RUTHFULLY YOURS

Ronald Reagan famously quipped that the trouble with liberals “is not that they’re ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” Reagan’s words aptly describe former President Barack Obama. Obama was an intelligent, well-educated, articulate man. He could woo crowds with soaring rhetoric and pacify True Conservative™ “intellectuals,” like David Brooks (who voted for Obama partly on the basis of the perfect crease in his trousers).

Obama was not only a scion of the American political class, he was also a new kind of leader: the first black president in history and one of the youngest.

With Obama, though, we were getting an incredibly manipulative individual who bought into the most dangerous and destructive left-wing academic theories. Obama was the ultimate “intellectual-yet-idiot.” Examples of his folly are plentiful, but there are perhaps no better illustrations of the disconnect between Obama’s intellectual prowess and his practical political judgment than the disastrous Affordable Care Act and the terrible nuclear agreement with Iran. Both were highly controversial, very unpopular, deeply secretive, and painfully naïve. They were also, it turns out, extremely harmful to the American people who voted for Obama.

Obamacare Fail
Obama believes in socialized medicine, more or less. Most Americans, even many Democrats, never would have supported a scheme that was honest about aiming toward that end. So just as Obama’s healthcare policy adviser (and former architect of the failed “Romneycare” plan in Massachusetts), Jonathan Gruber argued, Obama had to lie to the American voters about what his plan actually entailed.

Leakers and lawbreakers rewarded with Clinton-administration jobs — and the American public none the wiser about deep-state corruption

There are lots of possible counterfactuals to think about had Hillary Clinton won the presidency as all the experts had predicted.

The U.S. embassy would have stayed in Tel Aviv. “Strategic patience” would likely still govern the North Korea dilemma. Fracking would be curtailed. The — rather than “our” — miners really would be put out of work. Coal certainly would not have been “beautiful.” The economy probably would be slogging along at below 2 percent GDP growth.

China would be delighted, as would Iran. But most important, there would be no collusion narrative — neither one concerning a defeated Donald Trump nor another implicating a victorious Hillary Clinton. In triumph, progressives couldn’t have cared less whether Russians supposedly had tried to help a now irrelevant Trump; and they certainly would have prevented any investigation of the winning Clinton 2016 campaign.

In sum, Hillary’s supposedly sure victory, not fear of breaking the law, prompted most of the current 2016 scandals, and her embittering defeat means they are not being addressed as scandals.

For example, why would FBI director James Comey have been so foolish as to ask for a FISA warrant request without fully informing the judge of the compromising details of the Steele–Fusion GPS dossier? Or why would Attorney General Loretta Lynch have been so reckless as to meet with Bill Clinton in a stealthy jet rendezvous on an Arizona tarmac when her department was concurrently investigating his spouse?

As we await the coronation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller by the Senate Judiciary Committee, it’s worth reviewing a few of the national security and prosecutorial disasters marking the man’s tenure as FBI Director. Contrary to Mueller’s media beatification as a non-partisan exemplar of public service, these disasters mark Mueller as a reliable political fixer. Now, it looks as if he will become his own branch of government.

Why? For services rendered to the people? I don’t think so.

Robert Mueller became Director of the FBI exactly one week before 9/11. No account of his Bureau tenure is complete without underscoring his shocking obstruction of efforts to bring to light information about key cells of the Saudi-centered conspiracy and terror attacks against the United States: in San Diego, explained here by Andrew Cockburn, and in Sarasota, explained here by Dan Christensen.

From the very start, FBI Director Mueller was not one to follow evidence where it leads. Instead, as the 9/11 record shows, he was one to divert others from where evidence leads.

The following chronology draws from compilations by Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist (MH), GlobalResearch.org (GR) and my own (DW).

1991:GR: As chief of DOJ Criminal Division, Mueller fails to prosecute the BCCI scandal aggressively

2001: GR: Quashes FBI investigation that might have prevented 9/11

“You remember Iraqgate,” the always trenchant William Safire wrote in 1993 ….

Er, well, not exactly ….

Iraqgate, the former-Nixon-Agnew-speechwriter-turned-NYT-columnist continued, was

the White House corruption of Agriculture’s loan guarantee program to slip foreign aid billions through an Italian bank to Saddam Hussein, which he used to finance his secret nuclear buildup. The Bush Justice Department sought to contain the scandal by pretending the Italian bank knew nothing of its Atlanta office’s huge Iraqi dealings — despite suppressed C.I.A. evidence to the contrary.”

That would be the Bush 41 White House & Justice Department under the extremely murky Attorney General William Barr and criminal division chief, later US attorney, later acting deputy attorney general, later FBI director, current Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

As Safire pieced things together in a series of columns a quarter century ago, it all started when Prince Bandar (a.k.a. “Bandar Bush”) convinced Bush 41 to make Saddam Hussein into the sheriff of the Middle East. This disastrous strategy would include a backdoor (i.e., illegal) military (nuclear) build-up via the Ag Department via an Italian bank, which, far from bringing Saddam’s Iraq into “the family of nations,” as Bush 41 seemed to hope, created the aggressive state actor whom Bush 41 would go to war against, briefly, in 1992. Stories about the banking/Justice/Ag/CIA/White House/State scandal that had erupted into war broke while the nation was still celebrating that same war’s “100 hour” victory. Somehow, the establishment bigfeet WaPo and NYT just never mustered much enthusiasm for this Bush 41 “-gate” …

Safire’s recap continued:

During the ’92 campaign, Al Gore accurately charged that “the C.I.A. reported to Secretary of State James Baker . . . that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons” while State was urging more loan guarantees to appease the dictator.

Rap superstar Kanye West continues to confound his critics, both progressive and conservative, by sparking a crucial conversation about racial politics. I have previously written here and here on FrontPage Mag about Kanye’s controversial support for President Donald Trump and his defense of black conservative commentator Candace Owens, whose message that blacks need to exchange their victim mentality for a victor mentality resonated with Kanye. Despite volley after volley of media assaults suggesting that Kanye is a race traitor and even questioning his sanity, he hasn’t given an inch of ground, which is unheard of for a celebrity. Now he has triggered renewed leftist outrage by uploading a single on his website that Jerome Hudson at Breitbart News called “one of the boldest political statements in rap history.”

Titled “Ye Vs. The People,” the song features Kanye justifying his iconoclastic new stance in a rap dialogue with actor-rapper T.I., who represents the typical objections raised against Kanye for roaming off the Democrat plantation.

EXPLICIT LYRICS AHEAD

“Where you tryna go with this?” T.I. begins. Kanye replies, “You just readin’ the headlines, you don’t see the fine print / You on some choosin’-side shit, I’m on some unified shit.”

T.I. retorts that Kanye’s support of Trump, including posting a photo of himself with a MAGA hat, is selfish and short-sighted. “Bruh, I never ever stopped fightin’ for the people,” explains Kanye. “Actually wearin’ the hat’ll show people that we equal.”

Famed civil libertarian and attorney Alan Dershowitz said recently of the ongoing shenanigans surrounding Robert Mueller’s investigation: “Just as the first casualty of war is truth, so, too, the first casualty of hyper-partisan politics is civil liberties.”

Indeed. The American people are up against a rogue ruling class that cares only about protecting the power they have taken from us; they don’t give a damn about civil liberties or justice, in general.

We were reminded of this recently when President Trump pardoned Scooter Libby. The pardon highlighted former FBI Director James Comey’s corruption in unleashing prosecutorial abuse by a special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, who then railroaded the conviction of an innocent man. The pardon corrected a miscarriage of justice; it was no Marc Rich pardon (though that had its own Comey and Clinton Foundation connections) and, contrary to Comey’s assertion, it was not an attack on justice or the rule of law. Comey has now hired Fitzgerald as his personal attorney.

Regarding the character of the special counsel, Dershowitz described Mueller’s personal involvement in “the most scandalous miscarriage of justice in the modern history of the FBI,” where four men were sent to prison for murders they were known not to have committed. They remained locked up for nearly 30 years, after which a judge awarded them $102 million for false imprisonment.

Unelected bureaucrats are acting with similar disdain for the people’s will. PowerLine’s John Hinderaker writes how, in contradiction to our Constitution, James Comey and others like former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates have declared the FBI and “permanent staff of the DOJ” are “independent of, and superior to, the president . . . a permanent bureaucracy in Washington that is impervious to the wishes of the voters,” making “the administrative state . . . the greatest contemporary threat to the liberty of Americans.”

Unparalleled government abuses of power are about to become public. The question is what we, the people, will do in response to this overt attempt by deep state players to strip us of our freedom.

Four recent developments drive home the unsettling nature of our situation:

First, Charles Lipson writes how Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) “is making a deeply troubling allegation: An official investigation was mounted against an American presidential campaign with no official information to support it. If so, then U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies were weaponized for partisan purposes.”

Andrew McCarthy, on the implications for equal justice under the law: “Too many Trump critics have abandoned all pretense of respecting due process.” Byron York adds: “…the generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head. Now, the question is: Can the accused prove the charges false? Increasingly, the president’s critics argue that the dossier is legitimate because it has not been proven untrue.”

Second, a redacted version of the House Intelligence Committee’s final report appeared on Friday, clearing Trump’s campaign of colluding with Russia but describing three troubling matters: First, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn did not lie to FBI special agents. Instead, what Michael Walsh calls the Left’s “Star Chamber of Horrors” apparently forced Flynn to accept a guilty plea to stanch his financial bleeding, which included selling his home.

Watching the disgusting (and decidedly unfunny) performance of the comedienne Michelle Wolf at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last night, I thought of two things. One was, “What would her mother think of this shockingly vulgar and carelessly cruel exhibition?” I’d say the same thing about Ms. Wolf’s children, if she had any, which I believe she does not.

The second thing I thought of was Edmund Burke’s mournful observations, in Reflections on the Revolution in France, about the moral coefficients of the destructive antinomian impulses that coruscated through France in 1789-1790. The date is important. Burke, although he saw clearly that “in the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows,” was writing before the Terror. The depredations he foresaw and cataloged had so far affected mainly manners and morals—the human heart, not yet heads separated from bodies. That would come later.

Of course, we know what was to come. Burke merely foretold it. Yet the insight of hindsight makes Burke’s observations all the more poignant. “All the pleasing illusions,” Burke wrote,

which made power gentle, and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason [note the irony]. All the decent drapery of life is to be rudely torn off. All the super-added ideas, furnished from the wardrobe of a moral imagination, which the heart owns, and the understanding ratifies, as necessary to cover the defects of our naked shivering nature, and to raise it to dignity in our own estimation, are to be exploded as a ridiculous, absurd, and antiquated fashion.

Last Wednesday, Sen. Tester (D-MT) released a laundry list of anonymously-sourced, unsubstantiated allegations against the current White House Physician and, until last Thursday, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The Montana Senator accused Jackson of a wide range of misconduct, from overprescribing medications to drunkenly wrecking his government vehicle. Tester also accused Jackson of being frequently drunk on the job, based on a lurid tale (anonymously sourced, of course) about a Secret Service intervention to prevent a severely-inebriated Jackson from disturbing a sleeping President Obama during an international trip in 2015. Jackson, the story goes, was pounding on a hotel room door next to the President’s in the early hours of the morning.

Admiral Jackson vehemently denied the allegations and refused to withdraw for several days, before finally pulling his candidacy in the face of a media feeding frenzy and eroding Republican support. Jackson maintains his innocence, however, and appears to be telling the truth. Tester, by contrast, appears to have slandered the professional and personal reputation of a man who served in the Navy for twenty-three years, including as the physician in charge of resuscitative medicine at Camp Taqaddum, just outside of Fallujah, in 2006.

On Friday afternoon, the Secret Service released the following statement:

Over the last 48 hours, media outlets have alleged that U.S. Secret Service personnel were forced to intervene during a Presidential foreign travel assignment in order to prevent disturbing (former) President Barack Obama. The Secret Service has no such record of any incident; specifically, any incident involving Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson.

If Tester’s only motivation was to determine the content of Jackson’s character so his fellow senators could make an informed decision, why didn’t he confirm the accuracy of the charge with the Secret Service before he blasted it into the newsfeeds and nightly broadcasts of millions of Americans?