Hints of Totalitarianism

by

Gadfly

           What is totalitarianism?  The Oxford dictionary defines it as “a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.  Wikipedia provides a more comprehensive description:

Totalitarianism is a political system or a form of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life.  It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism.  Political power in totalitarian states has often been held by autocrats which employ all-encompassing propaganda campaigns broadcast by state-controlled mass media.

  

Examples of autocrats are V. I. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-Sung, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro.


           America’s political left wants us to believe President Donald J. Trump is such an autocrat and thus a threat to America and the rest of the free world.  After all, the left (i.e., House Democrats) impeached him without a single Republican vote last night.  No crimes were listed in the charges, just abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.  Technically and more precisely, the obstruction was resistance to the abuse of power by the Democrat Party.  The effort was so overwhelming and compelling, by Democrat standards, that the Speaker is now considering not sending the articles of impeachment to the Republican-controlled Senate unless she and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer can dictate the terms for the trial.  Of course, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the majority of Republicans in the Senate do not find the Democrat case for impeachment to be enough, let alone appropriate, for exercising the power of impeachment.
  

Despite three years of investigations and propaganda by the left, they still believe “the evidence to support what they want to believe is still yet to be found.”  Like true totalitarians, they also believe only one Party should be in control.  As Douglas Hyde (author of I Believed) and other Communist Party members clearly believed, it was the company line that mattered—facts did not need to get in the way.

As most will recall, from day one, President Trump was assaulted by leaks and anonymous sources in series after series of articles critical of his personality and agenda.  This phenomenon is not unique.  It has been tried and tested by ideologues for a long time, especially Marxists.  A former member of the American Communist Party and editor of the Daily Worker, Louis Francis Budenz explained how these tactics were used in his book The Techniques of Communism, published in 1954  Here is a lengthy excerpt (for its historical significance and for the extent of ideological infiltration) from the Chapter, “The Role of the Communist Press” (Note:  Budenz’s mention of “conspiracy” refers to Communist infiltration):

There is one practice of the Communist press which must be known if we are properly to appraise what it is up to.  It is the accumulation of a series of articles around a given subject.  It is used at times in order to cover up the Communist designs in vague phraseology, these being clarified and made definite by articles which follow up on the same topic.  The Communist functionary has this constantly in mind, and of course reads all Communist material as a whole.  It is only by doing as he does that the full content of certain official directives can be intelligently studied.

When in 1936, the American Politburo decided to support Franklin D. Roosevelt for president, the announcement was not made bluntly, and most of the country did not know that this was the Communist policy.  The official Red declarations accomplished this purpose by saying a few words critical of Roosevelt and then assaulting his opponents—the Liberty League and the “Hearst-McCormick-Patterson axis”—as “Fascists” and enemies of American liberties.  In accompanying articles, both in The Communist and in the Daily Worker, rising to higher tones of stridency as the campaign went on, the denunciations became centered entirely on the president’s opponents.  In this wise, concealed Communists in all sorts of organizations did everything in their power for the election of Mr. Roosevelt, swaying hundreds of thousands to favor him.  The sole cause for this attitude was that Moscow had divined that Mr. Roosevelt would be more favorable than his opponents to saving Soviet Russia from the Hitlerite regime which the Communists had helped to create.  But, as is always the Communist custom and as the CIO committees state in their findings against Red-ruled unions, this real object of the fifth column was hidden in a welter of charges against Roosevelt’s opposition on domestic issues.

And so in 1953, the “Resolution on the Situation Growing Out of Presidential Elections,” issued by the National Committee in February and July, 1953, would be almost unintelligible were it not for the articles in Political Affairs accompanying the resolution.  Without those articles, it could be seen that the Communists (taking advantage of the Trojan Horse policy in Moscow) plan to penetrate anew the Democratic and Republican parties.  This could be understood from the conclusion that the two-party system is still strongly entrenched in the United States and that the Communists must recognize this reality.  It could be gleaned from the statements indicating that “McCarthyism” is the main menace and that “pressure” must be exercised on certain politicians to combat this danger to the conspiracy.  It could be caught sight of in the declaration that “the masses” still cling to the Democratic Party, and that the Communists must not remain aloof from “the masses.”  But the official resolution becomes more sharply understandable in reading two concurrent articles, “Labor and the Democratic Party” and “The Anatomy of McCarthyism.”  From the former I must repeat what I have quoted earlier in this chapter: “The left today in any event needs urgently to reacquaint itself with the real situation in the local and state Democratic parties (and in many areas the Republican party).”  There is also instruction for “the left forces in the CIO and AF of L (as well as in independent unions) to explore new possibilities for united labor action in the legislative and electoral field.”  All of this is for the purpose of advancing in a “pro-peace direction” (that is, in the “peace direction” which Moscow desires) and to compel large sections of the Democratic party to speak out “for an all-out struggle against McCarthy and his crowd.”

From the second contribution, we learn definitely: “The immediate and broadest rallying ground in the struggle for democratic liberties in the fight against McCarthyism.  This means the fight against Joe McCarthy the individual, against each and every McCarthyite—the Jenners, Veldes, and McCarrans—and against all manifestations of McCarthyism.”  This fight is to take place everywhere, but particularly “in the political field.”  (For an intelligent examination of this matter, consult Political Affairs for June and July, 1953.)

From these directives, it is plain that the Soviet fifth column in mid-1953 planned to penetrate the Democratic party (especially its “liberal” wing, to which definite reference is made) and also areas of the Republican party.  The objective of this penetration was to halt all effective action against the conspiracy, which is labeled “McCarthyism,” and even to punish anyone who would dare oppose the conspiracy.  How far the Communists plan to go is exemplified by an editorial in the Daily Worker of July 30, 1953, entitled: “Expel the Stool Pigeons.”  This declaration demands nothing less than the discharge from his position of any person daring to testify at Congressional inquiries or elsewhere against the Soviet fifth column.  This bears out the contention that many of those who cry out about “academic freedom” and “civil liberties” in defense of the Communists, in the majority of cases have no interest in these topics.  They are bound by their Communist viewpoint that the civil liberties of all non-Communists must be destroyed.  They are bound immediately by the Daily Worker directives that all those acting against the conspiracy must be deprived of a livelihood.

In addition to the official publications mentioned, the Communists have built up auxiliary magazines and newspapers in the United States, as they do in all other countries.  One of the best known of these in the U.S.A. is Masses and Mainstream, published for the intellectuals at the same address at which Political Affairs is published.  Another pro-Stalinite voice, with considerable influence, is Science and Society, a quarterly devoted to the Marxist interpretation of higher intellectual subjects.  A number of foreign language dailies and weeklies, issued in almost every immigrant tongue, reach out into the “language communities,” and follow the line laid down by the Daily Worker. On the West coast is issued the Peoples World, a localized edition of the Red daily organ published in New York.  The Daily Freiheit, issued in the Yiddish language, is the second largest Red organ in circulation, after the Daily Worker, and is edited and printed in the same building with that paper.

Through these many channels, the Communist Party is able to transmit Moscow’s orders in the most diversified and speediest fashion.  By the uniformity of line which is established, and the readiness with which this line goes out of the Communist press into other journals, the publications under Moscow’s control are among the most powerful in this country.  They have not yet had the effect they had hoped for among “the backward masses,” for the man in the street in this country has shown an instinctive abhorrence for the Communist cause and its line which many others, far better educated, might well have imitated. The strength of the Red press, it must be repeated, lies in moving concealed Communists and their allies to prevail upon non-Communist organizations to speak out for the Kremlin’s position at any given time (pp. 146-149).

There are three major take-aways from this excerpt.  First, unlike the recent impeachment whistleblower, Budenz relates first-hand experience.  Second, Communists clearly backed and campaigned for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who ushered in today’s monolithic administrative state (the centralization of power and its extreme control over public—i.e., the emasculation of President Trump—and private life through excessive regulatory control that Trump is working to reduce).  Third, what we know of McCarthyism is more folklore than fact, thanks in no small part to the propaganda campaign waged by American Communists in concert with Democrats.  For more on this, read M. Stanton Evans book, Blacklisted by History:  The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy.  Evans threads together substantial documentary evidence to show significant collaboration between Communists and Democrats to thwart McCarthy’s effort to prove significant Communist infiltration (conspiracy) of American institutions.  American Communists are still at work.  They thrive today, see my article The Socialist Infiltration of America.

One other take-away not obvious from the above excerpt is that, while the centralized Communist line went away with the dissolution of the Communist International in Moscow, the Marxist ideology and its organizational and communications infrastructure are still in place.  The ideology is the organizing principle, much like militant Islamism. 

As I have written elsewhere (see for example America’s Dreyfus Affair), hatred and contempt are critical features of a political movement such as America’s current progressive movement (clearly Marxist by its manifested nature).  The means are in support of achieving ultimate political power.  The left fully expected to win the American presidential election in 2016.  We are learning more and more about the immoral means used to achieve it.  Then, there was the Mueller investigation.  When that failed, the left manufactured another means—impeachment.  I suspect Comrade, correction, Speaker Pelosi never read Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism.  Arendt explained how the Dreyfus Affair signaled the hatred and contempt that contributed to the conditions for the emergence of totalitarianism.

Many Republicans and the general public (the “backward masses” Budenz cites above) have seen enough over the past three years to truly understand that what President Trump believed, with his Make America Great Again agenda, is the importance of restoring our Constitutional Republic as a critical measure to prevent totalitarian urges by the left.

            

A Democracy If You Can Keep It

by

Gadfly

           Oops.  Didn’t Franklin say, “A Republic if you can keep it”?  Yes, he did.
  

Then why do so many say that President Trump is a threat to our democracy?  Even Chris Wallace from Fox News argued for a free press to protect our democracy.

The problem with the public drama surrounding the political removal of a duly elected president is that it is compelled by distortion of the truth—some deliberate, some likely from ignorance.  Either way, there is no justification for it.  I’ll use two major examples to rebuke this concerted scheme (in vogue now by Democrats):  democracy versus a republic and foreign influence.

Democracy versus Republic

There appears to be a complete disregard or obliviousness to the distinction between a democracy and a republic.  Despite our Framers being frequently cited in current rhetoric, our Framers were explicit about their disdain of democracy.  Therefore, they formed a Constitutional Republic. Federalist 10 explains this rationale.  Furthermore, in the 1840s, Alexis de Tocqueville cautioned about the inevitability of tyranny and despotism in a democracy.

  

Despite clear and unequivocal intent by our Framers, there are two major forces that have emasculated our Republic.

  

Secularization

A set of political movements have influenced a loss of American affiliation with religion.  The left advances secular values that are contrary to religious values, especially Judeo-Christian.  A reduction in religious affiliation has led to moral relativism, which enables immorality from a religious perspective.

  

Former Bill Clinton has been in the news due to his own impeachment experience.  Most focus on the perjury charge as not rising to the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors.  He lied to a grand jury about engaging in sexual behavior with someone other than his wife.  Most of Clinton’s supporters would tell us that the sexual behavior is a private matter and of no concern.  Yet, the behavior was with a much younger intern, in the Oval Office no less.

  

Based on Department of Defense zero-tolerance policy, I witnessed the firing of a commander, a full bird colonel, for tolerating sexual harassment.  In this case, the commander was present in a bar-room setting among members of his unit when another person told a joke that offended the individual who filed the complaint.  Aware of the President’s behavior, many of our military personnel were perplexed by the apparent double standard, especially when the behaviors were so starkly contrasted—one involved a bystander to a risqué joke in a bar, the other an adulterous activity with a much younger subordinate in the Oval Office.

     

John Adams famously said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The Administrative State

The other major force is the ubiquitousness of the Administrative State.  Our Constitution was designed to limit powers at the national level.  Yet, specific powers delineated to the three separate branches of government have passed to an unelected and mostly unaccountable bureaucracy.

  

Hillsdale College provides a tremendous public service by providing online courses at no cost to the general public.  One of those courses is Constitution 101.  Lesson 10 addresses the Administrative State.  Here is the overview for the lesson:

  

The modern administrative state transformed the American republic into an oligarchy. Today, an elite and insular administrative class rules without the consent of American citizens. Moreover, administrative rule is both anti-constitutional and pre-constitutional, because it replaces the rule of law with unaccountable regulatory agencies.

The trillions of public debt and unfunded liabilities closely correlate with the growth of the Administrative State.  Moreover, corporate cronyism and welfare contribute to the oligarchic nature of America’s system of governance.  The original understanding of our Constitution provided for a republic that would have been resistant, and far less vulnerable, to the corrupting powers enabled by democracy and now manifested as an oligarchy.

Foreign Influence


           Democrats accuse President Trump of engaging in efforts to meddle in elections through foreign influence.  They allege Trump leveraged critical military aid in order to pressure the new Ukrainian President to get dirt on a political opponent in the 2020 election.  How do they know?  They base it on two narratives:  one by the so-called whistleblower and one by a dramatic performance by Congressman Adam Schiff.  This is called framing, and George Lakoff (a progressive UC-Berkeley professor) is a master at how to do this.  As he asserts, it is the frame that matters, if facts fit, great; if not, the facts are irrelevant.  This is obvious when comparing the whistleblower and Schiff “frame” with the actual transcript of the telephone call.
   

Democrats pontificate that our Framers were extremely sensitive to the threat of foreign influence in our presidential elections.  A review of The Federalist Papers (the authoritative rationale for our Constitution) reveals a different story.  There are multiple mentions of foreign influence.  None address concerns that a president might seek foreign influence in elections.  Only one—Federalist 68--relates to foreign influence in a presidential election.  It explains how the Electoral College mitigates this threat.  Yet, Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College.  Other Papers—3, 5, 7, 43, and 48--explain how a republic over a looser democratic confederation reduces the threat of foreign influence.  More significantly, other Papers—16, 22, 55, 59, and 75—argue how easy it is for foreign influence on corrupt government officials, such as members of Congress and its staff.  Therefore, a republic, with an executive elected by the Electoral College, is superior to a parliamentary democracy.

The current Democrat impeachment effort, complete with its lack of legitimacy regarding an impeachable offense, fully intends to emasculate the executive—in terms of enforcing the law of the land (i.e., Biden bribery) and advancing foreign policy—is a clear scheme to meddle in the 2020 presidential election.  Fortunately, polls are reflecting that the public sees through this scheme.

Getting through this chapter is not enough.  We cannot simply be content with winning the current impeachment contest.  The impeachment represents a symptom of far greater issues that stem from deviating from the essence of a Constitutional Republic.  We must restore our Constitutional Republic, enabled and fortified by a moral and religious people.    

Political Malarkey

by

Gadfly

 

           Former Vice President Joe Biden has launched his current campaign in a bus with “No Malarkey” boldly painted on its sides.  What is malarkey?  “Meaningless talk; nonsense.”  Park this thought as we process yesterday’s (December 4, 2019) Congressional malarkey with four constitutional scholars serving as instruments for their drama.

           Since Democrats are the majority, they chose to bring three scholars for testimony:  Noah Feldman, Pamela Karlan, and Michael Gerhardt.  Republicans were allowed only one, a self-proclaimed Democrat who did not vote for President Trump:  Jonathan Turley.  All three Democrat scholars spoke passionately about the justification for impeachment.  The Republican scholar dispassionately argued that there is insufficient evidence, that the current case is merely inferential from circumstantial evidence when it could be much stronger (or weaker) based on knowable facts.  Turley also cautioned against setting a dangerous precedent for justifying future impeachments regardless of the Party involved.

           Do the math.  Three scholars adamantly voted for impeachment.  One said we don’t know enough to impeach.  Three to one in favor of impeachment.  Does this look like a kangaroo court?  Similar displays were called show trials in the Joseph Stalin era.  His chief of Soviet security and secret police apparatus, Lavrentiy Beria, acted on this maxim:  “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”  Sound familiar?  For another treatment of this subject see “The Syllogism of a Political Coup.”

           Today, Speaker Pelosi committed the House to impeachment:  “Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and our heart full of love for America, today, I am asking our chairmen to proceed with articles of impeachment.”  “Sad?”  “With humility?”  “With allegiance to our founders?”  “Our heart full of love for America?”  Pure rhetoric does not match actual actions.  Nor does it reveal actual motivations. 

           With such an ambiguous case, following a very unjust process, why would Pelosi press forward?  There are only three ways to remove a president:  ballot box, assassination, or impeachment.  So far, polls are in Trump’s favor for election.  Attempts to assassinate Trump’s image by a complicit and mendacious press are not having the intended effect on polls.  Thus, impeachment remains the only option so far.  If political power is the goal, then impeachment is the only “no malarkey” action available.  They know the Senate is not likely to convict and then remove the President, but the scorched earth tactic is the only one left to damage the President (and the 60+ million who voted for him, which is half of America).

           Meanwhile, in their strategy to generate emotional sentiment based on a clearly scripted presentation, Democrats invoked quotes by George Washington about foreign interference.  In his Farewell Address (see here for an analysis of the Address), Washington cautioned about America’s vulnerability to foreign entanglements and domestic factions (“domestic enemies”).  Washington wanted to avoid the insidious corruption that could threaten America’s independence, liberty, and republicanism.  Ironically, while President Trump was being presidential at a NATO summit (putting NATO member nations on notice to fulfill their financial obligations), members of America’s opposing political party held a public impeachment hearing (while the cat is away, the mice will play; or how about if left to their own devices, inmates will run the prison).  A video of Canadian and European leaders making fun of President Trump went viral and was immediately exploited by no malarkey Joe Biden in political adds saying other foreign leaders laugh at our leader.

           Think about it:  A manifest fear of Washington’s is now apparent as Trump is being impeached by an opposing political party for attempting to disentangle America from a foreign entanglement, one for which he and members of his political orbit have been unjustly accused and punished by elected Democrats, members of an unelected deep state, and an unabashedly biased media.  This is a never ending America’s Dreyfus Affair. 

           As a successful businessman, President Trump knows malarkey and profit do not mix.  This is a major reason he uses Twitter in a no malarkey manner.  Moreover, as a private citizen who never previously ran for public office, Trump has not undergone the political transformation that seeks power over principle.

           George Washington was even more concerned about domestic enemies of our Republic in the form of political faction.  This concern was also emphasized in Federalist Paper Number 10, which explained the mortal disease of faction and thus the reason for a republic as opposed to a democracy.  Yet, how many times did we hear elected officials refer to America as a democracy?  Too many.

           Those engaged in the impeachment effort, especially those who summon the wisdom of Washington, demonstrate their malarkey because their actions are contrary to Washington’s caution about the insidiousness of a faction-based despotism.  Here is what Washington said:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

           How prescient was Washington?  Look at today’s political map of America and geographical discriminations are obvious:  East and West coasts versus the Midwest; urban versus rural.  Compound this distribution with the current push to eliminate the Electoral College, and we risk losing our Republic and ushering in a popular form of democracy.  As Washington cautioned, this popular form enables “the alternate domination of one faction over another” inclining “minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”  Then the “chief of some prevailing faction . . . turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”  Examples in recent history include FDR and Obama.  Building on Obama’s record, Hillary Clinton took down Bernie Sanders and attempted to do the same for her political rival, Donald Trump.

             Democrats established credibility for their case by parading three constitutional scholars in front of the camera.  None of them were “fact” witnesses.  They merely offered opinions about allegations of crimes.  Allegations are not facts.  Almost exclusively, they use accusations in the whistleblower report as the premises (or predicates) for criminal behavior, even though a close reading of the actual telephone transcript reveals a completely different picture.  They would prefer to “create the truth” (thanks to the Schiff coordinated whistleblower report) when they could easily (and disappointingly) “discover the truth” from fact witnesses, such as the whistleblower.

           The Democrat puppet handlers know that a cross examination of the whistleblower would quickly reveal the corrupt web of conspirators that are opposed to Trump’s agenda; so, they have shielded him (even though his identity has already been revealed).  Democrats be careful what you wish for:  If Trump is impeached, the Republican-controlled Senate might put on public display witness testimony that will more completely reveal the extent and depth of the deep state.  Moreover, Democrat success in the 2018 midterms counted on the pending Mueller investigation and lies about Republicans wanting to eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions.  This type of deception may only work for Party affiliates already comfortable with their delusions.

           And even when they attempted to offer analogies, the constitutional scholars perpetuated false information.  For example, Feldman said “Nixon sent burglars” to the Democratic National Headquarters.  Facts contradict this allegation (a “presumed” allegation that served as a predicate for impeachment; it was a myth along with the famous “Nixon is an unindicted coconspirator”).  John Dean directed the effort without Nixon’s knowledge.  Dean then orchestrated the cover-up before offering himself up as a prosecution witness with immunity.

           Nixon had just won reelection in a huge landslide.  What would motivate him to do something illegal or unethical for personal gain?  Nixon trusted Dean and unwittingly played into his machinations.  The best source for what actually happened is in Len Colodny’s book Silent Coup:  The Removal of a President (John Dean, Bob Woodward, and The Washington Post unsuccessfully sued Colodny and St. Martin’s Press to keep the book unpublished and out of the public domain.  Colodny donated his archive of interviews and documents to Texas A&M, accessible here.)  A 1991 interview on the first release of the book is available here.  Trump has had to deal with his own corrupt staff, many of whom he inherited from the previous administration.

           Why is this important?  Trump is confronted by a political faction that is loyal to its own progressive ideology—an ideology that is not consistent with the values Trump represents.  This faction accuses Trump of abuse of power even though those who support him believe he is simply fulfilling promises made in his election campaign.  This political faction (a domestic enemy) expresses outrage when they cite President Trump making statements like, “I can do anything I want.”  What they cannot comprehend is that he makes this claim with the confidence of a voter mandate to act on his agenda while also understanding the limits of his Constitutional authority.  On the other hand, Speaker Pelosi, the “chief of her party” may not make similar statements, but clearly acts as if she can do anything she wants (like conducting foreign policy overseas), even when no Republicans support her call for impeachment.  Is she really doing this for America?  Or is she doing it for political gain?

           Americans are smart enough to see through the deception and machinations.  What do Democrats offer going into the 2020 election?  Mostly costly programs that would immensely add to our national debt and additional encroachments on individual liberty in the interest of social justice.  Yet, from a more spiritual perspective, Democrats (a) divide America through memes such as the privileged versus the oppressed, (b) promote unscientific confusion about gender, and (c) advance values (e.g., abortion and same-sex marriage) that are contrary to our Judeo-Christian tradition.  Here again, Democrats would be well-served to summon more of George Washington’s wisdom:

      Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

           Yesterday, Winthrop was mentioned a couple times for his speech about America being “the city upon a hill.”  Yet, the collective actions by her fellow Democrats do not seem to spring from the same inspiration.

           Democrats now have two “no malarkey” chiefs further dividing America.  Both are Catholic.  In Vice President Biden’s case, for advancing political policies contrary to Catholic doctrine communion was denied by a “no malarkey” South Carolina priest.  In Speaker Pelosi’s case, she chastised a reporter for suggesting she hates President Trump, explaining this is not possible because she was raised a Catholic.  Yet, she openly supports abortion and same-sex marriage—not to mention doing nothing to alleviate the poverty and homelessness in her San Francisco district.

           As a Catholic, I truly appreciate the importance of grace as the divine inspiration of the heart.  Even the Sacrament of Reconciliation is an opportunity to receive grace when reflecting upon our immoral thoughts and actions, such as, in my case, feeling despair about the left’s concerted efforts to violate everything Washington advanced in his Farewell Address.

           Under President Trump, our economy is lifting all boats big and small.  Trump’s push to deregulate removes unwanted encroachments on individual liberty.  His America first foreign policy is exactly what George Washington encouraged.  Even though he is called a racist, misogynist, and so forth, his policies have benefitted everyone.  Even though he is accused of acting “above the law,” he is actually enforcing the law.  Although Democrats hypocritically invoke the wisdom of Washington in their rhetoric, President Trump is exemplifying the wisdom in his actions.

           What kind of person or faction did T.S. Eliot have in mind when he wrote “The Hollow Men”?  Certainly, the theme applies to those afflicted with malarkey. 

Narrative Post-Mortem

by

Gadfly

          
Well, Democrats have competed their public hearings.  From Chairman Schiff’s perspective, there is clear evidence President Trump violated his Constitutional oath by abusing the power of his office to achieve a quid pro quo with the newly elected President of Ukraine—that is, to condition military aid and/or an Oval Office visit in order to get dirt on a political opponent.  In the process, Chairman Schiff (and other Democrats) kept emphasizing no one is above the law.

After an event such as the Democrat-controlled “impeachment inquiry,” it can be instructive to do a post-mortem drill, essentially “walking it back” to see how outcomes might have been different.

Let’s start with the notion that the former Vice President Joe Biden was not a candidate for the office of the President in 2020.  This fact then would eliminate the meme that Biden was a political opponent.  Thus, the argument that aid or an Oval Office visit in return for dirt on a political opponent would be irrelevant.  What then would constitute a quid pro quo?

If Biden were not a presidential candidate, would Democrats understand the rationale for investigating Burisma and his son (and possibly himself for any possible government influence)? 

Another consideration:  while many wonder about Biden’s motivation for running, was his entry an attempt to make him above the law?

Republicans never considered Trump’s request to include “dirt on a 2020 political opponent.”  Their understanding, clearly supported by language in the July 25 telephone transcript, was that President Trump wanted to follow up on evidence that Ukraine was somehow involved in getting dirt on candidate Trump during the 2016 election.  In addition to this, there was clear evidence that the former Vice President was actually involved in shielding Burisma and Hunter Biden from corruption investigations by the Ukrainians.  Frankly, the approach was by definition a bribe because a billion in loans were tied to the firing of the prosecutor looking into corruption by Burisma (and son Hunter).  Amazingly, Democrats saw no reason to pursue this apparent crime by the number two most powerful person in America ostensibly because Biden is officially a candidate for President in the 2020 elections.  This seems to be justification for making an exception that no one is above the law, even though there was no outrage by Democrats for the past three years when the left pulled out all the stops to “find dirt” and to prove Trump collusion with Russia.

Democrats would lead us to believe that President Trump pursued investigations for personal gain.  There is no doubt that President Trump is especially sensitized to the fallout of efforts to first prevent his election and then other efforts to deny his legitimacy as a duly elected President.  This is certainly an injustice that needs to be remedied and would no doubt vindicate the President.  But justice is not a personal benefit per se. 

In the longer run, “the big things” President Trump emphasizes (according to Ambassador Sondland) and that the little people at the National Security Council and State Department snobbishly trivialize represent the legitimacy of the institutions of our Constitutional Republic.  This is something many of those who testify on behalf of the impeachment inquiry either fail to understand or lack the capacity to understand.  America is not a democracy.  It is a Republic.  President Trump clearly intends to identify and cut out the cancer of faction that Madison warns us about in Federalist Paper 10 and emphasizes as the justification for a republic over a democracy.  

President Trump asked for a favor from another head of state.  How would Democrats have worded the exchange to avoid the appearance of quid pro quo?  The fact of the matter is that ALL aid to foreign nations is connected to conditions.  In this case, the unelected bureaucracy is coming across as “the woman scorned” because President Trump did not mimic their talking points. Imagine that.  President Trump unabashedly acts as the elected President of the United States that has the courage to fulfill his Constitutional oath to carry out the will of the people who elected him to the office.

Despite Democrat efforts to control the narrative via Democrat-controlled public hearings, polls appear to indicate that they have failed to convict President Trump in the court of public opinion.  Ironically, the Democrats’ moral righteousness targeted corrupt behaviors of President Trump; but, what the casual, objective (fact over feeling) observer witnessed is a considerable amount of corrupted reasoning play out in Congress, the unelected bureaucracy, and the media.

Day Two of the Impeachment Public Hearings

Dear Chairman Schiff,


           Another day of the impeachment public hearings where the former Ambassador to Ukraine testified before the Intelligence Committee . . . 


           Democrats asked the Ambassador how it made her feel to be the victim of a smear campaign.  She reasonably responded that she did not appreciate having her reputation impugned or maligned.  To be frank, this is a relatively trivial scene compared with the broader smear campaign that has been continuous for over three years to remove a duly elected President of the United States.


           Even Russia continues to be smeared when the Ambassador, at the prodding by Democrats, repeats the meme that Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) server.  She even emphasized that it was a consensus by the intelligence community that Russia hacked into the DNC server.  As of this writing, no one has asked the Ambassador how the intelligence community arrived at that conclusion.  The obvious answer would be, Crowdstrike.  Who is Crowdstrike?  Crowdstrike is a private sector firm hired by the DNC to examine the server (this publicity certainly made company founders billionaires when the company went public).  The federal government was not permitted by the DNC to do the examination.  Thus, the “intelligence community” (including Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper and Director of the CIA John Brennan) took Crowdstrike’s word for it.


           What else do we know about Crowdstrike?  Former National Security Agency (NSA) technical experts refute the claims about what Crowdstrike found.  Others also investigated controversial connections between the Obama Administration, the Atlantic Council, George Soros, and Google.  Yet, Democrats and their smear campaign cohort would lead us to believe this is a crazy conspiracy theory advanced by an individual who has been relentlessly smeared.


           Goodness . . . now Democrats are getting emotional and saying with red faces, “I am ANGRY!!!”  Words matter!!!!!!!  Pay attention to these words.  Pay attention to the words we are saying to smear President Trump.  Let us be clear:  evidence has little to do with our smear campaign against a man we never, ever, from day one liked or accepted as a duly elected President.


           I’m surprised that no one asked the Ambassador to what extent she moved the needle on Ukrainian corruption during her tenure.  While some efforts were mentioned, there seemed to be no reportable outcomes.

           I'm also surprised that no one asked the Ambassador if she felt like she was in good company with General MacArthur who was fired (and not moved into a prestigious fellowship) by President Truman.


           Mr. Chairman:  If the President of the United States, under his authority in Article II of the Constitution, wants to achieve results in a country considered one of the most corrupt of those important to America’s national interests, why would he not want to put in key positions those he chooses?


Respectfully,

Gadfly

“Duty, Honor, Country” versus Justification

by

Gadfly

           The motto of the United States Military Academy, known more commonly as West Point, is “duty, honor, country.”  General Douglas MacArthur popularized this motto in his famous farewell speech to the West Point Cadet Corps on May 12, 1962.  Here is a recording of his speech.  Here is a transcript.


           MacArthur graduated number one in his West Point class and served as First Captain of the Cadet Corps.  He served in three major wars (WWI, WWII, Korea) and other campaigns, earning the Medal of Honor, three Army Distinguished Service Crosses, five Army Distinguished Service Medals, a Navy Distinguished Service Medal, seven Silver Stars, a Distinguished Flying Cross, a Bronze Star with valor device, an Air Medal, and two Purple Hearts.   These are just the higher ranking decorations.  In addition to these, he earned dozens of others from foreign nations.  MacArthur’s decades of service were punctuated on April 10, 1951 when President Truman fired him.  Five days earlier, Republican Representative Joseph Martin read on the floor of Congress the text of a private letter from General MacArthur that was critical of Truman’s Europe-first policy:

It seems strangely difficult for some to realize that here in Asia is where the communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest, and that we have joined the issue thus raised on the battlefield; that here we fight Europe's war with arms while the diplomats there still fight it with words; that if we lose the war to communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom. As you pointed out, we must win. There is no substitute for victory.

Ironically, Secretary of State Dean Acheson agreed with Truman that MacArthur should be removed, especially for political differences on foreign policy.  Former communist Louis Budenz dedicates a chapter, “The Kremlin in the State Department,” in his book A Cry of Peace.  According to Budenz, Acheson was known (via communications from the ComIntern to worldwide editors of The Daily Worker, which Budenz was in New York) to be a Communist sympathizer and favored China.

Constitutional and profession of arms scholars generally agree that Truman was correct in relieving MacArthur because of the public difference in policy agendas.  On the other hand, scholars are divided on the long-range prudence of Truman’s (and Acheson’s) political position as manifested in issues the United States faces today.  China has emerged as a formidable threat and Europe is already afflicted by socialism.

Truman was not shy about characterizing MacArthur (who was far more popular heroic figure in America’s public sentiment).  Here is how Time Magazine captured Truman’s view: “I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.”

With the above as historical context, we now witness an impeachment process where unelected officials disagree with President Trump’s foreign policy agenda.  Unlike MacArthur, Democrats shield a so-called whistleblower, who should be more appropriately characterized as a “leaker,” from any accountability.  Of course, the cowardly whistleblower is not alone.  We are learning more about the unelected political elite that presumes to have more power over the foreign policy agenda than an elected President.

Democrats champion as one of their star witnesses Ambassador Bill Taylor, a West Point graduate who graduated in the top 1% of his class and whose highest decorations include a Bronze Star with valor device and a Purple Heart.  Ambassador Taylor appears to have developed a different understanding of what his oath of office means, especially the part that pledges to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

What Does It Mean to Support and Defend the Constitution?
  

The Constitution of the United States established a republic to balance the tension between (a) protecting our individual unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and (b) the passions of a collective democracy.  Our Framers knew the dangers of democracy, as argued by Madison in Federalist Paper number 10.   The political assault on President Trump is a clear example of the mortal disease of faction in democracies.

  

Thus, the Constitution of the United States delineates a system of governance with powers delegated by the people to a national government.  The power to conduct foreign policy is delegated in Article II to the President, not to an unelected bureaucracy.  Federal departments and agencies are supposed to support the President’s agenda.  Unfortunately, the bureaucracy (e.g., the National Security Council and the State Department) has developed institutional inertia over time and does not turn over with political election cycles.

How About Enemies Foreign and Domestic? 

President Trump is accused of a quid pro quo for allegedly promising military aid for dirt on a political opponent.  My understanding, based on reading the July 25 telephone call transcript, is that President Trump was concerned about the left’s efforts to undermine his presidential campaign and election in 2016.  While the concern may seem to be personal, the real implication is that if a political party can mount such an assault on a political opponent that happens to be a duly elected President, it can happen again in the future.

Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham have now advanced their efforts from an administrative to a criminal investigation.  Meanwhile, the Democrats remain convinced Russia interfered with the 2016 election because Crowdstrike, a private firm hired by the Democrat National Committee (DNC) to examine their computer servers, makes this claim.  The DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine the server.  Crowdstrike’s claim is treated as a fact.  Just like anonymous news reports.  Evidence now also reveals DNC contractors actively sought dirt on candidate Trump in Ukraine.

  

Thus, what we see playing out in Washington D.C. is clear evidence of assaults on our Constitution by domestic and foreign enemies.

Implications

Of all those in the leftist cabal involved in the current assault on a duly elected President and the Constitution, Ambassador Taylor, a West Point graduate, and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a member of the National Security Council, I would encourage them to (a) refresh their understanding of their oath of office and (b) reflect on the moral expectations entrusted to West Point cadets in MacArthur’s farewell address.  This understanding and sense of duty are what conditions authentic heroism, not the political opportunism of unelected political elite.  MacArthur celebrated the heroic profession of arms as the noblest of all professions:

The soldier, above all other men, is required to practice the greatest act of religious training - sacrifice. In battle and in the face of danger and death, he discloses those divine attributes which his Maker gave when he created man in his own image. No physical courage and no brute instinct can take the place of the Divine help which alone can sustain him. However horrible the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country, is the noblest development of mankind.

MacArthur also clearly understood the relationship between the profession of arms and the political process:

Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be.

These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country.

Sadly, contrary to MacArthur’s call to greatness in living the values of “duty, honor, country,” Taylor and Vindman seem pressured to camouflage their political opportunism through acts of justification.  They have acclimated to a progressive globalist political agenda.  In the process, they display an ignorance about the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.

Alexis de Tocqueville studied "democracy" in America and published his research in a seminal multiple-volume book with the title, Democracy in America.  Book Four has this title:  "Influence of Democratic Opinions on Political Society."  Chapter VI has this title:  "What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear."  Here is an excerpt from this chapter:

After having thus successfully taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community.  It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.  The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided:  men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting:  such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.  I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.  Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free:  as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once.  They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people.  

The leftist elite pushes for democracy, not a republic, ostensibly for the reasons described above.  The non-elite who subscribe to democracy are also described above--"a flock of timid and industrious animals."  Memoirs I have read by former Communist members (Douglas Hyde, Bella Dodd, Louis Budenz, Whittaker Chambers, et al.) all talk about how they pushed for democracy as a necessary precondition for socialism/communism.  Is there any surprise then that 70% of Millennials believe in socialism and a third support Communism?

Quite possibly, Ambassador Taylor and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman may be unwitting instruments in the left’s advance of socialism under the cloak of progressivism in America—something which MacArthur (and others) clearly understood and embraced in their support and defense of the Constitution of the United States.  “Duty, honor, country” is a noble motto/ethos.  Justification is self-serving.