Dear Mom: Your Son Is Dead

by

Gadfly

Dear Mom,

            Reminiscing my days as an OV-10 Bronco Forward Air Controller (FAC) in the early 80s and at the height of the Cold War in Western Germany, I listened with great affection to the fraternal and patriotic tribute to OV-10 Bronco FACs, “Dear Mom, Your Son Is Dead” (a rendition of which is located here).  This group committed their lives in deference to a greater cause:  freedom versus communism.

I regret to inform you that your son (or at least his brain) appears to have bought the farm, likely during his grooming at The London School of Economics and further necrosis at The New York Times.  His propaganda piece in yesterday’s edition provides sad evidence.  I understand that he has sacrificed his personal reputation for a greater cause; but, not all causes pursue the common good.

Let me point out some examples of David’s necrosis, its implications, and its toxic effect on truth.

·         David begins by asserting that Special Counsel Mueller is honorable and patriotic.  Attorney General Barr presented findings (quoting from the actual text) based on Mueller’s investigation report.

 

·         Timing a leak to The Washington Post (now owned by “anti-Trump” Jeff Bezos) for maximum effect, the Mueller team released an internal letter to Barr the night before he was scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Keep in mind, that under the current special counsel statute, Mueller worked for the Attorney General—no one else.

 

·         What the left fails to understand, let alone embrace, is the role loyalty plays in a virtuous society.  An apparent inquiry by Trump about Comey's loyalty was after all the first obstruction consideration by the Mueller team.  But, then again, perhaps the left has a different concept:  loyalty to them is to an ideology that promotes the rule by men rather than a system based on the rule of law.  “No one is above the law” really gets most people to the very core of their gut.  Yet, some, like your son, forget “no one is below the law” either.  This is why our Constitution guarantees “equal protection” and “due process.”  Unless, that is, if the ruling elite does not accept a duly elected President, then they apparently can do whatever they need to do (to include distorting public narratives, illegally colluding for dossiers, and spying with national intelligence and law enforcement assets).  This is why the left asserts Barr is acting as Trump’s personal lawyer, his “fixer.”

     

·         The release of Mueller’s letter was designed to control the public narrative; in other words, Mueller and Barr have different takes on the report.  Barr was focused on the legal bottom line; Mueller was focused on the circumstantial context to inject a preponderance of perceptions of misconduct that are of secondary importance (and most likely irrelevant) in criminal proceedings (unlike civil cases).  As David has already asserted, Mueller is honorable and patriotic; therefore, Barr must not be so.  During the hearing, Barr explained that he had offered the four-page summary of findings to Mueller for review and approval before releasing it to the public.  Mueller declined.  Why?  With the left's feeding frenzy to establish collusion and obstruction, what was Mueller’s motive for declining to review Barr’s four-page summary, abruptly followed by his letter disagreeing with Barr's summary?  Mueller could not disagree with Barr's findings:  they were direct quotes from the Mueller report.  Is Mueller obstructing truth?  Is he non-compliant with the special counsel's controlling statute that mandates a confidential report to the attorney general.  Does the Mueller letter leak to The Washington Post violate the statute?

·         Mueller knew he had to appease the side that controls the narrative.  This is why: (a) he held the “no collusion” finding until after the 2018 midterm elections; and (b) he refused to assert a similar finding for obstruction.

·         The Mueller report was a $35 million distraction and presented a tautological argument for the left.  Remember, it was Comey’s firing that triggered the investigation.  The lead argument was that Trump obstructed an investigation into Russia collusion (even though the record shows that Comey told Trump he was not the target of an investigation).  Thus, the left now claims, (a) “no evidence of collusion” does not mean that it did not happen—"look at all the examples in the report”; and (b) since there was no definitive statement that there was insufficient evidence to assert obstruction; but (c) Mueller said Trump could not be exonerated; therefore, (d) Trump is in fact guilty of a crime.  While the left’s attempts to obfuscate what actually happened, Trump’s real crime was getting elected.

·         Is David’s brain so necrotic that he sees no irony in Comey presenting a case where Hillary Clinton committed a range of criminal acts but “exonerated” her because no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her for these crimes?  Which Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole does he do his reasoning?

·         If Mueller is truly an honorable man, then why did his investigation not report actual collusion and obstruction committed by others and well known for quite some time?  The evidence, not mere allegations, is overwhelming.  This was Mueller’s mission to follow the evidence; and, if criminal activity was established, then prosecution should follow.  The excuse that a sitting President cannot be indicted does not justify Mueller’s nebulous conclusion on obstruction.  Mueller failed to establish a case for a legal solution and he deliberately crafted the report to do the best he could to allow the left to keep control of the narrative.  This is why the left must now pursue a political solution:  impeachment.

·         Impeachment is complicated, and the left’s leadership now finds itself in a dilemma.  Trump, Barr, and others are not playing the left’s game.  The “removal of a president” script developed and rehearsed during Watergate is not working as expected.  What to do now?  For the American public, watch:  Trump's side is the tortoise of legal accountability in a race against time with the left's hare of political payback (thanks to Aesop's enduring wisdom).

     

In an effort to redeem your family name, I would encourage you to read and evangelize among the left and those who control the narrative and political power in the Washington D.C. establishment, a speech by Professor John Marini, “Politics by Other Means:  The Use and Abuse of Scandal,” published in the March 2019 edition of Hillsdale College’s Imprimus.  We can liberate ourselves from manufactured legends (Watergate and the left’s hopeful, pressing Russia-gate scandal) that stifle the truth and justice promised by the only Constitutional Republic among the hundreds of nations.  Truth and justice represent the objective arbiter in the contest between payback’s vices and accountability’s virtue.

In closing, “The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace” (Numbers 6:24-26, NKJV).

Sincerely,

Gadfly    

Not Their First Rodeo

Abstract:  It is natural to make generalizations about what we see and hear, even if it is merely a snapshot.  Without any historical context, the news we see today can be very plausible.  For example, this week special prosecutor Mueller made heavily redacted court filings and the national press inferred, despite not knowing what was redacted, criminal behavior on the part of President Trump.  Unless there is some doubt, the Mueller affair is purely political in its exploitation of prosecutorial tools.  Whether there is any evidence of criminal activity is yet to be determined.  However, in the light of historical context, there seems to be a pattern of tactics that are useful and effective in convicting political opponents in the court of public opinion.  More disturbing is that the organizing principle for such a concerted effort seems to have remained constant over the past several decades.

            IM:  Gentlemen, this was not a good week for President Trump.

            Old Gadfly:  Why do you say that?

            IM:  The press is saying special prosecutor Mueller’s court filings indicate criminal behavior by the President.

            Old Gadfly:  How do they know?  They are inferring criminal behavior from redacted material.

            AM:  Amazingly, what we see playing out in the court of public opinion is not the left’s first rodeo.

            Old Gadfly:  You are suggesting a pattern in terms of convicting a political opponent.  What was the first rodeo?

            AM:  The Watergate scandal.  Just today,  Chuck Todd of Meet the Press used the expression “unindicted coconspirator” in association with President Trump, first familiarized with President Richard Nixon in 1974.  Geoff Shepard, who was a member of Nixon’s inner circle, recently published a book that more accurately portrays what happened during this “scandal.”  In his book, The Real Watergate Scandal:  Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot that Brought Nixon Down, Shepard pieces together previously unavailable documents (memoranda, affidavits, etc.) previously unavailable through the Freedom of Information Act and other avenues.  What he proves is that prosecutors conspired with judges, as documented via ex parte meetings (which are illegal), coordinated leaks to the press to prep the public narrative, and illegally collaborated with a Democrat-controlled Congress.  Shepard provides a synopsis of his book in this C-Span video.

IM:  Prior to Watergate, the left was victorious in mischaracterizing an effort to mitigate Soviet communist infiltration of America’s institutions.  Investigative journalist M. Stanton Evans authoritatively explains how the left thwarted Joseph McCarthy’s efforts in his book, Blacklisted by History:  The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies.  Curious about what else might be available to shed light on Soviet communist infiltration of our institutions, I discovered and read potent first-person testimonials by former communists:

·         Whittaker Chambers in his book, Witness;

·         Bella Dodd in her book, School of Darkness;

·         Manning Johnson in his book, Color, Communism, and Common Sense (a copy of the book, along with his “farewell speech about the NAACP,” is available here);

·         Englishman Douglas Hyde in his book, I Believed (available through third-party sources outside of the United States);

·         William Z. Foster in his book, Toward Soviet America;

Following Foster’s ideological legacy is Bernie Sanders and his books, Our Revolution:  A Future to Believe In; Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution; Where Do We Go from Here:  Two Years in the Resistance.

Bella Dodd, who rose to membership of the National Committee of America’s Communist Party (which is alive and well--see here--in close alliance with one of America's major political parties), reflects that she was seduced by Communism’s appeal to the love of humanity, a better society, and social justice.  Early in her indoctrination, she explained her role of intellectually seducing others as a teacher at Hunter College, in this excerpt:

There were other refreshingly new courses that year and new professors, among them Raymond Moley, not yet a Roosevelt brain truster.  There were courses on the press and on public opinion. We young people were intrigued by the possibilities of participation in government control and the various means of achieving this.

In our enthusiasm we passed on to our students at Hunter what we had learned.  We challenged the traditional thinking they had brought to college with them.  We sent out girls to political clubs, too.  Soon political leaders began to find out what the idea was of sending the "kids" to their clubs.

... Before long we were saying -- and not yet realizing it was merely a rather meaningless cliche -- that the radicals of today are the conservatives of tomorrow, that there could be no progress if there were no radicals.

... By using this schematic device [categorizing people as left or right] one puts the communists on the left and then regards them as advanced liberals -- after which it is easy to regard them as the enzyme necessary for progress.

Communists usurp the position of the left, but when one examines them in light of what they really stand for, one sees them as the rankest kind of reactionaries and communism as the most reactionary backward leap in the long history of social movements.  It is one which seeks to obliterate in one revolutionary wave two thousand years of man's progress.

During my thirteen years of teaching at Hunter I was to repeat this semantic falsehood many times.  I did not see the truth that people are not born "right" or "left" nor can they become "right" or "left" unless educated on the basis of a philosophy which is as carefully organized and as all-inclusive as communism.

I was among the first of a new kind of teacher who was to come in great numbers to the city colleges. . . . (pp. 39-40)

Dodd unsuccessfully tried to leave the Communist Party until she was expelled in this manner:

On June 17, 1949, my telephone rang.  "This is the Associated Press," said a voice.  "We have received a statement from the Communist Party announcing your expulsion from membership.  It says here that you are anti-Negro, anti-Puerto Rican, anti-Semitic, anti-labor, and defender of a landlord.  Have you any statement to make?"

The New York papers carried the story the following day. . . .  (p. 220).

Sound familiar?  The educational techniques and public court of opinion smear tactics Dodd describes are as present today as they were in her day.  Consider for example, books in publication today:

·         Bini Adamczak’s book, Communism for Kids, published by MIT Press;

·         Rob Sander’s book, Peaceful Fights for Equal Rights; and

·         Martha Freeman’s book, If You’re Going to March

The last two books listed target children aged 4 to 8 and are just a sampling of “social awareness” books being published on behalf of progressive (socialist) thinking.  See for example the following photograph taken at a local bookstore.

AM:  The cultural Marxism (this expression has been adeptly diminished through demagoguery by members of the left as in this presentation) that has infected the left is succeeding because our younger generations have been deprived of a proper “liberal education” that includes an accurate portrayal of history and the real meaning of the “liberal democracy” that defeated 20^th Century totalitarianism in the form of its socialist siblings:  communism and fascism.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s unpack what you just said.

AM:  Marxism is essentially about liberating the oppressed.  Thus, there must be evidence of oppression, even if it is imagined or manufactured, to justify liberating, via social justice, those classified as oppressed.  Perhaps the most blatant examples of the oppressed are women afflicted with unwanted pregnancies (and who want the freedom to kill the life in their womb) and nontraditional sexual orientations.  Both are contrary to Judeo-Christian traditions.  To take on the mantle of a liberating force, members of the left must consider those who subscribe to the Judeo-Christian tradition as the oppressors in order to take on the moral superiority of atheistic secular humanism, where man, represented by political elite, is supreme.  Hayek saw this development in the 1940s in his book, The Road to Serfdom.  He astutely observed:

The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends.  To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends.  It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends.  Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants” (Chapter on “The End of Truth,” p. 171).

It was just this week that Kevin Hart experienced what Hayek wrote about when he was forced to step down as the Oscar’s host.  We have an entire community of sexual orientations, contrary to the Judeo-Christian tradition, that have been elevated to sacred status.  Voices to the contrary are being censored and even punished (like Hart), such as the explosive investigative treatise by Enrique Rueda published in 1986 as The Homosexual Network:  Private Lives and Public Policy.  His conclusion was that homosexuality was a concerted political movement (to include pedophilia advocates such as the Howard Nichols Society in Austin, Tex., the North American Man Boy Love Association in New York and Boston, and the Rene Guyon Society in Los Angeles [see also this article published during the same period]), and even documented to what extent homosexuality had infiltrated the Catholic Church.  Father Robert Altier, of the Church of St. Raphael in Minnesota, attended seminary studies during this time and has a personal accounting (presented in a homily on August 19, 2018) of what Rueda documented.  Try finding a copy of Rueda’s book.  Amazon indicates used copies can be purchased through third-party sellers starting at $700 per copy.  Rueda assures the reader that the intent of his research was not to denigrate individuals (entitled to privacy), but to understand the nature of what he considered to be a "political movement" to impose through public policy certain beliefs (and behaviors) on others.

            Old Gadfly:  How about “liberal education” and “liberal democracy”?

            AM:  The word “liberal” is key to properly understanding these concepts.  The original meaning relates to classical liberalism, stemming from the Enlightenment era, which emphasized individual liberty, property rights, limited government, and a free market, yet still being grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition as the basis for moral reasoning.  Correspondingly, a liberal education included an appreciation for truth and justice within this framework.  Modern liberalism coopted the term liberalism and emphasized the social dimension, which is totally congruent with cultural Marxism and its social justice tactics.  Correspondingly, a modern liberal education is oriented toward a Utopian future that can only be manufactured and achieved by political elite (social planners).  Therefore, the Judeo-Christian tradition must be diminished for atheistic secular humanism to become the basis for moral reasoning.

This distinction between classical and modern liberalism is critical to understanding liberal democracy and the left’s passion and commitment to destroying President Trump.  The liberal democracy that was instrumental in destroying (at least temporarily as America’s left is actively pursuing the ideology that we fought against) socialist totalitarianism.  Our Founders/Framers knew the dangers of democracy and even wrote about it in The Federalist Papers (see numbers 10, 14, and 26).  Based on the principles of classical liberalism, our Framers, established a Constitutional Republic (the only one among the hundreds of nations), where the Constitution balanced classical liberal principles with the natural tendency toward democracy.  This balance becomes tenuous without a disciplined adherence to the Constitution, where updates in its meaning are through Article V amendments.  The left wants a living Constitution, where it is far more expedient for men and women in black robes to update the meaning of the Constitution through court rulings.  This approach is consistent with political elite behavior as described by Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.

            Old Gadfly:    Political scientist George Friedman argues that nationalism is an essential condition for liberal democracy.  It reflects a common culture, language, and set of values that unite society.  Contrary to this, the left pushes multiculturalism that destroys nationalism and tragically divides society.  Even The New York Times’ Thomas Edsall has realized to what extent America’s left has further shifted to the left.  Ironically, they tend to be “better educated” (which means they have graduated from universities that are predominately leftist among faculty and administrations) and far less religious.

            IM:  I found it quite ironic that on the same day President Trump gave a speech at an American World War I military cemetery on the outskirts of Paris, France’s President Macron publicly chastised and lectured President Trump on his notion that patriotism is the opposite of nationalism.

            AM:  This folly by Macron patently demonstrates the dangers of progressivism, because its patriotism is to an imagined Utopian future and thus would be opposite to the inherent patriotism of nationalism, which is focused on the inherited wisdom of tradition.  Therefore, progressives cannot teach younger generations the truth about socialism and the millions of casualties in its wake.  Yet, America’s nationalism is what inspired thousands of Americans to liberate others oppressed by the tyranny of totalitarianism.

            Old Gadfly:  Obscured by the left’s concerted effort to destroy President Trump is the contest between socialism (mollified by using the term progressivism, unless you are Bernie Sanders or newly elected “socialists”) and liberal democracy.  Trump represents the original meaning of liberal democracy.  Unfortunately, many Americans (too many) cannot penetrate the political noise to recognize that the fundamental essence of what made America the beacon of liberty, peace, and prosperity throughout the world is vulnerable to the power-seekers of the left.  You, are correct AM.  The Mueller affair is not the left’s first rodeo.

Colluding, Meddling, and Muddling

“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime,” Lavrentiy Beria

IM:  Gentlemen, are you angry with President Trump, yet?

Old Gadfly:  Why do you ask?

AM:  Probably because of the constant negative reporting in the mainstream news.   In all my time in special operations and with an unnamed intelligence agency, I have never witnessed such a comprehensive influence operation by a once-free press against American institutions.  Take for instance an op-ed in today’s New York Times:  “Oh, Wait.  Maybe It Was Collusion.”  The authors are former CIA operatives with experience in Russia, and one is a consultant for CNN.  In this influence op hit piece, they lay out a theory to support their proposition that collusion probably took place.  Probably?  For those of us who have actual experience in deriving an assessment based on triangulation of actual evidence, here is one major flag in their piece:  “It is our view not only that the Russian government was running some sort of intelligence operation involving the Trump campaign, but also that it is impossible to rule out the possibility of collusion between the two.”  What are they implying?  Based on their own experience as intelligence operatives in Russia, this is how spy craft works.  But it’s alright for America to engage in these practices--such as influencing elections in Israel and other countries--but no other country can?  It’s highly likely that Russia was involved in attempting to influence our political dynamics because America has been involved in similar practices.  CIA Director Pompeo should initiate an investigation into both authors for potential violation of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities. 

Old Gadfly:  Alright, so even President Trump has acknowledged that other countries, to include Russia, attempt to influence elections—welcome to international politics.  Our senior intelligence officials are on record that no Russian efforts actually influenced the outcome—for example no votes were changed.  But, is there potential evidence to “prove” collusion?

IM:   Isn’t even an allegation of collusion based on reasonable cause?

Old Gadfly:   In this case, what might we conclude to be a reasonable cause?  In other words, what might have triggered suspicion of collusion?

AM:  The trigger was a Russian dossier that was released by CNN, starting this meme of Russian collusion in the public narrative.  Progressive politicians, such as John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff, knew that if they colluded with a progressive mainstream media, once the narrative achieved traction (it’s still thriving in daily broadcasts) the burden of proof would be on President Trump to prove he did not collude.  Recall the CNN-CIA authors statement above:  “. . . but also that it is impossible to rule out the possibility of collusion between the two.”?  So the meme has a long shelf-life, and progressive tactics are no less egregious than those employed by Stalin’s chief of internal security (note the quote above by Beria).

Old Gadfly:    So, if the left is concerned about corruption in the form of collusion, should they not be concerned about any collusion that may have taken place?

IM:   Yes, assuming the left has virtuous intentions.  Unfortunately, there is evidence of collusion in (a) the admitted unmasking of names by at least Susan Rice, ostensibly for political purposes, subsequently leaking “classified” information to the media, and then refusing to testify before Congress until actually subpoenaed (the deep state must have revealed some incriminating evidence on Lieutenant General McMaster to convince him to retain Rice’s security clearance); (b) the DNC working with GPS Fusion to fabricate the Russian dossier; and (c) the left’s acquiescence in a DNC-paid third party examination of DNC computers as opposed to insisting upon the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Old Gadfly:  The DNC computer issue is troubling on two counts.  First, the FBI would have had greater credibility in suggesting Russian hacking had they examined the physical evidence.  Second, given the damaging material in the Wikileaks release, there may have been even more incriminating information that had to be concealed from the FBI, such as a smoking gun on the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, assassination.

IM:  Apparently, Rod Wheeler, the original investigator, has shifted oars on the Rich story and has filed a lawsuit against Fox News for attempting to report on the nefarious circumstances surrounding Rich’s death.  The FBI denies any interest in the case.  The Metropolitan Police Department, which can be temporarily directed by the President under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, has been sued to release information of what has become a “cold case.”  July 2016 was a busy month:  Wikileaks released thousands of emails, emphasizing they did not come from Russia and implying a DNC insider was the source; Seth Rich was assassinated (there is some online testimony indicating Rich was alive when he was admitted to the emergency room and on the way to recovery, see also here, here, and here); and the FBI sought a surveillance warrant from a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court against an alleged member of the Trump campaign. 

AM:  I watched in utter amazement how Democrats in Congress laid the stage for appointing a special counsel.  First, it began with the Sessions confirmation hearings.  All the Democrats expressed their contempt for Sessions’ insistence on enforcing the law.  But it was Senator Al Franken who actually set in motion the notion for a special counsel (watch a segment of the hearing here) by using the infamous Russian dossier to trap Sessions.  This obviously led to Sessions' recusal regarding any investigation into Russian collusion.  I loved the part where professional comedian and failed radio talk-show host Franken admits he’s not a lawyer.  Franken even repeated  concerns that Trump lauded Wikileaks for releasing classified information, but seems to have no concern about The New York Times or The Washington Post colluding in similar practices.  I believe Democrats anticipated the integrity-bound Sessions actually would recuse himself because they pulled a full court press against Rod Rosenstein at his confirmation hearing.  Every single Democrat beat the drum for a special counsel.  By now the leftist media giants The New York Times and the Washington Post had released numerous stories about Watergate parallels and the Saturday Night Massacre, where both the attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned when asked to fire the special prosecutor.  Both the attorney general and deputy attorney general had been confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate within months prior after pledging they would not fire the special prosecutor.  Despite a landslide reelection, Nixon ended up resigning because of the court of public opinion.  As we have discussed before, Nixon was defeated by the left because of collusion between the prosecutor, judges, congress, and the media.  Sound familiar?

Old Gadfly:  And just today, special counsel Mueller has formed a grand jury.

IM:  Remember how the last one played out?   Remember the allegation that a crime had been committed by leaking the name of an undercover agent?  It turns out the individual was no longer undercover; thus no crime.  But, the investigation lasted until Scooter Libby became the sacrificial lamb—not the one who released Valerie Plame’s name to Bob Novak, but because he made conflicting statements under oath—bingo, perjury.  Do you remember who appointed the special counsel?  Then Deputy Attorney General James Comey.  In May, Comey pulled the trigger by illegally releasing a memo to justify a special counsel.  Thus, Mueller has a mission.  Isn’t justice pathetic when it is so politically manipulated?

AM:  The real injustice here is former FBI Director Comey.  He admitted to illegally leaking a memo to trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor.  Remember, he’s the adult in the room that usurped the attorney general’s authority by closing the Clinton investigation.  While Sessions has the integrity to recuse himself to avoid a conflict of interest, Mueller has no qualms about being a special counsel associated with Comey’s machinations even though it is becoming widely known that Mueller worked for Comey when Comey was the Deputy Attorney General and Mueller the FBI Director.  So far, only Seth Rich has been executed.  Perhaps the left is hoping this Administration will want to avoid a Russian Great Purge, capitulating to let the left win this debacle with President Trump, or one of his aides or family members, taken down by Mueller and the Democrat Party.

Old Gadfly:    I think the left has studied Sun Tzu and is employing his concept of attack by stratagem (or “the sheathed sword”):  “supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”[1]     But, the left does not have truth and justice on its side; thus, at best their stratagem is merely meddling and muddling.  Most people would have withered by now from the constant attacks.  Trump’s resolve should be encouraging.  If members of the left were not so ideological (Marxist, progressive), then they should be asking why Democrats are not concerned about criminal activity by members of its own political cohort.  Virtuous behavior insists upon accountability.  Trump believes in accountability and has already indicated that if satellites within his administration have colluded with Russia, he would want to know.  And, despite apparent political motivation by Obama-placed federal judges, Trump has not nullified any federal court rulings, unlike his predecessor.  Further, while Comey claims Trump asked for loyalty, their notions of loyalty are different.  Comey’s is tribal and politically motivated.  Trump’s is tied to merit, to the rule of law, and to the institutions of our Constitutional Republic.  This is why he is a threat to the left.  Now, let’s see if Mueller will “find a crime.”  While the left owns and controls the mainstream media, they do not own or control the truth.  Americans do; they yearn for it.  In terms of justice, criminal behavior has taken place.  There is plenty of evidence.  It’s time for accountability.

---

[1] Sun Tzu, The Art of War (edited by James Clavell; New York:  Delacorte Press, 1983), p. 15.