Trump Qualification Concerns

            Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, aside from all the fake news about the nature of Russian hacking, it seems to me the central concern from the left is that Trump is unqualified to be president and lacks presidential demeanor.  Your thoughts?

IM:  Let’s address the unqualified allegation first.  The only Constitutional qualifications for president are stated in Article II, Section 1:

  

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

AM:  Trump meets all of these criteria.  But, remember:  there was some question as to whether his predecessor met the “natural born” criterion.  Those who were or are skeptical about the natural born status—except, that is, Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff that introduced this as a possible issue during the 2008 presidential campaign—are derided as “birthers” . . . conspiracy theorists, even though some would argue that there is some evidence to support the theory.  For instance, Obama has gone to great lengths to seal certain records (e.g., administrative records at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard) that could assuage these concerns, if he were natural born.  Further, as proof of birth, the Obama campaign circulated a certificate of live birth that is normally issued for those individuals born to US citizens outside of the State of Hawaii.  Then, after pressure from Trump, Obama finally released a so-called long form birth certificate.  Yet, forensic investigations (see also here) into this form revealed serious issues—that is, a forged certificate.

Old Gadfly:  Assuming the “natural born” criterion is not an issue for either Obama or Trump, what do you think the left means when they say Trump is not qualified?

AM:  Before we dig into an answer to your question, I want to point out that one of the Texan delegates to the Electoral College has publicly declared he will become one of the few “faithless electors” in our nation’s history because he believes Trump is not qualified.

IM:  I recall that the announcement by this faithless elector, Christopher Suprun, was through the New York Times.  This was part of the swarming activity by Hollywood dupes and media mimickers related to convincing at least 37 electors not to vote for Trump.  Unfortunately, as we wade through all the “fake news,” generated by the left, there is little fanfare that Suprun has been completely discredited by, among other things, stolen valor (see here and here).

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, let’s get back to the qualification question.

AM:  I have heard and read that Trump lacks policy experience.

IM:  I agree.  The claim is that since Trump has never served in a government capacity, he has no expertise on policy matters, whether domestic or foreign.

Old Gadfly:  What is policy?  People throw that term around all the time without defining it.

IM:  A dictionary definition states that policy is:  “a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.”  So, here we are talking about government policy.

Old Gadfly:  Good.  Now, from what is a course or principle of action derived?

AM:  Good question.  The context is political, in that we chose a Party candidate over another based upon their platforms.

Old Gadfly:  OK . . . continue.

AM:  The platforms represent values.  For instance, the progressive Democrat believes in freedom, opportunity, responsibility, and cooperation.  Progressives believe these values can only be enhanced by a large, central government and its central planners (congruent with socialism).  For a more comprehensive and detailed explanation of these values from a progressive perspective, see here.  On the other hand, the conservative Republican believes in respect for human life, individual liberty, limited government, a strong defense, and free enterprise.  For a more detailed explanation, see here.  Here is another source that explains how progressive and conservative values shape policy (here is another good source). Finally, here is an article that explains why conservatives tend to be happier than liberals (and progressives).

IM:  Speaking of political perspectives and happiness, I recently read an interesting article by a university professor.  Here is a quote from her article:

I have long appreciated the optimism about human progress that is a key ideal of liberalism (think of the term “progressive”). While I still embrace this view, I wonder if conservative ideals are more natural ideals. That is, does human nature, as it emerged under the pressures of natural selection of our small-group-living ancestors, include the urge to curtail individual expression, enforce authority, and hoard resources for the in-group? Compared to liberals, social conservatives may well be living lives that are more similar to what humans have lived for tens of thousands of years. And if so, is their more natural mind-set the reason that conservatives are, at least according to surveys, often happier than liberals?

Old Gadfly:  Good points.  So, when we hear the left accusing Trump of not being qualified, what we’re being told is that anticipated policy stemming from a Trump administration will reflect values that are contrary to the left’s.  Do you agree?

IM:  Absolutely.  For starters, here are examples of what the left is angry about:

·         Repealing Obamacare and reducing taxes is a rejection of the Marxist values called redistribution of wealth and fear from want.  

·         Reducing the size of government in terms of federal regulations by an unelected bureaucracy is a rejection of the value of a large, centralized government. 

·         Installing retired general officers as Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security promotes a Constitutional government that is strong on defense and the safety of America and assumes a larger leadership role in the international system, contrary to the feckless “lead from behind” posture over the past eight years.

·         Installing business men and women in various positions such as Secretary of State and Commerce recognizes the role healthy free enterprise-oriented economies play in the globalized international economy.  This is contrary to the notion that government experts know better than the players actually involved in voluntary free exchange of value and Hayek’s concept of spontaneous order and prosperity.  After all, Trump hasn’t even been inaugurated and look at how the stock market responded.

·         Building a wall and enforcing immigration laws enfranchises the individual liberty of those citizens who exercise responsibility through the rule of law.  This negates the exploitation opportunities the left has enjoyed through identity politics and political correctness.

AM:  Given all the excuses that Hillary and her campaign surrogates are giving for her loss, there is no doubt that they lack the capacity to reflect on the difference in political values in light of what the American idea is all about, how it led to the greatest prosperity in the history of humankind, and why so many want to migrate (legally and illegally) to America.  More sadly, progressives must lie and deceive in order to dupe those who choose to follow.  Among the many lies told by Obama at his last press conference, the one that many saw through—justifying their vote for Trump—was about all the jobs created.  The most important indicator of job growth is the labor participation rate; and it is the lowest since the 1970s.

IM:  Speaking of dupes, here is what Hoover said in his 1958 book, Masters of Deceit:

What lesson can we as a society learn from the Party’s methods of recruitment?  Most important, I think, is to realize the Communist Party is attempting to exploit the rise of materialism, irreligion, and lack of faith in our society.  In an era when moral standards have been lowered, when family life has been disrupted, when crime and juvenile delinquency rates are high, communists have tried to set forth a goal—dressed in attractive phrases—that would captivate the longings and hopes of men and women.  They have, in truth, tried to “steal” the nobility, the fervor, the enthusiasm of a free government under God (pp. 107-108).

Old Gadfly:  Thus, concerns about policy are more about the difference in political values.  Certainly Obama’s experience as a community organizer, one-term state senator, a nearly two-year US Senator provided no experience for the type of policy expected at the national level.   Yet, to this day, he enjoys high popularity ratings, despite a mess he leaves behind.  Perhaps Obama’s greatest achievement is the perception of presidential demeanor.  I suspect many on the left see this as an important qualification.  Is demeanor a qualification?

IM:  Comments made on the Access Hollywood bus rankled a lot of folks as conduct unbecoming an American president.

Old Gadfly:  Well?  Are they wrong?

AM:  Trump did not deny the comments, and he apologized for them.  Trump may come across as crass to those on the left, but he comes across as a hero for those who are sick and tired of political correctness.  He comes across as authentic and sincere.

Old Gadfly:  Do you believe Trump followers prefer the naked truth as opposed to a facade?

IM:  I believe good old American patriots who feel good about America and what it stands for represent manly men and womanly women:  those who have avoided or escaped conditioning by the progressive, secular humanist conditioners.

AM:  Those on the left either favored an open socialist, who (in the words of Hoover) “set forth a goal—dressed in attractive phrases—that would captivate the longings and hopes of men and women”; or another socialist in progressive clothing who presented an image of presidential demeanor with actual policy experience.  Those so duped on the left had no interest in the failed policies (Middle East, Libya, Russia, etc.) or corruption associated with illegal email servers and the pay-to-play Clinton Foundation.

AM:  There is no facade with Trump.  What you see is what you get—like most ordinary Americans who believe that all men and women are equal; and who should not be ashamed that they happen to be white or male, a police officer, or a Christian baker that believes in traditional marriage.

IM:  Meanwhile, Hillary and her surrogates will continue to seek ways to make Trump’s presidency illegitimate and to demean, with great contempt, those who share Trump’s values.

Old Gadfly:  With a left-leaning press, many can understand why Trump resorts to his Twitter account.  This is about the only way he can control his own narrative to counter the distorted caricature being painted by his political opponents.  Time will tell whether enough Americans want to preserve our Constitutional Republic, overcome the insidious forces of socialism, and make America great again.

Masters of Deceit

            IM:  Gentlemen, I am reading J. Edgar Hoover’s 1958 book, Masters of Deceit.

Old Gadfly:  I have read it.  What impresses you about it?

   

IM:  It was published nearly 60 years ago by a man who ran the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for 48 years.  Despite attempts to discredit him, he had the most access to criminal and subversive activities going on in America than any other American.  And, while he had tremendous “dirt” on many Americans, sometimes used for political reasons, the book he wrote was not an attempt to assassinate political opponents.  The book presented a case to expose the comprehensive and insidious threat of socialism (and the Communist Party) in America.

 

AM:  During our time of service in the military, Gadfly and I were mostly focused on the external Communist Party threat, mostly from the Soviet Union and China.

Old Gadfly:  I think I know where you are taking us.

IM:  We are witnessing the masters of deceit in full bloom.

AM:  The left is seething at the realization that the working class voted for a capitalist.

IM:  Yes, the left had two candidates, both socialist in their orientation.  Bernie represented the more benevolent Trotskyite version.  Many of Bernie’s followers voted for Trump because he was a non-establishment choice (similar to the anti-czar sentiment of the Bolsheviks).

AM:  It would be difficult to associate Hillary with Stalin.

Old Gadfly:  Think again.  The once upon a time credible bellwether news source, the New York Times, is behaving like Pravda, the Communist Party newspaper.  According to Hoover, “Pravda, the Party newspaper urged drastic measures” (p. 30).  Look at how the New York Times is leading the charge to challenge the Trump election.  Despite the actual damaging content of Wikileaks, allegations are being made that Russia tampered with the elections.  The New York Times leads this charge with the other mainstream media networks following suit.  There is no interest in the veracity and significant implications of the Wikileaks content.  Thus, the “masters of deception” are shifting the focus to “fake news.”

IM:  To demonstrate the brutality of these masters of deception, a close friend of mine did a little research.  Here is what he found.  On July 11, 2016, Seth Conrad Rich, a young Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer, who worked as a voter expansion data director, was found dead with two bullets to the back of the head.  A report of this event was made by a local news network, but was suppressed by other news networks.  The first release from WikiLeaks was July 26, 2016.  At the time WikiLeaks’ owner, Julian Assange, “told NBC News on Monday that ‘there is no proof whatsoever’ that his organization got almost 20,000 hacked Democratic National Committee emails from Russian intelligence —adding it's what's in the emails that's important, not who hacked them.”  But, we are being deluged by the mainstream media that Russia tampered with the election.  If the Director of National Intelligence Clapper supports this narrative without conclusive evidence, then he is demonstrating how easy it is to politicize intelligence.  It is quite disturbing to learn:  “Devin Nunes on Wednesday blasted as ‘unacceptable’ the refusal of the FBI, CIA and National Intelligence directors to brief his panel on the Russian cyber attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign.”  If there is evidence (as opposed to mere allegations) of a Russian attack, then share it with the Congressional oversight committee.  But then again, that might prematurely halt the frenzied news cycle.  It needs to stay at the forefront of narratives until December 18, when Electoral College delegates officially cast their votes.

AM:  Incidentally, recall that at a Congressional hearing, Director Clapper was asked, “Does the National Security Agency spy on Americans?”  He responded, “Not wittingly.”  More important, here is an exclusive report, published yesterday on December 14, 2016, of an individual directly involved with the handoff of DNC emails for Wikileaks publication.  What is not included in the report is the identification of the DNC whistleblower involved—was it Seth Conrad Rich?  This report was from a British publication.  Where is the American interest?

IM:   Let’s summarize.  We have actual evidence of Democrat wrong doing (deception, collusion, and so forth) via Wikileaks.  Assange claims the data came from sources other than Russia.  Then, we have the left, with its minions of politicians, Hollywood dupes, and media mimickers alleging Russia tampered with an election that turned out differently from what they wanted engaged in wolf pack behavior to undermine the Trump election.  Isn’t it a pathetic act of desperation to assault our Electoral College delegates with pleas not to vote for Trump?

Old Gadfly:  Your observations make sense.  But, the even more sinister dynamic is that the left is demonstrating how prescient (and we discussed this in our Why the Protests discussion) Khrushchev was when he prophesied in 1957 (the year before Hoover published Masters of Deceit):

“. . . I can prophesy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.  And please do not be afraid of that.  Your grandchildren will not understand how their grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a socialist society.”

The socialistic left, disguised in progressive clothing, is far from moderating its ideology following this election.  How dare the working class vote for a capitalist—didn’t they get the memo—workers unite?  So, the tactics will continue, and the fight for the American idea (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) must continue as well.

Why the Protests?

            IM:  Gentlemen, why are there anti-Trump protests?

            AM:  Trump threatens their view of life.

            Old Gadfly:  What is it?

            AM:  Progressivism.

            Old Gadfly:  Are you saying Trump opposes progress?

            AM:  No.  He represents values that are contrary to progressivism.

Old Gadfly: Explain.

AM:   Progressivism represents the common good, which is defined by a ruling class and imposed upon the masses by the ruling class.

Old Gadfly:   If the common good is good for everyone, then why is this not something to be advanced by Americans?

AM:  It suffocates the notion of liberty and the pursuit of each individual’s idea of the American dream.  Trump and the Republican Party advance this "common purpose."

IM:  We discussed this in a conversation going into the 2012 Presidential election.  It was based on a dream I had about “dry, parched lips.”

 

AM:  I remember that conversation in Gadfly’s book, The 2012 Contest in America:  Conversations with a Gadfly.  The conversation revisited Dostoevsky’s parable about the Grand Inquisitor, who chastised Jesus Christ for dying on the cross to set people free to make their own choices, good or bad.  The Grand Inquisitor then boasted that people don’t know how to make good choices, thus they need administrators like the Grand Inquisitor to make those choices for them.

IM:  So, we watch the reaction to the Trump election and wonder what is going to happen.  Some progressive friends, with whom I have spoken, believe the protests are spontaneous and reflect fears of an autocracy.  Of course, they mimic the demagoguery of people like Rachel Maddow (for example, see here).  Maddow interviewed Cecil Richards of Planned Parenthood (see here), who observed that “young people are overwhelmingly progressive.”

Old Gadfly:  We’re all about the same age and are Cold War veterans.  In June 1957, speaking to a nationwide television audience in America, Nikita Khrushchev calmly stated:

“. . . I can prophesy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.  And please do not be afraid of that.  Your grandchildren will not understand how their grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a socialist society” (J. Edgar Hoover in Masters of Deceit:  The Story of Communism in America and How to Fight It).

AM: Richards is referring to our grandchildren.  And they are protesting Trump’s election.

IM:  They cannot discern Maddow (and other progressive) propaganda when Trump is called a bigot, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, and so forth.  Trump is opposed to illegal immigration, not immigration.  His wife is an immigrant.  Trump may have said crass words in response to crass words from women.  Little has been said about his campaign manager: a woman.  Trump believes in the Constitution and the rule of law—yet he is to be feared as an autocrat.  Many other examples can be listed to demonstrate how progressives have “painted” a picture that distorts reality.  If progressives are so morally pure, then why must they distort the truth?

AM:  Eric Hoffer, a lifelong longshoreman till retirement at the age of 65, wrote extensively on mass movements and the role propaganda played in them.  He concluded:  “Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.”

 

Old Gadfly:  This describes our progressive grandchildren.  While our parents, the greatest generation, fought against socialism (communism and fascism), our generation failed to recognize the “progressive nature of socialism” and how it took root in America.  We can, however, fight it.  But it will not involve compromise.  Compromise for a progressive does not involve adaptation of their worldview; it mandates capitulation by its opponent.  As I have emphasized numerous times, progressives believe the conservative worldview is not only wrong but immoral.  Progressives do not negotiate with conservatives.  

Irredeemable Greed, Sloth, and Wrath

            IM:  Gentlemen, Hillary Clinton labeled half of Trump supporters as an irredeemable basket of deplorables.  Does this sound like hate speech to you?

            AM:  Absolutely.  Given the nature of the audience to whom she was speaking, she was clearly dividing the American people into those groups that accept secular-humanistic progressive values and social justice against those who subscribe to Judeo-Christian values and the rule of law.  A virtuous diplomat would simply acknowledge contrary values.  But a progressive cannot do this as Schumpeter reminded us Gadfly’s letter to Hillary supporters.  Not only are nonprogressive values wrong, they are immoral.

            IM:  We hear a lot about corruption.  Trump opponents accuse the billionaire of only caring about himself:  not paying contractors, writing off nearly a billion in debt to avoid paying federal taxes for years, declaring bankruptcy multiple times, and demeaning women, and making racist comments.  Meanwhile, Clinton opponents complain that the government has failed to hold her accountable for violating numerous federal statutes as Secretary of State; that the “free press” gives her a pass on incriminating Wikileaks releases about the Clinton foundation; that her “experience” is associated with major failures, not successes; and, that she is committed to continuing the disastrous policies of the past eight years.

            Old Gadfly:  What cardinal sin is at the root of the corruption?

            IM:  There are seven cardinal sins:  lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride.  Of these seven, it appears greed may be the primary sin.  Greed is “the intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.”  Food does not apply in this case, but certainly wealth and power apply for Clinton.  The Clinton Foundation has been a powerful conduit for wealth combined with an unbridled desire for political power.

            Old Gadfly:  Does greed apply to billionaire Trump?

            AM:  Possibly, but I think what motivated Trump more than greed was a desire to build, to create value appreciated by others.

IM:  To reinforce what AM is saying, Clinton’s manifestation of greed is more egregious than Trump’s because the emerging record reveals other behaviors stemming from greed.  Greed is even more egregious when it involves trickery and manipulation of authority.  Clinton’s private server and email scandal combined with the pay to play scheme of the Clinton Foundation are vivid examples.  Thomas Aquinas asserts that greed, like pride, can lead to not some, but all evil.

Old Gadfly: Please expand your argument.

IM:   Take sloth for instance.  According to the dictionary, sloth is, “the absence of interest or habitual disinclination to exertion.”  Clinton, and other progressives, counts on a lack of interest in facts or the truth.  Once they have convinced their followers that their progressive agenda will make life better, they submit to this notion and refuse to exert themselves in seeking truth, especially in regard to their moral obligation to “plant good seeds.”  Planting good seeds means being responsible for oneself and a good neighbor and citizen.  Progressivism’s indentured classes, conditioned by the ruling class conditioners, prefer to take from a benevolent government.

AM:  In Jesus’ parable of the Tares (Matthew 13:  24-30), it seems that when a seed has been sown, we must be watchful of those who would threaten those good seeds with weeds.  I wonder if this is the essence of the abortion issue.  A child within a mother’s womb is such a seed.  Then, evil forces like Planned Parenthood choke out that seed, even up to the moment prior to delivery.  The Very Reverend John Lankeit recently provided a thoughtful homily on this subject.  Watch it here.

Old Gadfly:   Trump is pro-life.  Do you think he is interested in saving the lives of those who do not plant seeds?

IM:  Yes.  He’s inclusive.  This is his vision for making America great again.  That’s why he is reaching out to everyone, including victims of the Democrat-run inner-cities.  His vision is an America guided by the moral vision in our Declaration of Independence; an America governed by a limited government that acknowledges its limited power is delegated by the people; an America with revitalized institutions of a Constitutional Republic that empowers citizens (legal citizens) to achieve their American dream; an America where law-abiding citizens embrace their civil responsibilities in promoting peace and prosperity.

Old Gadfly:  So, now we see examples of greed and sloth.  Are there other sins?

IM:  Yes.  Wrath.  Trump opponents claim his speech is hateful by addressing illegal immigrants and Islamic refugees from the Middle East, by promoting a pro-live position viewed by progressives as contradictory to a woman’s reproductive rights, by pushing for tax reductions viewed as taking money away from those who need it, and so forth.  Trump supporters would argue that Trump’s anger in these cases is to protect justice by enforcing the rule of law and to protect the innocent from those who would impose their values contrary to Judeo-Christian values.  Clinton, on the other hand, has utter contempt for any who believe differently—her basket of irredeemable deplorables.  Clinton is the Pharisee while Trump is the tax collector in another parable (Luke:  18:  9-14).

 

AM:  As Clinton mentioned in one of her Wall Street speeches (discovered through the Wikileaks releases), she has a public position and a private position on matters (harkens back to the manipulative dimension of greed).  Today, at a campaign stop in Iowa, Clinton boasted about her composure during four and a half hours of debate with Trump.  This is her public demeanor.  A rare example of Clinton’s wrath out of public view was captured by an NBC crew that witnessed it after the Matt Lauer interview on national security.  Bill Still, a former newspaper editor and journalist presented evidence from an eyewitness source.  View the report here.

Old Gadfly:  Is Hillary redeemable?

IM:  I don’t know.

AM:  Probably not.

Old Gadfly:  I think we must believe all are redeemable.  But that requires a desire to seek the truth about ourselves and the world we live in.  Albert Camus’ novel, The Fall, was about a lawyer’s reflective attempt at seeking truth and coming to grips with cardinal sins.  I forget how it ended.     

Dear Hillary Supporter

If you can read this and have an open mind, then there is hope . . . please read the following.

Congratulations on your impending achievement.  If Hillary is elected, it will place America on the threshold of Orwell’s 1984.  How’s that for progress on behalf of the progressive movement?

Progressivism is socialism.  Throughout the recent past, socialism endeavored to defeat its opponent:  advocates of individual liberty, limited government, and a free market. Socialists believe in collective liberty, a strong central government in the form of statism, and a government-controlled economy.  As the evidence of history tells us, socialism is not sustainable.  It inevitably morphs into in the form of communism or fascism (yes, that’s right—fascism is a far left manifestation of left of center socialism).

Have you wondered why the left-of-center modern liberal now prefers to be called a progressive?  It’s a seductive term.  Many of my good friends who claim to be progressive think it means an advocate for progress, a better education, a better quality of life, and so forth.  Progress in this case is a noun.  American progressives believe in progress as a verb, to progress toward utopia this side of eternity, which is very consistent with Marxist socialism.  Nobel prize-winner Joseph Schumpeter shared this observation in his book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy: 

In one important sense, Marxism is a religion.  To the believer it presents, first, a system of ultimate ends that embody the meaning of life and are absolute standards by which to judge events and actions [e.g., the anthropomorphic explanation for climate change]; and, secondly, a guide to those ends which implies a plan of salvation and the indication of the evil from which mankind, or a chosen section of mankind, is to be saved.  We may specify still further:  Marxist socialism also belongs to that subgroup which promises paradise on this side of the grave (1950, p. 5).

To drive home the religious essence of Marxist socialism, Schumpeter went on to say:

The religious quality of Marxism also explains a characteristic attitude of the orthodox Marxist toward opponents.  To him, as to any believer in a Faith, the opponent is not merely in error but in sin.  Dissent is disapproved of not only intellectually but morally.  There cannot be any excuse for it once the Message has been revealed (1950, p. 5).

So, is there any evidence of this thinking in America?  Absolutely!  Let me offer some examples.

First, progressives, starting with Ted Kennedy, pushed for open borders with the assumption that the Democrat Party would win over more constituents thanks to generous government subsidies.  When the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona attempted to enforce federal laws dealing with illegal immigrants, he was sued for this by Obama’s Justice Department.  In this case, it is a sin to enforce federal law.  Many of these illegal immigrants ended up in inner cities run by Democrats-- modern slave plantations.

Second, Dinesh D’Souza, a legal immigrant from India and naturalized American citizen is now a felon without the right to vote.  D’Souza’s mistake?  He contributed more than the law allowed to a political campaign—in the range of $20,000 above the limit.  The candidate was a friend and there was no quid pro quo.  This contribution pales when looking at the millions of dollars given to campaigns of other candidates.  Check out the millions to Clinton’s campaign at OpenSecrets.org.    But, this was not D’Souza’s real crime.  His crime was exercising his First Amendment right to criticize Democrats and the Obama regime.  In his book, Hillary’s America:  The Secret History of the Democratic Party, D’Souza said:

   … I spent eight months in overnight captivity [federal prison in San Diego, CA] for my sins against the Obama administration.  My crime was exceeding the campaign finance laws by giving $20,000 over the campaign finance limit to a college pal of mine who was running for the U.S. Senate.  I didn’t do it to get anything in return; I did it simply to help an old friend.  For this, I found myself at the receiving end of the full force of the U.S. government.

But, since no one in American history has been prosecuted—let alone incarcerated—for doing what I did, I should be allowed to suspect that my real crime was in exposing President Obama in my film 2016:  Obama’s America and my books The Roots of Obama’s Rage and Obama’s America.  Obama hated my film, vituperatively attacking it on his website barackobama.com, and a few months later, the FBI was knocking on my door (2016, p. 23).

Third, when Catherine Engelbrecht applied to the IRS for 501c(3) status for her organization, True the Vote, she was harassed by not only the IRS, but four other federal agencies.  See her testimony here.  This case was related to a full throated effort by the IRS to suppress the conservative voice.  Lois Learner of the IRS pleaded the Fifth Amendment and destroyed evidence.  She has since retired with a full federal pension.

Fourth, the progressive’s new religion, climate change, is justification for a modern inquisition.  Democratic attorneys general now seek prosecution of those who are “nonbelievers” or deniers.  It is inconsequential that these deniers acknowledge climate change.  The sin is that they disagree with the science in terms of causes (i.e., anthropomorphic related to the use of fossil fuels).  For background on the case against Exxon Mobile see here.

Fifth, many Democrats have no problem lying, denying, or engaging in any other means of obfuscation.  Clinton was a staff member of the Democrat-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee that investigated Watergate and pushed for impeachment of Richard Nixon.  This was a great victory for the Democrat Party—the party of intellectual and moral superiority.  We have since learned that Clinton was fired for dishonest practices.  But, this is nothing compared to the broader collusion that took place among political partisans within the judiciary.  A recent book by Geoff Shepard, The Real Watergate Scandal:  Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot that Brought Nixon Down, builds a disturbing case based on newly released documents of illegal collusion.  Prosecutors colluded with judges (trial and appellate) to deny Nixon and his aides due process under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.  This was payback.  As Shepard argues, it was Nixon, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee that led the investigation and eventual prosecution of Alger Hiss for spying.  This action inflamed east coast Democrats because, not only was Hiss a member of the Harvard club, he was also a darling of the Democrat Party.  But, since the Watergate scandal took place over 40 years ago, Hillary supporters would be inclined to say, “What difference does it make?”

Sixth, dirty tricks that are either illegal or bordering on illegal are fully condoned by Democrats.  For a disturbing example, view a Project Veritas investigative piece here.  As expected here is the reaction from the White House.  This is consistent with the pattern to diminish the truth revealed in other investigations, such as selling baby body parts under the umbrella of Planned Parenthood.  Snopes, in an attempt to debunk the credibility of Project Veritas by citing liberal media sources, does not refute any of the evidence provided in their investigations.  Lie, deny, obfuscate.  Trump is demonized for locker room banter 11 years ago.  He did not deny it and apologized for it.

Seventh, while the mainstream media only acknowledges Wikileaks references about the Clinton Foundation, there is much more to be understood.  Peter Schweizer presents disturbing evidence of pay for play in his book Clinton Cash.  The book is summarized in a free, hour-long documentary here.
  
          Finally, the progressive media intentionally distorts reality—similar to scenes in Orwell’s 1984.  Perhaps one of the most egregious images was the one created to make it look like Trump was mocking a disabled reporter.  This is not what happened.  With a little research, the truth paints a completely different picture.  See the evidence here.  Or, the media downplays reality as a shield for their progressive champion.  Wikileaks reveals the real story in this case, where, on behalf of Clinton, Podesta explained how progressives infiltrated the Catholic Church with “supposed Catholic organizations.”  Read a disturbing summary of these efforts here.

I could go on and on.  But, hopefully this is enough to appeal to your capacity to reason.  Progressives claim to be open-minded.  Yet, when confronted with facts contrary to their preferred narrative, they typically will not take the time to examine them.  So, they tend to be mired in myth and folklore created by the progressive conditioners that have sufficiently conditioned them.  C. S. Lewis wrote about this dynamic in The Abolition of Man.

If you are one of the few with an open mind to have gotten this far and still support Hillary after reading these arguments, I can only conclude that you are so thoroughly duped that you are beyond recognizing the truth; or that you don’t care about the truth; or, that you are as corrupt as Hillary and beyond redemption.  If Hillary gets elected, may God have mercy on all of us for allowing a once Judeo-Christian grounded America to slouch into a secular-humanistic and tyrannical oligarchy.