Monday morning round up via Today's JG rants

Collusion and obstruction charges collapse; libs heartbroken 
After 2 years and wasting tens of millions of dollars, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”  Although those words are contained in his four page summary, they are not Attorney General Barr’s words.  They are quoted directly from Special Counsel Mueller’s report.

Read that again #NEVERTRUMPers, “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”  Again, that is a direct quote from Mueller’s report to the Attorney General.  Again, that means that after two years and blowing through tens of millions of tax payer dollars Mueller’s team of 13 angry Democrats “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

How is that anything but a total vindication of PDJT and his campaign on the much ballyhooed charge that they colluded with Russia to steal an election?

It’s comical that #NEVERTRUMPers still believe in the Russian collusion canard.  It was their horribly flawed and failed candidate whose campaign colluded with foreign agents who in turn colluded with the Russian government to produce phony documents to sway the election.

With regard to obstruction, it is not possible to “obstruct” an investigation that is based on a phony premise.  So when the truth is exposed on how the Clinton campaign’s phony Steele Dossier sailed through the FISA courts, the underlying premise for obstruction will be blown up.

Still, the hypocrisy of the #NEVERTRUMPers with regard to obstruction is stunning.  They eagerly backed a lazy disastrous candidate who lied to the FBI, lied to the American people and suborned perjury.  She caused to be destroyed cell phones and sim cards with a hammer and used bleach bit to wipe away 30,000 e-mails, all of which were under subpoena.  Now we are supposed to believe that #NEVERTRUMPers are outraged that PDJT obstructed the Special Counsel because he accurately labeled Mueller’s investigation a “witch hunt.” 

It takes a special kind of stupid to be able to square that circle.

      

Exoneration, secrecy an odd combination

This is a response to Russ Kirby's attempt to shame the media for jumping to conclusions prematurely as to the context of the Mueller report (Letters, April 2). Perhaps Kirby makes an excellent point, though it is lost amid the conclusions to which he jumps without having seen the report.

If the report is so exculpatory for President Donald Trump, if it vindicates him and shames his rivals as the president and so many of his supporters claim, why won't the president's attorney general let the public see it?

I guess nothing says “I have nothing to hide” like “you can't see what the investigation discovered.”

Charles Maiers

Speedway

America is owed all of Mueller's findings

Total exoneration is what President Donald Trump has proclaimed in the wake of a statement issued on behalf of his administration by Attorney General William Barr in the matter of the Mueller probe. In fact, in typical fashion of this president, and before that as candidate Trump and throughout his long business career, total hyperbole is what the American public has been subjected to by the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

An opinion-laced summary has been provided in four short pages, portending to be the unquestioned and unrivaled response to a 22-month long, professionally conducted investigation. Like the president for whom it was proffered to defend, it stands as both an affront to our system of justice and an insult to the intelligence and wisdom of the American people.

We are owed a complete accounting of the Robert Mueller investigation and Congress, with its constitutionally mandated oversight authority, has every right to expect both a great deal of cooperation and transparency from the president and his staff, including Barr.

Optimism may be hoped for, but cynical reality suggests that a president who has derided our institutions of justice time and time again over the course of the Mueller investigation points to potential for a brewing political and legal battle between this administration and Congress with the courts driven to be arbiter.

What is greatly needed to restore faith in our institutions, and ultimately to place faith in the men and women who lead them in Washington, is for honesty and integrity to stand strongly as the hallmarks of leadership. Mueller has held up his end on this quest, now it is Trump's turn and that of congressional leaders such as Judiciary Committee chairmen, Jerald Nadler and Lindsey Graham of the House and Senate, in the months ahead to complete the work whose foundation special counsel Mueller has laid.

Kevin Krajewski

Fort Wayne

Three cheers for General Anthony Wayne
History is hard.  Thank goodness there are scores of books written on nearly every topic to keep truth in the picture somewhere.  Consider the current brouhaha taking place in Ft. Wayne over its name sake – General Anthony Wayne.  Wayne is being maligned by detractors for efficiently routing a confederation of Indian tribes at the Battle of Fallen Timbers.

Wayne’s victory and his life were much more complete and complicated than a single military victory over a savage enemy.  He was a Revolutionary War hero.  He was an accomplished surveyor and tanner.  He served in the Pennsylvania legislature. He was briefly a member of congress.

The Northwest Indian War that led to the Battle of Fallen Timbers was precipitated by the British ceding “Indian land” to Colonials after the Revolutionary War.  The Indians chose to fight on the losing side during that conflict.  

It was President George Washington who recalled General Wayne after the humiliating defeat of General Arthur St. Clair’s army near present day Ft. Recovery.  That defeat remains the worst defeat in the history of America’s Army.  The military casualty rate was well over 90%.  In addition to those casualties, the savage Indian warriors massacred over 200 helpless women and children who were camp followers of St. Clair’s army.  

Wayne’s stunning follow up victory to St. Clair’s disaster brought an abrupt end to the war.

After their defeat at Fallen Timbers, the Indians had three choices.  One, embrace modernity and assimilate.  Two, move.  Three, fight.  They chose to fight.  In the end, they lost…badly.

Wars are tricky things that teach us a few lessons.  One, choose your allies carefully.  Two, like the NCAA basketball tourney, there’s only one winner.  Three, things rarely work out well for the losers.

It’s always fun to read diatribes from weak-minded, self-loathing, hypocritical liberals who have succumbed to ideological indoctrination that overwhelms them and makes them appear to be entirely ignorant of the brutal world our ancestors mastered through enormous sacrifice.  These armchair generals do not hesitate to judge historic figures whose boots they couldn’t carry against modern standards.  

Island paradise- pfft
In his April, 7 2019 letter “Poor little Puerto Rico,” Dell Ford calls Puerto Rico an “island paradise.”  I challenge Ford to move there.  Here’s what he can look forward to after years of failed quasi socialist government policies.

An “island paradise” that cannot pay its debt.

An “island paradise” that has a decrepit failing power grid.

An “island paradise” that has a median income that is just over half of that of the poorest state of the union.

An “island paradise” that has all but priced entry level jobs out of existence because of an idiotic minimum wage policy.

So if Mr. Ford wants to emulate the Democrat Caligula, D.C. ruling class and restrict his comings and goings to the tourist end of the “island paradise,” he might be able to trick himself into believing all’s well.  If he gets out to rub elbows with the hoi polloi he’s more likely to discover that Puerto Rico is closer to – now what was it PDJT called such places - oh yes, an excrement hole than it is to paradise.

Ford’s uninformed letter is a perfect example of the thought that goes into something coming from a #NEVERTRUMPer who only comes out of his corner where he sits all day softly knocking his empty head against a wall while mumbling to himself over and over again, “Collusion, for two years they told me that there’d be collusion.”  So sad.      

Poor little Puerto Rico.

Maybe he could cut a deal to build a (paper towel) tower on the island paradise.

And so it goes.

So sad.

Dell Ford

Fort Wayne

An understanding of high school grammar is all you really need
Wow, in a world where lefty libs think that things can mean whatever they want them to mean like a man is a woman or a woman is a man, how refreshing to read a letter from a liberal willing to agree to standard definitions.  So it was with Paula Dyer-May’s otherwise silly letter about gun control, “Constitution doesn’t endorse free gun use” of April 8, 2019.  Dyer-May focuses her assault on common sense and the Second Amendment using the dependent clause of the amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”  She then goes on to use Merriam-Webster to define what constitutes a “militia.”  Great.  That’s the refreshing part.  Now use the dictionary or scientific method define a man or woman.

Leaving aside for now the banal arguments that have withstood Supreme Court challenge after Supreme Court challenge on the Second Amendment, let’s rely on high school grammar to settle this matter.  A dependent clause, also known as subordinate clause, cannot stand on its own as a sentence.  It is “dependent” or “subordinate” to an independent clause to form a complete or logical thought. My guess is that even some of the public school kids are coming to realization that a “dependent” or “subordinate clause” is not as important as the independent clause upon which it relies to complete a rational thought. 

The independent clause in this case says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  Uh Oh, that’s pretty straight forward and air tight.  No wonder lefty libs want to argue about what does and does not constitute a “militia.” 

It might also be appropriate at this point to note that the Supreme Court has held that when constitution uses the term “the people” it expressly means all citizens of age and otherwise not restricted.  So when the independent clause notes that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” it is not restricted the subject in the dependent clause – a well regulated militia – but rather applies to all citizens of age and not otherwise restricted.

For all of their faults, the founder were well-educated, deliberate and careful men. They did not stumble upon a document that has withstood the test of over 200 years of scrutiny by accident.  Lefty libs attacking the founders’ work should be so well-educated, deliberate and careful.  They aren’t.  It’s not even close.

  

Constitution doesn't endorse free gun use

Those who claim the Second Amendment means anyone who wants should have a gun, should read it more carefully.

The Second Amendment says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The writing of the Second Amendment began on July 24, 1787, and finished on Sept. 14 of the same year.

Our country barely had an army and would need every able-bodied man to be ready to fight the British at any moment. The Continental Army was formed by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain. The Revolutionary War era lasted from 1765 to 1783. All able-bodied men had to have guns and be ready to fight at any moment in case the British decided to try to reclaim their colonies.

A militia, according to Merriam-Webster, is:

1. a. a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in an emergency

b. a body of citizens organized for military service

2. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

How many of today's gun activists fit any of Merriam-Webster's meanings of the word “militia”? I dare say, not many! If we were to go strictly by the Second Amendment, we would require all gun owners to be ready to take their guns and fight an invading enemy at any moment. That is what the Second Amendment says.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that anyone who wants a gun should have one to do with as he chooses.

Paula Dyer-May

Fort Wayne