In the midst of plenty
Many, of starvation, are
And yet, proudly we call
Ours a just world;
Is it a just world?
It must be a fake one;
How do we explain,
That we have so much that
can go round;
And so much we throw away,
So much we feed the dogs;
Yet, people are dying of
Reduced to beggars;
While some live from hand
Poverty in luxury;
Is that the world which
our creator gave us?
Isn’t that an aberration?
Who is fooling who here?
Ours is an unjust world;
A greedy world;
Where wickedness beats
Love and care hands down.
Where dog eats dog;
We cannot continue in
such a way;
Change is imperative;
God meant us to have love;
To have caring hearts;
To be each other’s keeper;
Nothing has to separate us;
Nor seas nor mountains,
Neither language nor status;
We are all one;
And indivisible specie,
Solidly bound together;
By the same basic needs;
One person’s joy ought
to be everyone’s joy;
Similarly, one person’s sorrow,
Hands in gloves,
We ought gently to walk
Down the street of life.
Out of the question
For some people to be fine
while others are suffering.
Some cannot be swimming
in a sea of wealth,
While many are dying
In a desert of poverty;
That is not a just world.
What can we do To make the world Better for everybody? What can we do To make life better For fellow humans? What can we do To make Justice and peace Reign among our people? What can we do To make love Flow among us? What can we do To make truth prevail? What can we do, To stop the spread of lies? What can we do To stop the so much abuse Of Human Rights In our milieu? What can we do To help stop the fighting; The wars tearing humanity To pieces? What can we do To stop suffering around us? What can we do To eradicate the much poverty Ravaging the world? What can we do To end hunger and rescue The so many hungry people; What can we do To give hope to the hopeless? And the so many Who feel abandoned and lost? What can we do? Should we stand by And do nothing? Isn’t it incumbent on us To do something? We must do something.
What is wrong with America? What is wrong with the country I so much love and admire? What is wrong With the number one country In the world Land of liberty; Land of opportunity; I am honestly worried And confused and lost; What is the matter With great America? Uncle Sam; The New World; Where is the American dream? That, I want to know; What is wrong with the people? Aren’t they so well known For their brilliance? And their courage? And their creativity? And especially their love, And commitment to Democratic values? I mean truth; Justice; Honesty; Integrity; Freedom; Conscience. There must be something seriously wrong; I can’t understand! My favourite country Simply intrigues me; I can’t fathom what’s come over The great men and women On the world, That for many years I adored; Is it normal they allow A dementia To lead them? Is Doomsday around? They were my role models; Because they stood For what was right; They stood for the truth; For justice; The dignity of the human person; Yes, human rights; Today, I am lost; The unscrupulous find their way, The honest are behind the bars; Do you a Mso Tse Tung? A Leonid Breznev? An untouchable As of the days of old? When freedom was yet unborn? What is going on? Is the world turning upside down? What is wrong with America? What is wrong with the leader Of the free world? I like somebody to tell me. The dream land of all and sundry? The land that was known And loved In all the nooks and crannies Of the planet.
before me an obstacle course of challenges to navigate last week. Two
individuals felt it imperative to attack my Christian beliefs. As we observe in
the world today, many people have fallen from grace while they adhere to the trending
fads of social justice. Though I could have tweeted and emailed rhetorical
answers, I go forth in the light of God, and write this message. I welcome a
good challenge, though, for they are not aware of my history with the Lord.
I investigated a word that rattled in my brain, for there must be some form of justice in my chain of events. It occurred to me God is not just a god of love, but He is “just” – morally right and fair.
kinds of justice should be the most concerning for Christians: social and
biblical. Much of present-day humanity confuse biblical justice when applying it
to our current laws – social justice. So, let me give you some prominent examples.
created all humans equal in His image and the blessing to be treated with
fairness and justice. But, from the beginning of the Bible, mankind rejected
God’s principles. Paul, the Apostle, warned of this blight. Biblical justice is
only what is right in the sight of the Lord – not man’s laws.
“God will bring into judgment
both the righteous and the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity,
a time to judge every deed.” Ecclesiastes 3:17
Biblical justice occurs when we see people as God sees them. This spiritual freedom causes us to fully embrace the cause of Christ by joining the community and reconciling others to the Lord. We should not to participate in something for just our own benefit, but for the glory of God.
calls us to confront evil and to care for the vulnerable, however many people
back away from this for fear of losing their life. So, thirty-five million people
live in slavery, of some form around the world, because there is no one to save
them from the horror. Injustice is rampant, and very few take action to protect
the innocent. The news recently broadcast the story of a seventy-seven-year-old
man beaten and robbed for a couple of hundred dollars. Did any Christian come
forward to help him? Christ’s followers are to “do justice” because Christ came
proclaiming justice. It is He giving a voice to the voiceless!
“Defend the weak and the
fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.” Psalm 82:3
In matters of social justice, we become entrenched in who wronged whom, and who wronged whom first, in an undertone of anger. It spreads division and destruction, as is evident within our current U.S. government. Social division becomes based on the judgment of everyone who does not see things “our way.” The distinction Jesus taught was never about skin color, religious, ethnic, or cultural affiliations or political positions. Condemnation of people blind us to the forgiveness Christ offers us as sinners.
consider this… how many social media lovers refuse to discuss religion with
others? Why? Is it the fear of social injustice invoking us to hide underneath
the covers? Let’s drop our apprehensions and model Christ’s truth and grace.
justice will never represent the law of God passed down by Moses. It is
unrighteous and dehumanizing, and the moment we accept it as a way of life, we
have fallen from grace.
A CHRISTIAN DO GOOD IN A SOCIAL JUSTICE SYSTEM?
answer is, “absolutely!” Upholding our dignity and biblical justice laws, we
can become activists for the unborn, the elderly, marriage and family, and
religious freedom. It’s not a glamorous feat, but it will quiet and humble the expression
of biblical Christian justice.
May we all go out into the world with the spirit of our Lord! Be an inspiration for those who have fallen from grace. Your endeavors will be greatly rewarded!
Never miss a blog! Receive them in your email and with no obligation! Click HERE to sign up.
America is currently buried knee-deep in the muck of the ‘Impeachment’ trial on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The next item of business after President Trump’s defense team makes their case will be debate and a consideration of whether or not to allow witnesses.
The inevitable and tedious demands of the Democrats for witnesses should be rejected outright by the Republican majority. Moreover, they shouldn’t even consider continuing after that point.
The First Article Doesn’t Meet the Constitutional Burden for Impeachment
This is the most relevant portion of this political performance-art fraudulently labeled ‘impeachment’ process. This factor alone should have resulted in the immediate motion to dismiss the farce.
The Constitutional requirements for using impeachment are that the President must have committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither of the two House Articles fits any part of those designations because neither Article is a crime.
Some have tried to argue that it doesn’t have to be a crime to be an impeachable offense. The plain language of the Constitution tells us they are incorrect.
It is obvious that treason and bribery are crimes, and the very words “high crimes” tell us they are criminal acts. Misdemeanors are crimes as well, not “high” crimes, but considered criminal nonetheless.
The two Articles of Impeachment are charging “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” on part of the President. Neither of these is a crime as they are described in the charges.
The particular incident the Democrats cite as President Trump’s “abuse of power” is his supposed pressuring of the President of Ukraine to investigate the son of a political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. The alleged pressure was a threat to withhold military aid unless an investigation was publicly announced.
The problem is, no announcement was ever made and the aid was not withheld. The military aid was delayed while the President had corruption within Ukraine examined and then the aid was delivered.
There was no crime here. President Trump executed the legal delivery of aid while looking out for the interests of the taxpayer’s money. He didn’t want the aid possibly being swallowed into a known environment of corrupt behavior, such as that found in its largest energy company, Burisma, who employed the son of the former Vice President for an exorbitant amount of money while Biden was in office and serving as the Obama administration’s ‘point man’ on Ukraine.
As for the phone call with the President of Ukraine that the phony “whistle-blower” said showed that President Trump was pressuring Ukraine, that narrative was blown to smithereens when the transcript of that call was declassified and revealed by President Trump himself. In fact, the President was actually working within the legal constraints of a treaty agreement for cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine on criminal investigations which was approved during the Clinton administration.
Moreover, on several occasions, President Zelensky of Ukraine denied any pressure from America to open any investigations contingent upon the delivery of military aid. So much for any “abuse of power” charge.
What this charge boils down to is a political policy disagreement by the Democrats with a president they hate and fear. He is hated because he beat their darling and latest criminal nominee for president, Hillary Clinton, in 2016.
He is feared because any further investigation in Ukraine will expose the deep corruption of much of the Democratic elite connected with Ukraine, including Clinton herself, and the family of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as others. The public information we already have seems to strongly implicate them in nefarious activities with Ukraine.
The Democrats are attempting to impeach the President for what James Madison, the founder most influential to creating the Constitution, objected to as “impeachment for maladministration.” He rightly feared that this would make impeachment a political cudgel and risk using impeachment on every president in the future.
Madison’s response to Mason’s proposal mattered. He told the delegates that “so vague a term” as maladministration “will be equivalent to tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” That was apparently enough to persuade Mason to back down. …Why did Madison’s intervention work? The answer lies in its observation that the vagueness of “maladministration” would normalize impeachment, and thus effectively give the Senate the power to recall a president.
The Second Article Is More Deficient than the First Article
The second “Article of Impeachment” is so deficient that the House had to invent a new term, “Obstruction of Congress” as its label. Yet that term itself is absurd on its face for the House is only half of Congress.
The Senate makes up the other half of Congress, and no one there suggests they were ‘obstructed’ in any way. The specific reason for this ‘charge’ from the House is the potential use of the president’s constitutional power to exert “executive privilege” to prevent his close advisors from testifying in the House.
Of course, this would mean, as it has in the past, that any congressional challenge to using “executive privilege” would wind up in the federal courts. The House didn’t want to wait for judicial review, which is the legal mandate, so they withdrew their threat to subpoena those who had worked with the President closely in foreign policy, such as former advisor John Bolton.
Their stated reason for haste was the absolute urgency to impeach President Trump as he was causing a “constitutional crisis.” However, that reasoning falls apart when considering that after such haste, it took over a month for the Articles to be delivered to the Senate for trial.
The real reason for the haste was twofold. One was to scar President Trump with the label “impeached” so as to damage his chances for re-election later this year.
The second reason for the delay was that the House knew they would lose badly in a court challenge to “executive privilege.” They would have to claim that it was unconstitutional to use the constitutional avenue of the courts in asserting a constitutional right on behalf of the president.
Yet, they put forth the mythical “obstruction of Congress” tale as if “executive privilege” doesn’t protect classified and privileged communication between the President and his advisors as well as classified communications between him and other world leaders. “Executive privilege” has a long history of legal precedent and has been used by many presidents in American history, including former President Obama who used it to stop congressional action against former Attorney General Eric Holder in the “Fast and Furious” scandal.
There are those who attempt to argue that President Trump should waive executive privilege and allow any witness the House wants to call to testify. The rote reply to justify this is “If he doesn’t have anything to hide, what harm can having witnesses who knew about this come and testify?”
There are two very good reasons for asserting executive privilege here. The first is that President Trump has already given the House millions of documents, and taken the unprecedented step of declassifying not one but two phone conversations with another world leader, and allowed hours of grueling testimony for the Mueller probe including 30 hours given by his own son, Donald Trump Jr.
In other words, President Trump had already provided far more transparency in his dealings than was necessary, and I believe he has decided that enough is enough! No longer was he going to weaken the Executive branch of the American government to kowtow to half of the Legislative branch as if one branch was answerable to another when carrying out its constitutional duty.
The Constitution brilliantly designs our governing powers to be balanced between three separate but equal branches that each have distinct functions and powers granted to enable those functions. Impeachment is only to be used as a last resort, not as a way of firing a duly elected president for a policy difference.
This is why witnesses should not be allowed in the Senate trial. Neither Article of Impeachment can justify more witnesses to try and drag out this farcical procedure.
Allowing witnesses at this point would only justify the House’s actions rather than rebuke them, and cause untold damage to the delicate balance of power between governmental branches. The best answer to such a demand by the House managers should be a symbolic ‘talk to the hand’ and refuse to admit witnesses, and either move to dismiss the Articles or simply acquit the President.
For those on the conservative side who desire that witnesses should be allowed so as to reveal the extent of the corruption by Democratic officials, I would say this. There has already been enough damage done to the process and the nation as a result of this immoral ‘impeachment.’
The investigation of the criminal involvement of Democratic operatives in Ukraine can be resolved in a separate legal action by the Senate alone, or by such action as the Department of Justice may deem necessary. While I would strongly urge such an investigation to take place, it is extremely unwise to drag the impeachment trial into these waters and perhaps plunge us into Constitutional anarchy as a result.
For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding; he stores up sound wisdom for the upright; he is a shield to those who walk in integrity, guarding the paths of justice and watching over the way of his saints. Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path; Proverbs 2:6-9 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
Featured and Top Image courtesy of Ben Taylor’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Lisa’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Kurt Bauschardt’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Smabs Sputzer (1956-2017) Flickr page – Creative Commons License
January 20, 2020, was the official recognition holiday of the life of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It is intended to be a time of remembrance and celebration of a life courageously given to make a simple but monumentally profound dream into a reality.
However, MLK Day should not stop with a moment or two of reflection, though the reflection is appropriate. As noted in this journal previously, King was a childhood idol of mine, and I was crushed when he was assassinated in 1968, less than five years after he gave voice to his righteous dream in the nation’s capital.
Rev. King’s most famous speech is known as the “I have a dream” address on August 28, 1963, in front of 250,000 people in Washington D.C. at the official end of the “March on Washington.” His most famous quote is from that speech,
I have a dream that one day my four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character I have a dream today.
His dream was a powerful and iconic ideal set before a people who were languishing in the evil of racial oppression and sensed the winds of history were poised to sweep away the injustice of racism. A dream of such potency that it could not be ignored, especially when spoken with the force and elegance only Dr. King could invoke as the man God chose for that time.
Identifying the Dream of Liberty
There remains no better person to articulate and identify the noble dream of Dr. King than King himself. Here is a video capturing the entire address on the mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial to the quarter-million listeners in D.C. and the millions watching on television, who hung on every word.
If you have never heard this astonishing address in its entirety I would urge you to view and listen to it carefully. It has the additional grace that most great speeches throughout history in that King’s words are inspired but brief at just over 17 minutes in length.
In my time as a pastor, I preached over a thousand sermons both inside and outside of a church sanctuary. There were two comments I would invariably hear spoken to me after almost every one of those messages, and I wager that many of the readers could easily guess the content of those comments.
I would hear, sometimes from the same person, the words, “Good sermon,” and “You really stepped on my toes today.” Sometimes, in my efforts to be cordial, I would thank the person and I always tried to make sure I verbally gave all the glory to God, where it rightly belonged.
However, many times I would be dismayed by those comments and would often reply, “If I stepped on your toes I missed my target because I was aiming for your heart.” Dr. King presented a sermon before his audience that hot August day in 1963 and did what I often longed to do, hit the target at which God was aiming, the human heart.
The ideal, the dream set forth before the world by Dr. King carried the power of profundity with the force of the Divinity straight to the hearts of his listeners. Moreover, even today, over 46 years after the profession of his dream and through the filter of technology, the power of King’s dream can still grip our souls anew, if we will but listen anew.
As Dr. King set forth God’s message, he built an eloquent case for the righteousness of the dream that people would be regarded as equally human by each other just as they were so regarded by the LORD. Though he targeted the condition of America specifically, his speech was a worthy ideal for all the world to emulate.
Pursuing the Dream
It is one thing to identify and masterfully present an idealistic goal to any audience. It is another matter entirely to actively pursue that goal with sincerity and integrity.
The biggest reason Dr. King drew such crowds in 1963 was that he went far beyond just talking about it. He pursued it with deeds that risked his alienation and much worse from his opponents.
He had built support starting with his first noteworthy act of civil disobedience, the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott of 1955-56. He helped organize the boycott through his organization the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which virtually shut down the city busing industry there.
The boycott took place from December 5, 1955, to December 20, 1956, and is regarded as the first large-scale U.S. demonstration against segregation. Four days before the boycott began, Rosa Parks, an African-American woman, was arrested and fined for refusing to yield her bus seat to a white man. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ordered Montgomery to integrate its bus system, and one of the leaders of the boycott, a young pastor named Martin Luther King, Jr., emerged as a prominent leader of the American civil rights movement.
Dr. King suffered for his actions as did many of those who were his supporters. On one such occasion, he was arrested and thrown into a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama for organizing demonstrations against the racial injustice of that city in 1963.
Dr. King had read of a public statement “of concern and caution” about the demonstrations released by eight white religious leaders in the South shortly before his arrest and he wrote a lengthy response, Letter from a Birmingham Jail. The letter was a brilliant defense of non-violent action aimed at the religious leaders’ objections as well as educating all who read it about the specific goals and methods of their actions.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action. We have gone through all of these steps in Birmingham. There can be no
gainsaying of the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community.
Dr. King then continues to specifically list the problems and steps that had already been taken to address the racial injustice.
Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of police brutality is known in every section of this country. Its unjust treatment of Negroes in the courts is a notorious reality. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in this nation. These are the hard, brutal, and unbelievable facts. On the basis of them, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the political leaders consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.
When negotiations with the city failed, King and his followers went to step three, the step he called “self-purification.” King described what that process entailed as a prerequisite to demonstrations.
We started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” and “Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?”
The careful preparations of both body and spirit were necessary for what those who followed Dr. King to fully participate in non-violent civil protest without reservation. As King realized, his was not the only movement against the oppression of blacks which garnered significant support.
Opposing and Reviving the Dream
Louis Farrakhan, the current leader of the Nation of Islam
Dr. King was virulently opposed by racists from groups like the KKK, and worse by black groups who advocated violence such as the original Black Panthers and the Black Muslims, aka the ‘Nation of Islam’ under Elijah Muhammed. Contrary to the urgings of King and others, black leaders on the other side demanded that civil rights be fought for “by any means necessary,” in the words of Malcolm X.
The great civil rights leader rightly feared the probable outcome of violent demonstrations against forced segregation and ‘Jim Crow’ laws that kept black people disadvantaged. Dr. King wrote that the groups advocating violence were,
…made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incurable devil. … There is a more excellent way, of love and nonviolent protest. I’m grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, I am convinced that by now many streets of the South would be flowing with floods of blood.
Today most of us rightly give respect to the accomplishments of Dr. King who gained more for the rights of black Americans than all the calls to “Black Power” and violence have ever done. Yet the minions of those who call for violence today, such as the group “Black Lives Matter,” and the so-called ‘woke’ groups of “Antifa” insist that non-violence is impotent in present-day America.
Tragically, both the violent means and the societal goal are directly in opposition to the principles embraced by Dr. King a half-century ago. In an excellent piece by Dr. Eric Wallace of the “Freedom’s Journal Institute,” he compares the stance of BLM versus that of Dr. King’s strident non-violence, specifically the dream of being judged not by color but character.
But with what measure are we to be judged today? How are the demands of today’s “Woke” culture or the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement representative of a people who continue to thrive in the face of injustice? Needless to say, neither of these movements proclaim a biblical foundation or Christian roots. In fact, one could argue that these contemporary movements demand the opposite of what Dr. King stood for and fought to accomplish. Many in these groups are quick to judge White people by the color of their skin while insisting they have “white privilege,” which automatically makes them guilty of racial injustice simply because they are White. This reasoning turns Dr. King’s words on their heads. Thinking that one is guilty simply because he or she is White or another is oppressed simply because he or she is not is the opposite of what King preached.
The lifelong quest of Dr. King for racial justice and equality through non-violence has been largely spurned by those who claim to speak on behalf of the black population in America today. It is past time for that righteous dream to be revived if we are going to continue moving toward a more just society instead of careening down a steep slope toward racial anarchy and destruction.
Fortunately, King’s dream is still alive and growing though it has taken President Trump’s administration to move it off of life support. Ironically, it is a person the Left constantly berates and accuses of being the biggest racist in world history who has brought more opportunity and prosperity to minorities than any administration in our history.
Those among the minority population, other than the mind-controlled minions of the MSM, have seen these results from the Trump administration and are leaving the Leftist Democratic [but I repeat myself] plantation in droves. The support for President Trump has risen to unprecedented levels among blacks in America as evidenced by a number of recent polls and is consistently above 30% today.
While 30% is far from a majority, consider that President Trump won in 2016 with just 8% of the black vote. As noted in a recent piece at Real Clear Politics,
Even 20 percent African-American support for Trump would all but dismantle Democratic Party presidential hopes for 2020.
This is truly good news for the promise of the profound dream of Dr. King. I hope and pray that the re-election of President Trump will take place and move America closer to the point of true racial justice and harmony.
But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Amos 5:24 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
Featured and Top Image courtesy of Mike’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Mike Licht’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Public.Resource.Org’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Injustice, our enemy; Our great enemy; Our number one enemy; You disagree, shake your head; But tell me Who is a worse enemy; In jeopardy, Injustice has put our lives; We fight one another Because we want justice; We lack peace Because we lack Justice; Give us justice And you give us peace; No justice, no peace; Without justice Some will be eating To their fill, While others will be dying Of starvation; Injustice is evil; Let’s give it a hard kick; To oust it from our midst.
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller gave testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee concerning the ‘Mueller Report’ which could not nail President Trump on any charges of or related to collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign. Mueller’s team of lawyers, dedicated Democrats, and Trump haters all, spent over two years investigating almost anyone remotely associated with the President.
As everybody in the world now knows, this team of ‘professionals’ could not find any evidence against President Trump of, well anything, which was clear when Mueller held his rather bizarre press conference on May 29, 2019. However, during that press conference, Mr. Mueller gave us this gem.
If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.
Mueller also stated that he would not testify and that anything he would say should that happen would simply repeat “his” report. However, it turned out that he was pressured enough to come before Congress and testify, and that performance is one the Leftists have come to regret.
A Pitiful And Revealing Testimony of Leftist Bias
The entire testimony was an over six-hour marathon in which Mr. Mueller stumbled and bumbled over his words and numerous times needed to be read back words from “his” report. Even so, with the careful questioning of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee some critical items became clear which might have been overlooked, and certainly would not have been mentioned at all on CNN or MSNBC or the alphabet network Leftmedia.
One of those items was exposed by the questioning of Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio.
Jordan’s questions cut through the fog to show the blatant bias of Mueller and his team. Mueller’s hit squad was more than happy to charge Republicans who worked with Trump, but not the man who began this sorry saga and lied to the FBI three times!
This was an abuse of the power of “prosecutorial discretion,” to the highest degree. It resulted in an especially gross miscarriage of justice with the case of General Michael Flynn.
In addition to being a three-star General, Flynn was also a former Director of National Intelligence for President Trump. In a nutshell, the FBI arranged a deceptive ‘interview’ with Flynn and the agents who conducted it did so under false pretenses.
Flynn pleaded guilty to the charge of lying to the FBI, but only after the legal bills had forced him to go bankrupt and sell his sole remaining asset, the family home. He was also concerned about a possible threat from authorities to go after his son, who had accompanied Flynn as a business partner on overseas ventures.
Moreover, after the initial FBI agents conducted their interview, they did not believe Flynn had lied.
According to Flynn sentencing requests, then-deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe pressured then-National Security Adviser Flynn not to have a lawyer present during a seemingly relaxed, casual meeting with the FBI – the one that they said he lied at. …This might be part of the worst part of Michael Flynn’s political persecution: The agents interviewing him never thought he lied.
Andrew McCabe was later fired from the FBI for lying to the Office of the Inspector General in 2017. He lied three times, according to the OIG report, once to the FBI and twice to the OIG concerning whether he had authorized illegal leaks to the Wall Street Journal newspaper.
What he told investigators may also contradict what former FBI director James Comey testified before Congress, and indicates Obama’s Justice Department pressured the FBI during its investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Eventually, McCabe admitted he had authorized the leaks, and yet, McCabe has not been charged to this day with any crime. Hopefully, Rep. Jordan is correct and the current investigation of the investigators under Attorney General Bill Barr can remedy that.
The Mysterious ‘Non-Exoneration’ Statement
The Mueller report was split into two sections. Part 1 dealt with the so-called Russia collusion matter, and Part 2 delved into whether or not Trump obstructed the collusion investigation itself.
The conclusion of Mueller’s team as stated in the report was that they could not find evidence of any collusion or obstruction of justice. However, a very mysterious and dangerous statement about not exonerating the President was also put into the report, and Rep. John Ratcliffe [R-TX] honed in on that statement.
Ratcliffe’s questioning revealed two critical points concerning this farce the Left has tried to push upon the American people, both of which connect with the statement that the Special Counsel’s findings “did not exonerate” the President of guilt.
The first point is that the Left’s obsession with taking down President Trump led them to believe they were justified in using tactics counter to every legal guideline that exists in America today. Tactics they would employ against no one else except someone they viewed as a mortal enemy, which in this case was Trump.
The second point concerns the nature of this particular tactic of non-exoneration as stated in the report. As Rep. Ratcliffe noted, this tries to invert the bedrock of American jurisprudence that every person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty!
The importance of that principle cannot be overstated. It is the reason that verdicts, whether by a judge or jury, are always stated as the defendant is “guilty” or “not guilty,” and never stated as innocent or exonerated of a crime.
It is never the job of any prosecutor to try to “prove” the innocence of anyone because that is already assumed until it can be proved they are guilty. If this cannot be done, exoneration is automatically conferred to the accused.
Thus, President Trump is indeed exonerated here regardless of any statements in any report, or the Leftist’s attempts to make exoneration something that needs proving. However, it also should alert us to the dangerous precedent the statement could set if not challenged.
The peril is that if the Left is allowed to get away with such manipulation of the truth and ‘exoneration’ as a justice standard is embraced, true justice will become a thing of the past in America. We would become no better than any tyrannical government that has ever existed if anyone has to prove they didn’t commit a crime of which they were accused.
The blatant Leftist bias and the presumption of guilt rather than innocence are why we cannot just ‘move on’ from this. I hope and pray that A.G. Barr’s investigation into the Mueller travesty will result in an official repudiation of the investigative methods and the dangerous judicial philosophy which was behind it.
When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers. Proverbs 21:15 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
If you want peace, Work for justice; God does not favour The unjust; God favours the just; The unjust bring tears To innocent people; Making them suffer When tbey shouldn’t; God favoured Joseph Husband of mother Mary; For he was a just man; God will favour you If you are a just one; The troubles of the world Are authored by injustice; The work of the hands Of the unjust; If we, people of the world Want a world of peace, Only one road to take: The road of justice. Where justice goes, Without fail, peace follows.
It is too unfair, Embarrassing, Annoying, Worrisome And sad To accuse someone Of a crime The person has not committed; It is even worse To condemn An innocent person Especially When you know The person is innocent; And sadly this happens Ever so often; Criminals are free; Swaggering on the streets Throwing and enjoying parties; Lavishing ill- gotten money, While innocent ones Yawn and gnash their teeth Behind bars. What an unjust world! What a cruel world! Where many hearts have Been hardened, Wickedness galore; Selfkess love, The most needed commodity Rare to come by. If you condem an innocent one, Do you ever think How it would look like If such an innocent victim Were you? This old adage is as good Today as it was yesterday: Do unto others As you like others To do unto you. If I write about this Or talk about this, It is to move us all To see the wickedness In false accusations; False condemnation; Making innocent people suffer In place of guilty ones. I want to inspire you To put love and justice At the fore of all Your actions So that we can make This world An excellent place For all of us to enjoy. Are you inspired?