RUTHFULLY YOURS

The College of William & Mary in Virginia announced last week that James Comey will teach a course on “ethical leadership” starting this autumn. The former FBI director would not have been our first choice for such an assignment, but upon reflection maybe his experience as a federal prosecutor, deputy attorney general and FBI director is ideal for the task.

Mr. Comey said in a statement accompanying the news that “ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth.” In that spirit, here are some suggestions on how Mr. Comey can structure his course to help students confront these profound questions.

Week One case study: The FBI is investigating a presidential candidate for mishandling classified emails as Secretary of State. The director decides on his own to violate Justice Department rules and exonerate that candidate in a public statement to the media, letting an aide replace the legally potent phrase “grossly negligent” in a draft of his statement with “extremely careless” in the final version.

Students will examine when a public official can choose to ignore rules and standards of conduct for what he considers to be higher purposes. Required reading: Former Deputy Attorney General and federal Judge Laurence Silberman’s February 2017 speech to the Columbia Law School chapter of the Federalist Society.

Breakout session topic: Having exonerated that candidate, the FBI director intervenes in the campaign again only days before Election Day, saying new evidence has required him to reopen the email case. Two days before the polls open he says that the new evidence turned out to be nothing of consequence. Was the FBI director protecting the rule of law, or his own reputation?

Ethical guides Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner will visit each breakout session to steer the discussions. (Thanks to the federal prison system for letting Mr. Weiner appear by video from Federal Medical Center Devens.)

The “Palestinians” are a hate group. Across the board in Gaza and the West Bank and elsewhere, they call for killing Jews and destroying the State of Israel.

The #Resistance is a hate group. It refuses to acknowledge the election of Donald Trump, even to the point of questioning his physical and mental fitness to be President, and includes in that mantra the implied accusation that Dr. Ronny Jackson, who examined Trump, is lying. It is willing to say anything to damage Trump, no matter how irrational and unproven.

Antifa is a hate group. The visual evidence is ample. Masked thugs attack individuals who want to see and hear someone the group disapproves of; destroy property with glee, and calls “fascist” (as though the thugs knew what real “fascists” were in the past) anyone who opposes them. Antifa thugs should take Pogo’s complaint to heart;”We have seen the enemy and he is us.” Not that doing such would give them second thoughts. Their minds are the property of leftist ideology.

Democratic congressmen who oppose President Trump comprise a hate group.

Any group that does not disavow its unremitting, obsessive hatred for Trump is a hate group.

Yet it will not be classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty LawCenter (SPLC). This and other groups get a free pass because they hate Trump and spew their hatred to another level of ranting insanity. My argument is that any government authority that suppresses freedom of speech across the globe is a “hate group,” any group that offers “resistance” to freedom of speech is a “hate group,” any individual who rants irrationality against President Trump is a one-man “hate group” and could said to be in the grip of “Trumpophobia.”

Like the saliva of an IndonesianKomodo dragon injected into a bite victim, the toxin is supposed to cause a fatal and a certain, helpless death. The dragons are attracted to the putrefaction of the bodies of their victims. Much as the Democrats are.

Articles have surfaced that claim that the SPLC is by definition a “hate group” itself, because its chief purpose today is to establish and publish lists of names that hate groups can target for hateful action. This is a charge which cannot be denied by the SPLC. Virtually the only time it makes news headlines today is when it has declared certain individuals – such as Pamela Geller, Richard Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali – and numerous blogs that critique Islam, as “Islamophobes” or as “hate groups.” They commit “hate crimes” and must be sent to the slammer. Never mind that Geller is under a constant fatwa to behead her, that Spencer was poisoned in Iceland, and that Hirsi Ali survived the worst of Sharia for a woman, female genital mutilation.

So, what is a “hate crime”?

In 1959 I made a record, a song that reflected the virtues of bourgeois culture: “We’re Not Going Steady.” The lyrics were pure “bubblegum,” silly yet nostalgic. “We’re not going steady because we’re never alone, I can’t even love you, love you on the telephone.” I was reminded of my foray into the rock world as I watched Kendrick Lamar and the half time entertainment at the College Football Championship. All I could think is how culture has been debased in six decades.

During the 1940’s-50’s Sinatra sang “Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage” and Lloyd Price sang, “I Want to Get Married.” At the height of the cynical sixties, a generation later, when middle class values were under attack, Dusty Springfield sang, “You Don’t Have To Say You Love Me” and Meat Loaf argued “I want you, I need you but I’m never goin’ to say I love you. Two out of three ain’t bad.” The tie between love and sex was severed.

Still it is hard to imagine how far down the proverbial rabbit hole we have gone. For rappers sex is raw. Women are objects, to be treated as ho’s. Deviancy has been defined down to kindergarteners who mouth vile lyrics as if they are the Gettysburg Address.