it up as the proverbial textbook illustration of the raw hatred and irrationality that has made civil disagreement impossible and that stems overwhelmingly from the left.

I add something else: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”   This is a quotation from Warren Buffett, a person with whom this hater seems to have some acquaintance.

Yet this punk hasn’t learned a thing, for if he had, he wouldn’t have come as dangerously close as he did to trashing his reputation overnight.  Had he sent his poisonous email to someone lacking my patience and Christian desire to love, not hate, he would have ruined himself.  This, though, is a warning, for if I hear from him again, then his email(s) with his name will be made available and criminal charges filed.

Evil shall not be permitted to prevail.