Art of Conservatism for October 3, 2017

Sighing and Grief, or, What More Gun Laws?

It takes a lot to shake me up, to get me emotionally roiled over any incident which occurs outside my immediate circle of friends and loved ones. Which tells me that the Mandalay Massacre in Las Vegas was a lot. And it was.

I shudder at the level of the evil that made this monster—Stephen Paddock--- do what he did. I also look with pride at the American Spirit of those who went out of their way to help others who were wounded keep from dying, of those who pulled their women down to the ground to shield them from the mega-bullets which inexorably killed a number of them, of the First Responders and Medical Personnel who did what they had to do to save lives in the most efficient manner possible. I cannot imagine what they went through and what went through them in all the hours of time and overtime that they had to keep on keeping on in order to limit the damage caused. My wife feels the same way, and she's a nurse. 

And I cannot begin to tell you of my anger at the monsters who, even as I write this, can only use the moment to belittle those who don't agree with them, and who demand that we all become slaves to a burgeoning tyrannical government bureacracy which would love nothing more than to take away our ability to defend ourselves via the Second Amendment. 

And, I'm particularly incensed at that little monster Snow Flake (Ms.Tarnished-Gold) who, with her obvious standard equipment flint heart, declared on Facebook that she had no sympathy for those “Republican Trump supporters” who were gunned down. How did she know anything about their political leanings? Only in her own mind. She was only proving to all her intellectual laziness, judgemental attitude, and callous demeanor---In short, the very definition of evil. She deserved to lose her gig at CBS. How hypocritical of them to fire her, by the way. Oh, Ms What's-your-name-Gold, there is a likely job waiting for you at the Southern Poverty Law Center. You'd fit right in.

In doing all of that, the Left betrays a huge lack of imagination, and an equally huge ignorance of facts which are out there for all the rest of us to see. In short, they choose not 'to be in on the joke'.

First, they scream for gun laws when the laws already on the books are not being enforced!! I remember this concept from when I was a kid. I was many times denied something I wanted simply because I hadn't used all of the other resources I had to accomplish the same purpose. Take this Stephen Paddock fellow, the one who killed the 59 or more people from near the top of Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. This guy broke every law in the books where guns were concerned. Somebody besides him had to have known this. Law enforcement had to know as well. But, because nobody said anything to anyone who could have done anything about that (read that, law enforcement), and nothing was followed up, nothing was done, and we all know, way too painfully, the result. So, memo to Statists in Congress (including you, Hillary!), Leftists, and Snow Flakes: don't you dare ask for more Gun Laws, until you can prove that you are enforcing the laws which are already on the books.

Now, I said what I said in the last paragraph for a reason. The arsenal which Paddock accumulated was bought, in one sense, but not legally in another sense, and modified illegally. Where did Paddock get the knowledge? You Tube. That's right. It turns out that You Tube is an even better source of information useful to terrorist than even the isis magazine, “Inspire”. On You Tube, you can learn how to modify an semi-automatic weapon into the real murdering deal. Why isn't the ATF following up on that? Hmmmm?

What about getting the gun dealers together to help connect the dots? This idea is from CBS commentator Dave Ross, and it's a good one: Have gun dealers network to see if patterns turn up regarding certain customers, the ones who are buying a really large amount of assualt weapons and ammo from different dealers. It could be all volunteer among reputable gun dealers, and would also be a litmus test to point out the dealers who won't cooperate. The Federal government wouldn't need to be involved, except as a recipient of information regarding those patterns. Buyers wouldn't need to give their social security information. Use their FOIA card numbers instead (I'm assuming here that SSI's are not used for FOIA numbers; if that isn't the case, changing the law to provide for different FOIA numbers would be a law worth passing by Congress.). If patterns of large purchases of weapons and ammo start appearing, a way to connect the dots would be to have the ATF check the buyer's You Tube account to see if anything else is going on. Connecting the dots in that way would be a huge step toward dealing with potential mass shooters before they strike. 

I'm not alone in thinking this. Dan Bongino, former New York cop and member of the Secret Service, seconds the notion. There are plenty of ways in which law enforcement can legally 'connect the dots' to spot potential killers before they exercise their opportunity to multi-kill. Why don't they use them? And, if they're not legally allowed to do that part of their work, that's where we change the gun laws.

 

Art of Conservatism for September 29, 2017

The National Anthem not sung at NFL games? Oh, no, them's fightin' words! BUT---That gives me an idea. How about this....?

Let's pretend, for the moment, that the local team in whatever city decides that, to hell with it, let's don't play the National Anthem before the game on Sunday. Just duck the issue altogether. Really? Well, it wouldn't take much imagination to beat that. It would start with the radio station originating the game. Simply have a patriotic business or two..... or more..... sponsor the playing of a recording of the National Anthem on the air. Send it down the station's team network line as well. Teams can't stop the station or the network from playing it. And, in this day and age of electronic super-connection, how many folks in the stands are actually listening to the game on their radios? A big bunch, especially in Chicago, where WBBM's and WCSF's audio call of the game is also piped in on the concourse speakers in real time. I bet a lot of NFL teams have the same concourse PA arrangement. Simply have the members of the crowd tune into the station, and sing along. Who cares if the team orders the PA announcer to talk over the anthem. Y'all sing it anyway! Sing it all the way through. After a few times of that, the owners may just get the message and get to the point of patriotism.

Fun thought: The NFL owners being caught between two pressure groups! I'll bet the outcome will be, as the great Chicago poet Carl Sandberg put it, “The People—Yes!!” If we all would use our imagination, and our radios in this instance, we could beat the Left, which seems to have less and less of that at time goes on.

Two more notes: In Chicago, NO ONE DARES to not play the National Anthem before the Bears games, played at Soldier Field. No one!!! That stadium is so iconic here, the naming rights have never even been seriously considered to be for sale.

And, Allejandro Villenueva is my hero. I don't care if he was bullied into having to apologize to his coach after it was over. Note also that his jersey zoomed in sales to #1 on nfl.com in the days that followed. Allejandro, sir, we salute you for your service, and your courage. And if you have to endure the slime from your own team that followed your patriotic actions, I know of two other NFL teams who would love to have you: The Cowboys, and the Bears. Oh, and my son-in-law Kenny, that maven of the Lions den in Chicago, says 'make that three'. He'd love to see Villanueva on 'his' team as well. Fair enough.

Lead on, brother.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Art of Conservatism---You've got to be kidding, Hillary!!!

August 25, 2017

Has anyone heard the little excerpt from Hillary Clinton's new book, “What Happened”, the one about Trump 'creeping her out' at the second debate? If not, how could you not have?? It's gone viral! If you're just hearing about it now, well, welcome back from vacation!

How much of a lie is this so-called 'excerpt'? C'mon, let's get logical here.

First of all, there are the pictures. And there are plenty of them from the second Presidential debate. They've been all over Fox. (I don't know about CNN or the others. I don't watch them because I don't have time for lies and ultra-low-quality television.) In those pictures, Trump is nowhere near Mrs. Clinton (yes, I won't use the uber-term Ms. She would like it if I did).

Second, anyone who knows Donald Trump knows his taste in women. How could you not, considering the three whom he has married? In my book, they are stunners, all of them. And, they have the brains to match. So, wouldn't you think that Hillary is, shall we say, not quite up his libido alley?

Third, if anyone is uber-intimidating in the political sense, it has to be Hillary Clinton. Her 'testicle lock box', from the phrase coined by Rush, is legendary. Just look at the record! Really, knowing Trump, as especially you Lefties say you do, is there even a shred of evidence that he would be turned on by such a type A+ personality? Really???

No, Hillary, to put it succinctly, you flatter yourself way too much. You really have to be delusional to think that Donny would have anything approaching the hots for you. He has a lot better at home, and frankly, I believe he has reached the age where he knows it. By the way, can the same be said for your husband? Hmmmm???

In short, Little Girl, get over yourself and get real. And, though I ain't holdin' my breath, an apology to The Donald might be in order.

Y'all can stop giggling now.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

A word about the flaws this country's founding

Art of Conservatism—A word about the flaws this country's founding

August 23, 2017 (the day after the great hoax of the eclipse!)

I mentioned in another episode of Art of Conservatism, that I attend two Christian churches, both liberal in focus, but different in approach. The Episcopal Church, located deep in the suburbs of Chicago, tends to stay out of political discussion of any kind, period. There, it is easier to be a Conservative, and I know who most of the Conservatives there. A few are on the emailing list for Art of Conservatism.

Not so with the Presbyterian Church I also attend, located deep in the heart of the Lake View neighborhood of Chicago---read that, “Boys Town”. The depth of its political activism approaches that of the Miriana Trench in the Pacific, and that activism starts right at the top, with the pastor. This parish is up to its neck in 'social justice' issues, sanctuary cities and churches, and rights for gays, gay marriage, and other hot button Leftist issues. And the parish doesn't shy away from actively trying to shame those who are not of the same mind as they. I know. Some there have tried with me--and failed.

As I said, the pastor of this parish has given whole sermons about the evils of Donald Trump. You know the drill: Hater, Nazi, etc. Recently, the Pastor did a real hum-dinger along that line, as well as writing a similar front page piece in the bulletin. Oh, yes, she got a piece of my mind during the Hospitality Hour that followed---which she rejected. Surprise.

The assistant Pastor of the parish, a much younger lady and a fairly recent Seminary graduate, is more a Liberal and less of a hard lefty, and as such is much more open-minded to arguments made by a Conservative. Surprise again! After the sermon I just mentioned, she and I engaged in a somewhat spirited debate, joined in progress by a fellow parishioner who told us that he is of mixed race Black, with slave blood, and Native American. The subject turned to America's Flaws from its founding, and it was a teachable moment for both them, and me.

The subject of the Flaw of Slavery was discussed there, as it has been previously on this blog. For those who've missed, the Constitution dealt with this Flaw in two ways: first, by imposing an arbitrary, mandatory deadline on the importation of slaves from Africa (the year 1808); and second, with the Provision within the Constitution which stipulated the counting of each male slave as 3/5 of a person for purposes of the census. While there are those who have blatantly lied about this provision by calling it racism, this latter provision was insisted on by the abolitionist North, and had the effect of reducing the population of the South in comparison to that of the North, the goal of which was to increase the relative clout of the North, thus to aid in the process of dismantling slavery in the future. That almost worked, but as we all know, it ultimately took the Presidential Emancipation Proclamation to seal that deal. That knowledge put part of our discussion to rest.

However, there is that other Little Matter (there's that word again!) of the treatment of the Native Americans at the hands of the white man, almost literally from day one. This is a perfect case of me coming up with the clinching argument long after our little three-way discussion was over and we'd gone our separate ways.

My response should have been, and is now, the following: If we Conservatives are going to believe that the founding of this country was aided by the Hand of God, and that, as President Ronald Reagan so eloquently put it, America is “the Shining Beacon on the Hill”, we are going to have to compare the Founding against the settling of Palestine by the Israelites those many thousands of years ago. What did the Israelites have to do in order to make for themselves a nation? The answer is simply, “take over a land already occupied by others”. God promised to Abraham, nee Abram, to make of him, Abraham, a great nation, for the Glory of God Himself. No nation can be considered a nation without a share of real estate. But to do it, the tribes of Israel had to clear out that real estate of everyone else: The Hittites, Elamites, Midianites, and the Phillistines. The Israelites couldn't do that without God's help. And of course, God helped, for as long as the Israelites chose to worship, serve, and glorify Him. That's the key, of ultimate importance. As long as the Israelites chose to stay close with God, they kept that land that they had taken from the other peoples of the Middle East, and prospered on it. When they didn't...... well, you know the rest..... or should. Remember Babylon?

Fast forward to the North American continent, at the time of its first settling by the Europeans. The parallels are clear. The Renaissance was a zenith of the Worship of God. The Reformation, born of the Renaissance, had helped God to better reach the average man, and many of those average men responded. Those who were the thinkers and pray-ers and doers of the Reformation came into conflict with the established churches of Europe of the time (see a parallel with today's political upheavals here?) and that's when God, in my opinion, stepped in. Out “there” (North America) was a possibility of building a great nation, one which would adhere to the Commandments and the Worship of God. It just needed to be settled. And it was.

The major thrust of those who settled this land and made this great nation was both the need to worship God in what was considered to be the most personal way, and virtue. This virtue, wide-ranging, extended even to one aspect of the sin of slavery: Black slaves, back in Africa, came from a wide variety of religious backgrounds, but in the New World, their masters made Christianity the defacto religion for everyone, just as was the case in the rest of the country, and in the slaves God found some of his greatest adherents to the teachings of Jesus. I would suggest that God's will was done here.

All this begs the question of, “How does the White Man's treatment of Native Americans relate to the experience of the Israelites?” That must be answered with its own question: “How much did God care about the peoples that the Israelites conquered?” We don't hear much about how the Hittites, Midionites, et al, fared after they were conquered, do we? They may have done well, relocated to other areas to regroup, but in the main, we don't know. They may have disappeared altogether. While many of the things which were done to Native Americans by the Europeans across the centuries are now considered to be deplorable, and even despicable, some of those who are left have become involved in the American dream.

And again, who is to say that, like the situation with the Israelites and their adversaries, the founding and settling of the North American continent wasn't God's will? And, following the same parallel as was the history of the Jews, aren't we in danger of losing all that we have gained because, in great measure in this country, we as a people have turned away from God, we've lost much of our virtue, and with those losses, we've lost something more important----trust, including in God. And, as I've said before, the operational definition of hell is when no one can trust anything. Without our dependence on God, and without virtue, and with the loss of trust, we as a nation are headed there; indeed, we are at the precipice, just as the Jews of the era of Jeremiah were.

Benjaman Franklin was asked by a citizen, right after the Constitutional Convention, what form of government had been created for the new nation. To which Franklin replied, “A Republic, if we choose to keep it. (Emphasis mine.) It's true, but by the same token, it is just as true that we also have a sovereign nation under God, if we choose to keep it.

Do we choose to keep it? Then, I would strongly suggest that we get over most of our guilt trip as to how this nation came to be and get back to thanking God for the fact that this nation exists. I truly believe that the founding of this nation was of the will of God, period. To suggest otherwise is to push this nation over the precipice.

For more on this, read Michael Medved's book, “The American Miracle”.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Anybody notice something different about Trump?

Art of Conservatism—Anybody notice something different about Trump?

August 21, 2017 (the day of the great hoax of the eclipse!)

I don't know if anyone else has, but there has been an almost-subtle change in Donald Trump since he has assumed the Office of President. Maybe others have noticed, but I think not many. But though subtle, I consider it to be profound---the change in the expounding of his faith.

During the Presidential primaries and campaign, Trump almost never mentioned anything about his belief in either God or Jesus Christ. I'm suspecting that, at that time, his relationship with God didn't mean much to him. After all, being a self-made man, why would he? Self-made men tend to own huge egos. No surprise there, but upon taking the oath of office, the weight of the world almost literally came up on him. It had to. Even if I weren't a person of faith, such a weighty responsibility would certainly drive me to my knees. I sense that this is also exactly what happened with Donald Trump.

When victory by Trump was confirmed way late on election night, my very first thought was from the Psalms, namely, “This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.” My view remains unchanged in the months since. As a matter of fact, I am going to pass along one of my sayings to bolster my belief: “The measure of any person can be seen in the type of friends he or she has, the number of enemies accumulated, and the quality of the questions he or she asks.” In Donald Trump, I've seen every one of those tests passed. He has asked the right questions at the right time. He has collected around him the best minds he could find to go about the running of this country in the right way. And, as we now have all witnessed, he has accumulated exactly the kind of enemies that shows all people who trust in God that he is worthy of the respect that he will never get from them. That these enemies are being incredibly active in trying to destroy him is even more proof that he is worthy of that respect.

I share a kind of kindred spirit of faith with Donald Trump, in that both of us have one foot in the Episcopal Church, and the other in the Presbyterian Church (which wants so much to distance itself from him---to their detriment). He started out as a Presbyterian but his marriage to Melania was in a beautiful Episcopal Church in Florida. I grew up an Episcopalian, and still church there, but I was married in, and also attend, my wife's home Presbyterian Parish in Chicago. So, yes, I find that factoid indeed comforting, but I find even more comforting that, now that he is President, Donald Trump is taking his faith far more seriously.than I have to. After all, look at how dirty his enemies are fighting that war which is called politics.

One more point: I cannot help but note a parallel here, between Donald Trump, and David as King of Israel. David started out as unassuming, from humble background, when he was chosen by God to fight in the Army of Israel against the Philistines, and kill Goliath. Both were chosen in unlikely ways to be the leaders of their respective countries. And, most glaringly, both were human men with human foibles and sins, big time. David went on not only to be the greatest leaders of the one of the great countries of the world, but fathered a son who was even better at it. While Donald Trump hasn't quite done that last item yet, if he's allowed to, he may just become a world leader on a par with a Churchill or Lincoln. There, I said it. But, if God is on his side, and more importantly if Donald Trump will allow Him to be, I truly believe that God will do what it takes in world events to make that happen.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Comey Gone.....

Art of Conservatism for May 10, 2017

Comey Going....

So, Donald Trump fired Jim Comey as head of the FBI on May 9. So? So what?

On this one, I have to agree with Trump. And he didn't do it out of thin air, either. He had solid advice from someone I trust even though I've only heard of him less than 48 hours (as I write this).

My point is, Comey had it coming. I fall on the side of those who say he politicized the Office of Director of the FBI. Whether he did it by calculation or by just being caught up in the events of the moment makes no difference. He did things that made me wonder about what the FBI was coming to and, more importantly, question his own judgment. Any head of the FBI must not have that baggage. That's enough for me to believe that a Jim Comey had outlived his usefulness.

And the process was both swift and sure. The Statist Party screams that the timing of the firing was not by accident, that this was planned to happen at this time to further Trump's political agenda. BS. Double BS, actually. The Statist Party's own actions was the source of the timing of what happened.

Why? Because of the Senate's molasses-like sloth in dealing with Trump's nominees for their own political gain. The statists spent over two months fighting the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, so that he didn't get to take the reins at Justice until late March. They've been even more obstructionist with Trump's nominees to the lesser offices in the various cabinets, and that included Ron Rosenstein, who by all accounts is a man of incredible integrity and is, also by all accounts, as non-partisan a man as can be found in government service. So politically pastel is he that, when he was nominated for US Attorney by both Presidents Bush and Obama, his confirmation sailed through the Senate with considerable bi-partison support. How does a final vote of 94-6 look to you? 

The thing that shows the Statist Party for what it is, came when, as Trump's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, the Senate refused to confirm him until just a couple of weeks ago. Once confirmed and in the saddle, Jeff Sessions gave Rosenstein the assignment to evaluate Jim Comey's performance as Director of the FBI and to report his findings to President Trump. 

On Monday, Rosenstein's report was complete. Both his evaluation letter, and the letter from Sessions on the same topic, reached the President's desk by Tuesday. The difference was that Sessions merely informed the President that Comey should not be retained. Rosenstein's letter actually told Mr. Trump why. Apparently that letter was so compelling, that Mr. Trump had little choice but to act swiftly on the matter, and the rest is now history. The Statist Party, which had blamed Comey to the skies for poisoning the election waters for Hillary Clinton, and who six months ago were demanding his head on a stick in retribution, are now screaming that his firing was politically motivated, in order to take the heat off of Donald Trump in the investigation of the Russian thing. Sorry, folks, but you can't have it both ways, even though you feel you can. 

No--In this instance, Donald Trump did the right thing to let Comey go. In my mind, there was a question regarding Comey's impartiality from the moment he opened his mouth during the election campaign. I know that I was nowhere near alone in that feeling. Comey's departure, and a worthy replacement of him, will give the FBI the aura of impartiality that it needs to get back. And, as to the question of the investigation of the Russian matter, Comey's departure will most likely have no effect on that grinding of the wheels of justice.

Now, who can best replace Jim Comey? I have two ideas, one of which is plausible. My first choice is the one who is not: Ron Rosenstein. His reputation for impartiality is impeccable. He'd be a boon to law enforcement in this country. The problem is that it is not considered good form to give the job of anyone whose head was just chopped off, to the person who handed the ax to the executioner.

My second choice is an ultimate law enforcement man: David Clarke, Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Anyone who doesn't know him, should simply get to. He's a down-and-out conservative when it comes enforcing the law, which will likely be a problem when his nomination gets to the Senate. Yes the obstructionists must, after all, have another day in the limelight, but once in office he will be the kind of bulldog on crime that will ultimately endear him to the Conservatives in this country, then to more than just the Conservatives, with the result that there will be yet another feather in Trump's crime-fighting hat. 

 

It would be interesting to find out what other nominees are out there. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear from you. You can comment here at Art of Conservatism.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Art of Conservatism---What Was He Thinking?

So the FBI spent literally months and megabucks of taxpayer loot, pursuing an investigation of Hillary Clinton, including all of her 'business' deals, her so-called 'charitable' organization, her use of unsecured computer servers, and on and on. We The People have had to endure endless instances of what we all know is bald-faced lying on her part, and that of her husband, himself a person who is way too tawdry to even mention further. Except I have to.

And then the FBI investigation concluded. Then there's the spectacle of that husband of hers, caught in a supposedly legal, not sexual for once, tryst with the Attorney General (herself a terribly doctrinaire and corrupted person) on an airplane on the tarmac of an airport in a place where only hell is hotter (and I say that advisedly).

And after all that, Jim Comey, the current FBI Director, announced his conclusions of the investigation: What Hillary did, though certainly tawdry enough, was not up to the level which deserves any indictment. Really??!!?? The reaction was immediate, uniform and expected, something along the lines of “Gag me with a spoon!!”

And then, in the next breath, Mr. Comey did something which has never been done before in the annals of the FBI in any similar circumstance: After exonerating her, he began a quarter-hour-long litany of the things the Agency's investigation found. And it was damning. It was jaw-dropping. And the immediate question was, “How could Hillary Clinton not be indicted for doing what Jim Comey had described for doing all that ? Where's the justice in all of this? Is this more proof that the world has gone to hell in a hand basket, and a dirty hand basket at that?”

Well, hold the phone. Let's look a little closer at this, and see if we can discern what Comey's intent was. There are several possible scenarios in play here:

First, suppose that an indictment had been called for at that news conference. Such a recommendation would mean that the Justice Department would be left with the decision on whether to indict, or not. There are two possible directions that can take.

What if Justice decided to not indict? Most like, that would let Hillary off the hook, perhaps forever. Under that scenario, at least in the short term, it would mean No Hillary in prison, most likely. That's what has happened.....thus far.

But what if Justice decided to indict? In that case Hillary would most likely be forced to end her run for the Presidency before, or maybe just after the Democrat National Convention, leaving a gaping political hole to be filled. Who would fill it? Well, who has the phone and the pen around here? Why, it's Barack the Magnificent, who would be all too ready and able to Do The Right Thing, and anoint a certain Special Someone to fill that vacancy! And, who is now emotionally ready and waiting in the wings for a 'draft', a request, a plea, an entreaty, a phone call, to please take that job? Why, of course, Joe Biden! And would he accept? What do you think? And would he win? He'd have a better chance at that, even with all of his mental gaffes and foibles, than would Hillary. Bet the rent on that horse.

And, what if Hillary, indicted and thus politically wounded as she would be in this case, were to face trial during election season? That would be a Gross Divisive Distraction at a time when We The People would least need such a G.D.D. What would be the chances of her being convicted in such a trial to follow? Given that the entire jury pool (comprised of that pesky We The People, again) has been tainted by the revelations brought to light by Jim Comey, and thereafter screamed to the skies by every Republican who isn't a RINO, the chances are high that she would be convicted----only to be pardoned for all of her crimes in a heartbeat by Barack of Pen and Phone (just ask him!), who by that time would be either welcoming his veep of eight years to the throne, or in the case of a dreaded Republican victory, supervising the implementation of martial law over the entire country.

But, I believe Jim Comey has intentionally planted a seed. Maybe enough of one to make a difference on Election Day. That is key. Of course the Trump campaign will take full advantage of the ammunition it's been given. But, can it, will it, translate into a Trump win, which would almost certainly mean a forthcoming Hillary indictment? Remember, double jeopardy applies only to convictions. Jim Comey knows that, of course---that's what he's betting on. And if it's not the way to bet, it is indeed the way to pray. And should all of this come to pass, then Comey's move to forego recommending the indictment of Hillary Clinton now will not be a capitulation. It will be a strategy. As Paul Harvey said many times, “Evil is its own undoing”. Pray for that to be the case this time. Jim Comey is.

Then think, “national hero”. Please. But only if it works. And that's up to us.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.