RUTHFULLY YOURS

The indictments are in.

Team Mueller indicted a bunch of Russians associated with a troll farm for interfering with an election in the United States. Russian troll farms generally don’t follow United States law. But foreigners are not allowed to interfere with elections in the United States. Unless they’re named Christopher Steele.

The Clinton campaign employed a British foreign agent who used Russian intelligence sources to put together opposition research meant to interfere with the results of a United States election. Collusion between the Clinton campaign, Steele and the Russians doesn’t require an endless fishing expedition.

Foreigners interfering in United States elections are not a new phenomenon. Muslims in Gaza famously ran a phone bank for Obama. A Hamas political adviser had declared that he hoped Obama would win.

There was no investigation. Nor did anyone indict the Gazans running the phone bank.

The indictment states that, “the Federal Election Campaign Act… prohibits foreign nationals from making any contributions, expenditures, independent expenditures, or disbursements for electioneering communications.” But Obama had chosen to accept untraceable donations from abroad. He had failed to ask for proof of citizenship and his website had even allowed donations from Iran and North Korea.

The chair of Nigeria’s stock exchange had organized an “Africans for Obama” fundraiser. The Albanian Socialist Prime Minister had been accused of a scheme to transfer $80,000 to an Obama fundraising committee. Gazans bought and resold Obama t-shirts from the campaign website. And no indictments.

None of that counts as election interference. And none of it generated an investigation of Obama.

Indicting civilians covertly employed by a foreign government to engage in propaganda in the United States is an unserious act. But Obama Inc. responded in the same futile way to Chinese hacking efforts. Responding to cyberwarfare with toothless indictments is not how you head off the next attack.

Let’s suppose for a minute that Hillary Clinton and all her fellow Resisters, along with all their allies in the Deep State, had accepted the results of the 2016 election, as has been the tradition and expectation. Remember Hillary’s sneering question to Donald at the debates – whether he would accept the election results? At that time, nobody thought Hillary would be the one to throw the temper tantrum when she lost, much less organize a resistance movement.

Suppose that, instead of anger and outrage over losing the election and launching what is turning out to be a suicidal frontal assault on Donald Trump, Hillary and her minions had set about to co-opt him with flattering news coverage and invitations to all the most glittering social events. In the past, that’s how it worked. The Powers that Be co-opted newcomers to the Executive and Legislative Branches of government with seduction – showering them with all the enticements within the political insider’s bags of goodies. It’s been done often before; the GOP is populated with legions of politicians who came to Washington promising the voters that they would be change agents. Instead, the so-called RINOs succumbed to the voices of the Sirens who control the media, the money, and the chairmanships. It is, as the saying goes, so much more pleasant and profitable “to go along to get along.” After all, who wants to endure a ceaseless torrent of negative coverage in the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, and the rest of the MSM?

This time, finding no sealed divorce proceedings to crack open at the last minute to rig the election and failing in destroying their opposition with character attacks, the Hillary forces’ insurance policy was to trump up charges of Russian collusion. I suppose it is the Arkansas-Chicago way. Plus, destroying your opponents does afford a certain amount of ego gratification. In fact, it’s been obvious for a long time that the Clinton way is akin to Conan the Barbarian’s – i.e., to “crush your enemies” is “what is best in life.”

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Professional politicians have produced a breed of humanitarian hucksters selling policies and products that benefit themselves rather than the American public they are entrusted to serve. Politicians are necessary in our representative government but career politicians are not. Term limits are necessary to protect the public against abuses of power created by career politicians living insulated lives inside Washington where their self-serving deals have become normative.

Historically politicians were citizen legislators who provided short term patriotic service to the country without remuneration. They were citizens from all walks of life bringing a variety of perspectives to Washington in service to their constituents. What happened? LOBBYISTS.

Lobbyists spent 1.45 billion dollars in 1998. In 2017 lobbyists spent 3.34 billion dollars. How is that money spent? What do lobbyists expect to receive for the billions of dollars they spend? Who benefits? LOBBYISTS, CLIENTS, and POLITICIANS with policies “for our own good” of course.

Opensecrets.org reports data on lobbying, lobbyists, and lobbying recipients. There is a lot of money changing hands. In 2016 Hillary was at the top of the list. Lobbyists are not charities distributing to the poor – lobbyists spend billions of dollars on politicians to convince the politicians to vote in favor of whatever the lobbyist is peddling. Here is the problem.

What the lobbyist is selling is rarely beneficial to the public but always beneficial to the lobbyist, the lobbyist’s client and to the politician. The longer the politician remains in office the longer he/she is tempted by the myriad of enticements offered by the lobbyist to provide favorable outcomes for the lobbyist’s generous clients. Lobbying is a business and lobbyists are extremely candid and unapologetic about their business goals.

Howard Finkelstein, the Broward County public defender whose office is representing Nikolas Cruz, the suspect in the mass shooting in Parkland, Fla., puts it bluntly:

This kid exhibited every single known red flag, from killing animals to having a cache of weapons to disruptive behavior to saying he wanted to be a school shooter. If this isn’t a person who should have gotten someone’s attention, I don’t know who is. This was a multi-system failure.

Specifically, the FBI admits that it received two separate tips about Cruz. Last fall, a frequent YouTube vlogger noticed an alarming comment left on one of his videos. “I’m going to be a professional school shooter,” said a user named Nikolas Cruz. The vlogger alerted the FBI and was interviewed. But the agency subsequently claimed its investigators couldn’t locate Cruz, despite the highly unusual spelling of his first name.

Then, just six weeks ago, a person close to Cruz warned a call taker on the FBI’s tip line that the expelled student had a desire to kill and might attack a school. The bureau said that the information was not passed to agents in the Miami office. Florida governor Rick Scott has called for FBI director Christopher Wray to be fired. So has NRO’s Kevin Williamson in a powerful piece: “Fire the FBI Chief.” Other officials are calling for FBI heads to roll, but at a level below Wray’s. Florida attorney general Pam Bondi told Fox News, “The people who had that information and did not do anything with it, they are the ones that need to go.”

For his part, Director Wray is promising that his agency will conduct a full probe. Congressional oversight committees are skeptical about how complete that will be given the recent evidence of the FBI’s politicized role in the probes of Russia and the Trump campaign, along with the infamous anti-Trump “Steele dossier,” which the FBI relied on without verifying,

“The fact that the FBI is investigating this failure is not enough,” Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) said in a statement. “Law enforcement personnel constantly remind the public that ‘if you see something, say something.’ In this tragic case, people close to the shooter said something, and our system utterly failed the families of seventeen innocent souls.”

When Democrats talk about evil “Republican billionaires” like Sheldon Adelson and the dreaded Koch Brothers, it’s always in apocalyptic terms. They are trying to “buy” elections and hide their influence with “dark money” schemes.

Somehow, Democrats never get around to mentioning their own billionaires and the massive amounts of money contributed to Democratic causes by the likes of Tom Steyer, Mark Cuban, and J.B. Pritzker, who is running for governor of Illinois.

And, of course, George Soros.

Soros’s reach is international. He has a huge network of international do-gooder organizations that promote his pet causes. And he is a reliable, if sometimes shadowy, contributor to Democratic Party causes in the U.S.

But Soros’s son Alexander is emerging as a major player in Democratic politics. According to the Federal Election Commission, Alexander contributed $650,000 to Democratic campaigns and various committees in 2017.

Washington Free Beacon:

Alex’s generous contributions spanned across a number of liberal party committees and campaigns, including two donations totaling $203,400 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s (DCCC) recount and building funds, while providing an additional $33,900 to the committee during the primary period.

Alex also gave large amounts to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). Like his contributions to the DCCC, Soros gave the DSCC $203,400 for its recount and headquarters account, with another $33,900 going towards the primaries.