The Comey Fiasco



The Comey Fiasco

by Mustang

How to win leftist friends without really trying

I’ve been trying to figure out James Comey, 7th Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  According to my understanding, Mr. Comey was, for most of his adult life, a registered Republican.  That changed in 2016 when he stated that politically, he is unaffiliated.


So, what happened in 2016?  In the news …

*Bernie Sanders was utterly destroyed by Hillary Clinton, after which she handily won the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

*Hillary Clinton seized the Democratic National Convention, and then drove that organization toward bankruptcy from such shenanigans as paying for a fake Dossier on Donald J. Trump, which from all accounts, cost the DNC millions of dollars.

*Black Lives Matter made it in to the political mainstream, which clearly must stand out as one of Barack Obama’s principal achievements.

*Elizabeth Warren challenged anyone to prove that she’s not a Native American.  If she is, then she must be one of the richest Indians on the continent.  Her Middlesex County wigwam cost multi-millions of wampum.  Later testing revealed that she’s actually 1/1,024th part Native American.  In making her claim, no one is quite sure which part she’s talking about.

*Bill Clinton met surreptitiously with Loretta Lynch, who was then serving as Attorney General of the United States.  As Attorney General, Lynch was Comey’s boss.

*Not long afterward, James Comey announced that he would not seek an indictment of Hillary Clinton over the now infamous email controversy.

*Four weeks before the 2016 general election, Comey drafted a letter exonerating Clinton for any wrong doing.

*Two weeks before the election, Comey stated that he would re-open the Clinton investigation.  Democrats claimed that Comey sabotaged Clinton’s chance of winning the election.

*Donald J. Trump surprised everyone by winning the general election and Hillary Clinton started hating Trump even more than she did before then —which, when you think about it, is an awful lot of hate for one person.

Of course, we can only guess about what was really going on.  Comey, a long-time Republican, suddenly unaffiliated, refused to ask for an indictment of Clinton in the face of overwhelming evidence that she willfully and intentionally violated federal law respecting the safeguarding of classified information.  This was after Bill’s meeting with Loretta.  Then, Comey did a 180 and “re-opened” the investigation.

Here’s my guess: Barack Obama did not want Clinton to succeed him.  Why? Because George Soros didn’t want Clinton to succeed Obama.  A republican in the White House for four years gives Georgie four years to look around for another Manchurian candidate.

What has Soros to do with Comey?  As my friend at Bunkerville keep’s reminding me, if you ever want to find the truth, follow the money.  I would like to know if Comey has an off-shore bank account and whether a very large sum of money was ever deposited there … oh, say, between two and four weeks before the general election.


Getting back to the Clinton email snafu, I heard today that a federal judge has ruled that Mrs. Clinton must answer questions under oath during a further inquiry into the events of the email escapade.  I presume that Judge Royce C. Lamberth will schedule a judicial hearing in the not-too-distance future.  If true, then 2019 should turn out to be a very happy new year for conservatives.  Removing this case from the halls of Congress to a federal courtroom seems like the right thing to do.

If there are any competing theories out there?  I’d love to hear them.  I love conspiracy theories.  There are so many possibilities about how this affair will turn out, and so little time.


(For those interested in Comey’s testimony on Friday the link is below)

Comey-interview-transcript-12-7-18_Redacted-1 (1)


Sunday Respite – Venice at Christmas time


For today’s respite I chose André Rieu – Les Gondoles à Venise. Beautiful sights and sounds of the holiday. The title translation appears to be Gondolas in Venice. I see no Gondolas to speak of, and it looks more to me like Vienna but since I have been to neither location I will let this up to my readers!

You may prefer to watch this in full screen, and better yet shoot this over to the smart T.V.

Wishing you a wonderful day, this second Sunday of Advent.



Are all ‘immigrants’ the same?


I for one am weary of the trope that simply we are all children of immigrants. Thus the more the merrier. Just let those in that wail at our border today. Well, yes and no. Not  quite the same thing. Because this is the difference.

From the cesspool of foreign soil come our neighbors from the South. Bringing their virus of social unrest to the land of opportunity. Once here, they prosper. In return for our hospitality that comes in the form of healthcare, education, living expenses such as housing and food, their virus of social unrest re-emerges.

Not content with the success at life they now have, they turn on their benefactor. They would have their host destroyed. The very system of government that gave them so much must be overturned. They would have America turn into the very cesspool they chose to escape.





One more thing. Sure, bring it along.

Michael Flynn and the Trappings of Power


Trappings of Power 

by Mustang

Among those so inclined, the world of politics offers one of those “the sky is the limit” opportunities we read about in the newspapers.  But there is another side to these stories: failure and disgrace.  Such is the case with retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn who left the Army at the pinnacle of success and is now sitting in the dust bin of recent political history.  My guess is that not too many Americans care about Flynn or his trials and tribulations —and yet, the story is nothing if not instructive.

Flynn served 33-years on active duty.  Five of these years were spent in combat service.  Within this time frame, General Flynn received many personal decorations in recognition of his contribution to the military establishment, although none of these were combat decorations.  Flynn was no Audie Murphy.  Still, he served honorably and faithfully over three decades and while this should entitle him to our gratitude, it does not grant him access to the world of high politics.

So, what happened?  My view is that at the time he left the military, he was so over-confident in his own ability that he was anxious to prove that he was bright enough to secure a position of national leadership.  Along with over-confidence comes arrogance and, perhaps, a certain aloofness that, as it turns out, didn’t serve him very well.

Although a registered Democrat, Flynn was involved in the Trump election campaign and transition team.  His several public statements attacking Hillary Clinton did little more than paint a target on his back.  Apparently, he never consulted that long list of people who crossed the Clintons and met an untimely end (politically or otherwise).  By publicly attacking Clinton, he also ended up on the Obama target list.

Here we find the first important lesson: you don’t have to be guilty of anything in order to be disgraced by mere accusation.  This, by the way, appears to be a trend in our country today: guilt by accusation.

The actual story of General Flynn in post-military retirement is long, complicated, and boring.  I will only say that for a man who is so accomplished, Flynn might have thought about getting an attorney before meeting with FBI agents (set upon him by Clinton operative, FBI Director James Comey).  Even a lance corporal knows that whenever you’re called in for questioning, it isn’t wise to go in alone.  Maybe it was his arrogance, or perhaps, a belief that he’d done nothing wrong —so there was nothing to fear.  As he walked in to the interrogation room, he might have recalled that line in Shakespeare: “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”

General Flynn is pending formal sentencing for lying to federal investigators.  Was it really lying, or did his simply not recall certain details?  Actually, it doesn’t matter.  The entire novella was designed to intimidate Flynn so that he would roll over on Donald Trump.  Apparently, he never did that, or possibly, there was nothing to roll over about.

But this is the game General Flynn signed up to play, and he was an early casualty.  He was the shortest serving NSC advisor in the history of the United States.  Now, rather than achieving accolades for his work in the White House, he will simply be remembered as a convicted felon.  It’s cost him a lot of money, too.  Professionally, the man is destroyed, and I suspect that the only thing left for him to do is write a memoir that no one will buy.  At least, I won’t.

There are several lessons to this story and it appears that Flynn had to discover them the hard way.  High-end politics in the United States is a closed society.  If you have tons of money (which is to say, able to afford an entire law firm to address legal issues), if you have the Harvard degree, the Rolex watch, the secret handshake, and you’ve had years to make political friends (which is to say, you’ve got a lot of dirt on others of your ilk), then yeah … go for it.

But if you happen to be an outsider, such as General Flynn was, you really aren’t equipped to play with the big boys (and girls).  The astute citizen, especially the most educated and sophisticated of us all, would be wise to avoid the power trap.  It’s a matter of self-preservation—and the effect of this is that our highest political offices are bequeathed to the most corrupt, least-honest, most egotistical gangsters ever to receive a degree from Harvard, Brown, or Princeton.

There is also an interesting parallel to this story: recently, Martha McSally ran for the US Senate from Arizona.  Prior to that, she served successfully in the US House of Representatives from 2015.  Rather than focusing on gaining political experience in the House, she decided she was ready for the big time.

Her political strategy was simple: convince Arizonians that she’s a hero for having flown fighter aircraft in the Air Force.  Well, it is an interesting tale, but hardly relevant to what voters are looking for.  She lost her bid for the Senate because Martha McSally made the same (stupid) mistake as did McCain, who wasted all of his political capital talking about what a hero he was for being shot down in Vietnam.  The fact is that, while most Americans do appreciate those who serve in the military, few are interested in hearing war stories.  More than this, they quickly tire of egotistical officers patting themselves on the back.

McSally should have remained in the House for another ten years, and Michael Flynn should have taken General MacArthur’s advice; in having done his duty, Flynn ought to just faded away to enjoy his grandchildren.

Miss Universe favored to win is a man


Many have questioned the meaning of this new obsession with sexual identity. Now children as young as toddlers are being “groomed” into a assuming a gender other than that of their birth. The human male specie itself is under attack. Now we learn that the Miss Universe pageant itself may have a transgendered as winner.

An interesting interview of Camille Paglia gives insight into what this “tell” may be giving us regarding the state of our culture and comparing it to other cultures who have experienced this phenomena.

A fellow calling himself Angela Ponce has been crowned Miss Universe Spain. Gamblers are betting that he goes on to win the 2018 Miss Universe pageant, which fittingly will be held in Bangkok, Thailand, home of the ladyboy:

As the competition nears, online bookies are taking action, and Ponce has grown to become the clear favorite with current odds of +600.

Feminists are unlikely to complain about men horning in on the Miss Universe competition. Camille Paglia is one of the very few feminists willing to question the bizarre and horrifying ambitious transsexual agenda.

Lesson from History: Transgender Mania is Sign of Cultural Collapse – Camille Paglia

Author, art professor, feminist, and cultural commentator Camille Paglia speaks on the current transgender mania, the wisdom of early medical & surgical intervention (calling it “child abuse”), and how the explosion of gender identities is a recurring sign of cultural collapse throughout the history of civilization.

H/T: Moonbattery

UNC and ‘Silent Sam’



At the entrance to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill stood the statue of a confederate soldier.  The statue has been dubbed “Silent Sam.”



Silent Sam

by Mustang

There are three fields of study that deal with the past.  Anthropology is the study of human behavior within societies, past and present; an off-shoot of this is archeology, which evaluates human activity through the recovery and analysis of archeological records, such as artifacts, architecture, and cultural landscapes.  In these areas, scientists attempt to learn about periods of human development before history, some of these dating back more than 3-million years.  History is the accumulation of knowledge through investigation of past written records.  The value of history, or so it is argued, is that by investigating the causes and effects in the past, we may avoid similar mistakes in the present and future.

At the entrance to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill stood the statue of a confederate soldier.  The statue has been dubbed “Silent Sam.”  It was erected in 1913 to memorialize the students who attended UNC at the outbreak of the American Civil War, who left school to serve their state by joining Confederate military or naval forces.

This is not how modern UNC students view Silent Sam, however.  They viewed the statue as a symbol of white racism.  How they came to this conclusion can only be explained by the fact that America’s public schools deny their students a proper or adequate education in history.  And, judging from these student’s behavior on campus, their destruction of the statue Silent Sam, a state-owned property, we might also conclude that they have also been denied an adequate education in American Civics.

A civic minded person may very well object to such symbols of the past, perhaps believing that the statute is inappropriate or offensive for any number of reasons.  But a civic-minded individual would not violate the law or the sanctity of personal or state-owned property by destroying things that do not belong to them.  A civic minded person would investigate the proper steps that needed to be taken to address their concerns and follow those processes toward the fulfillment of their goals, which in this case, I would assume might be the removal of the statue from campus grounds.  There is a state historic council whose task it is to make these kinds of decisions.

What did happen is that pathetically under-educated students took the law into their own hands; they tore down the statue and then attempted to destroy it.  What these students did is behave in a manner reminiscent of the white supremacist organization, Klu Klux Klan —which, as we all remember, was the militant arm of the Democratic Party— in the Jim Crow states.

Silent Sam was not a real person, of course.  The statue was merely a symbol to remind us of the men who served, and may have died, doing what they believed was their solemn obligation at a very fractured and unhappy time in our history.  The morons who destroyed Silent Sam probably do not know that if any rebel soldiers own slaves, it was a miniscule number.  For the most part, these Confederate soldiers were dirt-poor tenant farmers.  Most of them had been forced off their land to fight in southern armies.  One wonders if in 1860 these poor white soldiers were actually worse off than the plantation slaves who were quartered on the other side of the county. At least the slaves had hot meals, a roof over their heads, and access to medical treatment.

Whether Silent Sam symbolized a soldier in rebellion or an African-hating Yankee from Boston doesn’t really matter today.  What does matter is that our society is producing young men and women who do not know their country’s history.  They do not know how to investigate facts, how to weigh them, or how to use facts to develop opinions.  The events of history have a peculiar context; we are only able to understand history through context, which is to say that we cannot view history through the rose-colored lenses of our modern-day experiences.

I think that rather than Silent Sam serving as a symbol of racism, the students themselves have demonstrated that they are symbols of something much worse: foolishness.  I would like to ask these same students, given the history of the Aztecs, should we also tear down the pyramids in Mexico?  Surely there can be no worse example of intolerance than to rip out the heart of a man or woman while they are still breathing.


Ideas Have Consequences


Ideas Have Consequences

by Mustang

Many people think of the American Revolution as a war.  It was that, but it was much more than that.  There would not have been a war, with all of its associated risks and penalties, were it not for the ideas that preceded it.

What ideas?

Actually, there were more than just a few.  They came to our forefathers from three sources: (1) European Enlightenment, (2) Traditional British legal and political values, and (3) A unique “American experience.”  It was from these sources that we arrived at a distinctly American worldview, a unique American philosophy, and an exceptional set of values.  As an off-shoot of the European enlightenment, our founding fathers also incorporated a careful study of human history, from the ancient Greek through the Roman Republic and Imperial period, and finally pre-colonial British history.

Issaac Newton

The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement that began in the 1600’s.  It involved the greatest thinkers, such as Isaac Newton, who became key figures in modern history.  It also included the so-called Renaissance period, which evolved at different places, at different times, and in diverse ways.  The thinkers of the Enlightenment challenged old views, values, and traditions.  In particular, these men believed that in order for something to be factually valid, it must be rational, logical, debated, and carefully examined; it must not depend on superstition, or dogma, or simply matter of what has long been accepted.  Who were they, these thinkers?



They were, in addition to Newton, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Francois-Marie Arouet (who was known as Voltaire), Denis Diderot (co-founder of the Encyclopedia), and Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu.  They questioned such things as the divine right of kings.  They championed humanity by developing such notions that mankind is essentially of good character and intelligence; they believed that such men (and women) were capable of self-government.

Were all the revolutionary ideas new?

King George III

Not all revolutionary ideas were new, however.  Some of our founding fathers believed that traditional British customs had value, as well.  These were values that our founding fathers believed had been ignored or corrupted by King George III and his parliament in the 1770s.  So that rather than introducing new ideas, some of our ancestors thought it might be worthy to reintroduce values and traditions that they knew had worked previously.  The First Continental Congress produced their Declaration and Resolves, which offered a discussion about the rights of colonists as “freeborn Englishmen.”  In particular, that they should be entitled to equality before the law and parliament, that they deserved protection from unfair taxation, and the absolute right not to be confronted by tyranny, misuse of standing armies, or any denial of their God-given right to liberty.

The people who occupied the British colonies in North America for 160 years prior to the American Revolution also developed a unique set of attitudes, gained from living in America.  From our frontier experiences, these Americans became fiercely independent, in thought and in deed.  It made the self-sufficient.  It made them capable of governing themselves; it taught them that they need not rely upon Parliament (or any other government body) for sustenance or survival.

They learned that the British government may not be able to protect them from the depredations of Indians or French troublemakers, but they could band together when necessary and protect themselves and the things they valued and cherished most.  The American experience came from people taking on a vast wilderness, one fraught with danger from natives, wild animals, natural storms, and frigid climates.  In that America, there were more landowners than there were tenants.  This gave people confidence in themselves, and it made them resistant to British (government) interference.




Boston Tea Party


Most of the early Americans were resistant to taxation without adequate representation in the United Kingdom.  Now, ordinarily, I might argue that if the British sent soldiers to protect the colonists from the French and their Indian allies, it makes sense that the people who received this protection ought to be willing to help pay for that protection.  This was certainly the view of the British parliament, but as the French and Indians burned their homes, raped their women, murdered the men, and kidnapped the children, Americans might have wondered, “What protection.”  These notions would lead citizens to imagine that they might just as well form their own American government—for certainly, these frontiersmen were capable of forming organizations for the common good (militias).

The Americans developed their own representative bodies where each voting citizen could see that his particular view could be channeled to the executive.  In the pre-Revolutionary period, the chief executive was a governor, the representative of the King.  Yet few of the resolutions passed by colonial legislatures were ever approved by the British Parliament.  In the absence of true representation, then how could there be a robust debate about anything?  By the way, this wasn’t unique to the American colonies.  The city of Manchester, England had no representation in Parliament, either.

Thomas Paine

Americans wanted sovereignty, particularly after 1774.  One may recall how eloquent Thomas Paine was about pressing the need for independence.  The American colonies had grown through trade and commerce, and the Americans owed much of this to England’s imperial protection, but with growth and economic strength, Americans realized that they no longer needed to depend on England.  Slowly, but steadily, Americans gained personal wealth through the effective use of America’s vast resources.  These were men who were politically mature and intellectually engaged.

Another unique American idea was a genuine concern about military rule and tyranny.  Great Britain hosted the world’s strongest military and naval force.  This army and navy were greatly feared by England’s enemies, and by the people who populated British colonies.  Since most American cities didn’t have a visible police force, what most people saw on any given day, was a military garrison and patrolling soldiers.  Americans came to view this situation as an imposition on “our” homeland.  The British Army oppressed Americans; it was the use of threats of violence to make the colonies obey British authority.

And then there was this notion of “natural rights.”  The ideas of John Locke became an integral part of the American revolutionary ideology.  We agreed with Locke: We are born with rights that no government, no king, no potentate, could ever take away—and these included the right to life, liberty, and property.  Americans came to believe that it was the duty of a responsible government to protect these rights—to guarantee their continuance to the people.

And so, the American Revolution was not a cause of, but the consequence of enlightened ideas that incorporated British traditions and our own unique experiences.  Today, there are other ideas floating around—ideas foreign to the American experience.  They are the so-called progressive ideas of the Democratic Party.  We should be willing to listen to these ideas, provide a platform or an environment whereby the people can debate their ideas, and we ought to consider them carefully —but we must at the same time understand that there are significant consequences to adopting Marxist ideas.

The question before the bar of the American people today is this: Do we change for the sake of change, or do we reject Marxism’s obsession with identity politics and cling to our God-given natural rights to remain a free and independent people?

%d bloggers like this: