An Open Letter to the Democratic Congressional Caucus

Dear Democrats in Congress,


          As Americans and the rest of the world watch the circus under way in our nation’s Capitol, you have an opportunity to demonstrate reason and courage.
  

          Why do I say circus?  A circus is a spectacle designed to attract mindless curiosity.  A circus does not build or solve anything.  It does nothing to change the quality of society’s norms or traditions.  It’s a distraction from normal life.  In this case, it masks an unadulterated play for political power in ways that are contrary to the democratic principle of due process.  But it is also a deliberate attempt to deceitfully move public sentiment in the spirit of mob behavior.  If successful, America’s Constitutional Republic as we have known it will be killed.


          I lived through the Watergate Scandal.  Senator Barry Goldwater substituted for President Nixon as the commencement speaker at my graduation from the USAF Academy in 1973.  Despite Nixon’s winning reelection in a landslide, Democrats were very successful in trying him in the court of public opinion—so successful that Nixon chose to resign before dragging our nation through impeachment proceedings.  Democrats were lucky to have John Dean as their weapon.  Dean was a guileful traitor to Nixon, his colleagues, and our nation.  As more evidence becomes available, the picture we were given is not the real picture.  Two books that reveal a clearer picture (and the corruption involved in taking down a duly elected president) are Geoff Shepard’s The Real Watergate Scandal:  Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot that Brought Nixon Down; and Len Colodny’s  Silent Coup:  The Removal of a President.  John Dean, Bob Woodward, and The Washington Post sued unsuccessfully to keep Colodny’s book from being published.  In Colodny’s reasoned analysis, Nixon made mistakes (mostly out of trust for Dean’s legal and political counsel) and was betrayed by the likes of General Alexander Haig (a role model for LTC Alexander Vindman?); but he committed no crimes.
     

          Back to the circus . . . This is where reason is critical.  Those pushing for impeachment have placed their Party ideology above universal principles of truth, fairness, and justice.  Many Americans are becoming distressed about the emerging nature of today’s Democrat Party with its blatant penchant for leftist values associated with Marxist socialism.  As a member of today’s Democrat Party, I can only conclude that you embrace an ideology that has a terrible historical record.  Tsar Nicholas II of Russia was not only removed by the Bolshevik Party, he and his family were executed.  Contests for political power are not historical exceptions; they represent the dark side of human nature.  History will record your actions in Congress.
  

          If you believe in truth and justice, and you realize that the left has been working feverishly to deny President Trump the right to serve as a duly elected President, then show some courage for two major reasons.  First, the Democrat Party needs to be refreshed with the capacity for reason, especially on matters (e.g., liberty, fairness, truth, justice) that affect everyone, regardless of political party affiliation.  Second, focus on your role to legislate as opposed to chasing deceitful ways of securing political power.  The current Democratic caucus has been blinded by its overzealous attempt to remove a duly elected President and the values he represents; thus they cannot see how wasteful their time has been in terms of the moral and Constitutional obligation to legislate.  Americans want to vote for those who champion good ideas, and those who respect diversity of thought in a free and just society, especially in a Constitutional Republic.


          We are watching, and we will remember.


Sincerely,


Gadfly

An Unruled American Citizen   

Bearing False Witness

by

Gadfly

           In the Bible, there are only ten commandments.  One of them commands against bearing false witness.  To most of us, this means we shall not lie—that is, “thou shall not” say something we clearly know to be false or not completely true as in quibbling.  According to the prophet Jeremiah, the lack of truthfulness is a far more egregious offense when it is a shepherd, as in kings and princes: “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! Saith the LORD” (23:1 [KJV]).


           Of all the positive and healing themes that could have been presented, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton chose to inject false witness during her eulogy at the late Congressman Elijah Cummings’ funeral this past Friday (October 25, 2019).  In particular, she invoked the Biblical prophet Elijah, whose name means “My Lord is my God.”  Then she said, “Like the prophet, our Elijah could call down fire from heaven.” She followed this with: “Like that Old Testament prophet, he stood against corrupt leadership of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel.”  Clearly, the latter was an implied reference to President and Mrs. Trump.  Clinton’s clever political shot trivialized the solemnity of an event to honor Cummings and turned Cummings into an instrument in advancing her own political ambitions.


           Included in the cohort of eulogists were former Presidents Clinton and Obama.  Both made innuendoes impugning President Trump for dishonorable behavior in comparison with the honorable Cummings.  So, it was somewhat ironical to find this Sunday’s liturgy included a gospel from Luke 18: 9-14.  Jesus did not find the Pharisee’s self-righteousness to be more honorable than the tax collector.


           There seemed to be no reference to Trump’s Twitter insult about Cummings’ Baltimore.  If so, just as well, because Cummings’ very public verbal bludgeoning of a Trump Acting Homeland Security Secretary regarding alleged conditions at the southern border is what prompted Trump’s twitter insult; more so, it was also in defense of the Acting Secretary.  Ironically, another liturgical reading on Sunday was from 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 16-18.  Unlike Paul who was persecuted for his evangelism, Trump did not abandon the Secretary; he was there to provide defense for another American evangelizing the constitutional obligation to enforce the rule of law.


           Trump has endured over three years of false witness.  Phase I pre-election machinations failed.  Phase II failed to prevent Trump’s inauguration. Phase III, in the form of the Mueller investigation, failed to remove the President; but achieved a lot of collateral damage to those in Trump’s political orbit.  Now, Phase IV is an impeachment attempt.  Since Congressman Schiff’s Star Chamber leaks very selective bits of information to shape the current narrative, here is an excellent article that provides important context related to the real story.  Sadly, much of what the left falsely accuses Trump of committing, took place in the Obama Administration and by others within the leftist cabal.


           One of the left’s most important weapons in bearing false witness is propaganda in order to influence public sentiment among our nation’s sheep.  I provided such a case in blog articles going into the 2012 presidential campaign (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) and in chapters 7 through 12 of my book, The 2012 Political Contest in America:  Conversations with a Gadfly.


           Today, David Leonhardt of The New York Times not only acknowledges but champions the importance of swaying public sentiment to advance impeachment and eventual removal of President Trump.  In the same edition, there is this headline on the front page above the fold: “Who Is Vindman?  A Ukrainian Refugee Who Rose to the White House.”  Vindman is U.S. Army Alexander Vindman currently serving on the National Security Council.
  

Ironically, in 1994, when I was a student at the Air War College, I attended a course on Soviet Studies.  One of my classmates in the course was a lieutenant colonel from Ukraine.  Understanding the complexities of this region, the professor surprisingly put the Ukrainian officer on the spot when he asked, “If Russia invades Ukraine, will you fight for the defense of Ukraine?”  The answer was cryptic but very clear.  He said, “My father is from Ukraine, my mother from Russia.  I have many aunts and uncles and cousins in Russia and Ukraine.”  In other words, he was not certain to which country he would be loyal.  The same question needs to be asked of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.  In this case, he appears to favor Ukraine over the United States.

           To advance true witness, it might be helpful to ponder two questions about President Donald Trump.
  

First, is Trump a man of good character?
  

Being honest, nice, nuanced, polished, glib, humble, and so forth can be helpful in getting along with others.  These traits certainly make one “likeable.”  But these traits are not virtues.  Cardinal virtues include fortitude, temperance, wisdom, and justice.  Of these four virtues, Trump clearly demonstrates fortitude.  He is standing firm in fulfilling promises made during the presidential campaign despite withering resistance from a leftist House of Representatives, Never-Trumpers, and mainstream media.

  

Some would argue that Trump’s Twitter practice is intemperate.  While the practice is certainly unprecedented, so is the magnitude and ubiquitousness of leftist political bias of America’s news sources.  The hatred and contempt toward Trump may also reveal fear of a political order and its corresponding values that are not consistent with the left’s progressive ideology.  Thus, Trump’s persistence in responding to attacks from a wide range of sources may be based on the virtues of wisdom and justice, both of which are dependent upon truth.  And while Trump is well known for his blunt honesty (falsely alleged to be racism by the left) his knack for embellishment and exaggeration are important techniques for disrupting ideological paradigms.  This is how Trump controls his agenda, while the resistance tries to control the narrative.  Trump’s followers pay less attention to what is said and more to what is being done.

Winston Churchill was not unlike Trump in his crassness.  Although Trump does not consume alcoholic beverages (evidence of temperance), Churchill did.  In explaining the importance of humor, especially anecdotes in speeches, James Hume, a presidential speech writer, claimed “I relate Churchill’s famous encounter with the two-hundred pound Bessie Braddock in 1955.  Bessie in her fishmonger voice said to Churchill, ‘Winston, you are drunk.’  And Churchill replied, ‘Bessie, you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober” (cited in Hume’s book, The Sir Winston Method:  The Five Secrets of Speaking the Language of Leadership, p. 138).  Resisting strong and withering political resistance, Churchill had a vision for his nation’s survival.  Trump does as well.

        

Second, how might Trump be recognized as a legitimate President by the left?
  

The only way for Trump to be accepted as a legitimate President would be to totally capitulate to the left’s progressive agenda, which would betray the campaign promises that got him elected.  This would violate the very essence of virtue because Trump would need to sell his soul to remain in office.

  

Fortunately, Trump has the fortitude, temperance, wisdom, and justice to resist this pressure.  He seeks justice for those in our nation that scattered sheep in the pursuit of power.  Again, from Jeremiah 23: 31-32 (KJV): “Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.  Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them:  therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.”

  

Meanwhile, Trump remains loyal to the idea of America and to those who elected him while waging existential battle with those who bear false witness.  Soon, truth will emerge, and justice will prevail “on earth as it is in heaven.”

America’s Neoimperialists

by

Gadfly

           On October 7, 2019, President Trump decided to withdraw American troops from Syria after Turkish President Erdogan had decided to move forces into Syria.  Trump objected to this action; but, when confronted with this scenario, he decided not to leave 28 special forces members in the path as a speed bump.  When the Turkish action expanded, Trump then further directed other American forces to also withdraw.
  

Trump received immediate pushback and condemnation from America’s neo-imperialists, representing Democrats and Republicans.  Others seem to understand the logic for his decision, especially when factoring in the historical and geopolitical context.  In the final analysis, this particular decision combined with others in his first three years in office, should be recognized as President Trump’s well-developed capacity for strategic intuition (of course, my anti-Trump friends are likely laughing or snickering about this assertion because it is contrary to their caricature of Trump).

  

Let’s unpack key points in the preceding paragraph:  historical and geopolitical context, American neoimperialism, and Trump’s strategic intuition.

Historical and Geopolitical Context


           Why is the United States in Syria?  Most would answer:  to defeat or contain ISIS/ISIL.  While this is true, it obfuscates a much broader set of circumstances that make the answer significantly more complicated.

Speaker Pelosi is leading the charge in condemning Trump’s Syria decision.  Ironically, we should remind ourselves of an event that took place in April 2007.  Within three months of Democrats resuming control of both houses of Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi met with Syrian President Bashar al Assad.  This trip was in direct defiance of the President George W. Bush and State Department foreign policy to isolate Assad and his regime.  Through this action, Pelosi revealed her colors in terms of ideology and its justification for violating political norms.  In the process, she “greenlighted” Assad’s subsequent actions to stay in power.  Pelosi broadcasted to the world that political power in America was divided and that there was no loyalty to a duly elected President’s policy agenda.

  

Patterns are important in understanding the nature of behavior, whether virtuous or not.  This past week, Pelosi rebuked President Trump in the White House for his lack of loyalty to the Kurds.  On Saturday, she led a Congressional delegation (one token Republican who will not run for reelection) to Jordan to discuss the situation in Syria.  Pelosi’s message to the world:  Trump is not America’s legitimate President.

  

Article II of our Constitution gives foreign policy authority to the Executive branch (led by the President), not Congress.  Article I gives Congress legislative powers that may shape or constrain foreign policy; this is why they have oversight authority—but this is merely to ensure proper application of any legislation.

   

There is an old saying, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”  The saying usually refers to adultery.  In this case, Pelosi is married to an ideology, and she will punish Trump or anyone else who does not submit to her ideology.

Let us also not forget that Pelosi was elected from one Congressional district in California—San Francisco.  While she and her husband live in luxury in a gated community, thousands of homeless and drug addicted persons wonder the city that was once a favorite tourist attraction.  She has done nothing for her neighbors but now wants to virtue signal about abandoning Kurdish people.

The leftist media were quick to say Trump “greenlighted” Erdogan’s actions.  When one controls a megaphone, he or she controls the narrative.  Framing is the most important part of the narrative.  So they suggest Trump violated some norms.  In this case that he abandoned “allies.”  The most reliable norms are those grounded in the law, such as international law, treaties, and so forth.  These are the norms (and framework) within which Trump operates.  Was the President supposed to coerce Erdogan, the elected leader of a sovereign nation, into not pursuing his actions?  By what authority?  Turkey is a sovereign nation and a member of NATO.  Syria is a sovereign nation and not a member of NATO.  The Kurds are an ethnic demographic that is not a sovereign nation (although it has been recognized as a quasi-state called Kurdistan since around 1970 by other political factions in the region), nor is it a member of NATO, nor is it homogenous.  There are Turkish, Syrian, and Iraqi Kurds (see LTC [USMC, retired] Mike Ford’s excellent article on Kurdish demographics here).  Some Kurds also live in Iran.

  

To complicate this quagmire are Russia’s interests.  Russia is a friend of Syria and is courting Turkey.  Is there an opportunity for Russia to be part of the solution?  Given Turkey’s proximity to former Soviet republics, Russia seems to have a greater interest from a geopolitical perspective.  Russia needs opportunities to be more constructive as a  former major power.  To understand this requires strategic intuition.  Perhaps, those not already blinded by America’s neoimperialists might envision a more stable and durable future with Russia (and Europe) as a positive player.  Trump understands this.

For a reasoned explanation of the Turkish, Syrian, and Kurdish situation see Mike Ford’s series of articles here, here, here, and here.  In the last article, Ford discusses the intentions and consequences of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.  The imperialist nations involved in this action of redrawing national boundaries of the former Ottoman Empire were Great Britain, France, Russia, and Italy.  The United States played no role.  Today, Russia is still involved.  Where are the great powers of Great Britain, France, and Italy in mitigating the consequences of their imperialism from the early 1900s?

Turkey is mostly Sunni.  Kurds are mostly Sunni.  Syria is mostly Sunni.  ISIS/ISIL is Sunni.  In other words, the players here are mostly Sunni Muslims.  Other players in the regional conflict are Saudi Arabia, mostly Sunni, and Iran, mostly Shia (which is but one manifestation of Islamism’s contradictions).

  

We are told Islam is a religion of peace.  If this were so, then why is the Middle East one of the most unpeaceful regions in the world?  Perhaps there is a simple clue:  the word Islam means submission. 

The absurdity here is that the Islamic model for peace requires total submission to an ideology that is flawed due to its internal contradictions.  The same is true for America’s neoimperialists (especially those who champion the oppressed while championing a mother’s right to kill the child in her womb).

America’s Neoimperialists


           What is imperialism?   According to Dictionary.com, imperialism is “the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.”   American domestic and foreign policy has manifested imperialism throughout our history:  internally in conquering native Americans in our westward expansion; externally in coopting proxy allies (like the Kurds) in its defense against communist expansion (like ISIS/ISIL).


           A new form of external imperialism (neoimperialism) took shape during the Clinton Administration in its series of military operations other than war (MOOTW).  We studied the MOOTW phenomenon when I was a student at the Air War College in the 1990s.  While prominent in the 1990s, the United States has a record of MOOTW beginning in 1916 (see Appendix A in a RAND monograph here), the same year as the signing of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.  Even in 1994, I realized American policy was imperialistic and argued this point in a paper that America’s Middle Eastern policy ignored or dismissed the sovereign role the Gulf Cooperation Council could play in managing the region’s conflict-related issues.


           Of course, George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four clearly understood the importance of imperialism in the disguise of Big Brother “protection” in Oceania’s endless war.  Big Brother (the establishment) preached “War is Peace.”  The ruled depended upon this power for their safety.  Nineteen Eighty-Four was merely a dystopian novel; but it stemmed from Orwell’s observation of socialism up through the mid-1940s.


           “Endless wars.”  Does this sound familiar?  Donald Trump campaigned on his opposition to endless wars.  Again, why do we have American forces in Syria?  Mostly to protect us from ISIS/ISIL.  In my opinion, the only way we can defeat this threat is to defeat the ideology.  But this is an unwanted challenge for America’s neoimperialists.
  

           America’s neoimperialists (an empire defined as a monolithic political ideology—Marxist progressivism) are still engaged in domestic conquest:  the progressive ideology must defeat any views that are different.  The progressive ideology is Marxist, which involves a ruling elite to liberate the oppressed.  This is why identity politics and illegal immigration are critical to this ideology.  To progressives, individual liberty is oppressive.  This is why progressives advance political correctness (some free speech is offensive) and safe spaces on college campuses.  To progressives, collective liberty is liberating.  Like Islam, Marxism and its neoimperialist facade called progressivism is based on contradictions: “War Is Peace,” “Political Correctness Is Truth,” “Submission Is Freedom,” “Criminal Activity Is Just” (e.g., sanctuary cities or states), “Plunder Is Just” (e.g., progressive tax schemes to redistribute wealth), and so forth.


           America’s neoimperialists no longer hide in the open.  They are now blatant because they control the narrative (in the media, academia, government, and Hollywood) that in turn shapes public sentiment, to include Republicans.


           In a recent New York Times Newsletter, David Leonhardt encouraged Elizabeth Warren to become “ruthless” toward President Trump.  Leonhardt and his leftist ideologues imply that President Trump is all by himself, as if he does not represent the political will of half of America’s population.  But, Trump and half of America have a view that is not consistent with the progressive ideology.  This is evidence of a civil war.


           The left talks about the political divide (that they arguably created and continue to magnify).  They presume they are the ones to unite Americans.  What do they mean by “uniting Americans”?  One party—just like Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism.  There is no compromise.  It’s progressivism or nothing.  If the left cannot win, no one can.


           As for Republicans, they either do not understand the strategic implications of America’s civil war, or they lack any ounce of a backbone (shall we say courage?).  This is not the first time Republican fecklessness led to a major shift in America’s political dynamics.  At one point early in his first term, President George W. Bush enjoyed nearly 90% approval.  This did not bode well in terms of political capital for Democrats.  Democrats, then the minority in both houses of Congress, orchestrated an anti-Bush campaign in concert with a leftist media.  By 2006, Democrats took back both houses of Congress and, using that momentum, prepped the political battleground for Obama’s election in 2008.  Where were the Republicans during this anti-Bush campaign?  Most slithered into the shadows and left Bush on his own to fight a two-front war:  America’s leftist neoimperialists and Islamic terrorism in the Middle East.


           Bush is not without some blame.  He had confidence in the “advice” from neoconservatives that were and are part of a neoimperialistic political establishment.  He would not admit it, but Bill Clinton as well as Hillary Clinton were and are neoconservatives (look at Clinton’s national strategies that involved democratizing the world).
  

As in the anti-Bush campaign, today’s Republicans are demonstrating how easily duped they can be by recklessly voting along with Democrats to condemn President Trump’s decision in Syria.  Of all of them, perhaps the most self-serving Republican leading the campaign against President Trump is Mitt Romney (I voted for him; he did not appear to be ruthless at the time).  Unfortunately, evil is banal until it achieves momentum; then it fully displays its true nature.

           As much as the left and many feckless Republicans caricaturize and resist President Trump’s authority as a duly elected President, they do not recognize, let alone appreciate, his strategic intuition.
              

Trump’s Strategic Intuition


           I first learned about strategic intuition from a book by William Duggan, Strategic Intuition:  The Creative Spark in Human Achievement.  (Note:  for context, I read this book along with a lot of others and journal articles during my work as a strategic analyst in addressing Islamist counterterrorism).


           According to Duggan, there are three types of intuition:  ordinary, expert, and strategic.  Ordinary intuition is a feeling or an undeveloped hunch about something.  The leftist media seems to demonstrate this type in its constant narrative against Trump. House Republicans who voted to condemn Trump’s decision about Syria demonstrated this type of intuition.

Expert intuition represents snap judgments requiring action in familiar circumstances.  Napoleon exercised expert tuition on the battlefield.  Current anti-Trump flag officers such as Admiral McRaven (see for example his recent New York Times op-ed here) attempt to inject their geopolitical views from an expert tuition perspective.  Firefighters demonstrate expert intuition when fighting fires in different scenarios.

  

Regarding strategic intuition, here is how Duggan describes it on his book jacket: “Strategic intuition is a clear thought.  And it’s not fast like expert intuition.  It’s slow.  That flash of insight you had last night might solve a problem that’s been on your mind for a month.  And it doesn’t happen in familiar situations, like a tennis match.  Strategic intuition works in new situations.  That’s when you need it most.”  Recent Presidents who demonstrated strategic intuition are Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Trump.  Recent flag officers who demonstrated strategic intuition are Generals Fogelman (institutional character-based culture), Petraeus (regional cultural diversity), and Schwartz (institutional relevance into the future).

     

Duggan, by the way, is highly critical of President Trump (see here).  Duggan has written three books, was a strategy consultant for 20 years, and is a professor of business at Columbia University.

  

Of course, Columbia has become somewhat of an echo chamber for leftist ideologies and ideologues.  American Communist Bella Dodd and her academic cohort received their first indoctrination and training in communist methods at Columbia.  Richard Clowan and Frances Fox Piven found tenure at Columbia and fertile ground to advance their socialist strategies involving the collapse of capitalism to open the door for a socialist government.  For example, see here.  When one looks at the accumulation of national debt and unfunded liabilities, the Clowan-Piven strategy to achieve national bankruptcy appears to be working.

  

One final note about Columbia.  Following World War II, Dwight Eisenhower was hired to serve as President of Columbia University.  While his tenure was relatively short, there is no mention of Eisenhower on Columbia’s website history.  Eisenhower understood the threat of Soviet and Chinese Communism and initiated policies to contain it during what is known as The Cold War.  Eisenhower was not a leftist ideologue; thus, Columbia expelled him from their elitist club.

In comparison to Duggan, Trump has owned and run businesses for five decades, worked the complicated nexus between political power players (government) and the private sector, and has authored at least 14 books.  Three of Trump’s books laid the groundwork for becoming the duly elected President of the United States:  The America We Deserve (2000), Time to Get Tough:  Make America Great Again (2011); and Crippled America:  How to Make America Great Again (2015).  Trump’s books revealed his thinking over many years.

  

Contrary to Admiral McRaven’s assertion that “Trump is attacking on our republic,” Trump believes very strongly in the foundational principles of a Constitutional Republic.  He believes in the checks and balances of our Constitution.  He believes in federalism.  He believes in the rule of law.  He believes in truth (which he knows is distorted by fake news) and justice.  He also believes in God and that our inalienable rights were granted by God.  As one of our nation’s Founders/Framers observed, a constitutional republic can only work for a moral and religious people.

  

There are no surprises in Trump’s agenda.  He wrote about it, promised it in his presidential campaign, and is now fulfilling his promises except where he is being blocked by a leftist House of Representatives and leftist federal judges.  These are America’s neoimperialists, totally committed to uniting America under one progressive political party.

The leftist progressives, publicly led by their poster child Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are ruthless.  Ruthlessness is not a virtue.  And even acts that appear virtuous, such as virtue signaling compassion for the Kurds, do not reveal the motivation for “virtue signaling.”  It is the motivation that determines virtue or vice and a pattern that is consistent with the motivation.  In this case, the Kurds are mere instruments (as are blacks, the LGTB, women, illegal immigrants, etc.) in the left’s scheme to continue their broader leftist cabal to undermine and remove a duly elected President who seeks liberty and justice for all.

The Department of Justice Inspector General Report (when finally released) and the Barr/Durham investigations might be enough to disrupt the leftist grip on America.  If not, we may all soon be addressing each other as “comrade.”

Obstruction

by

Gadfly

            In today's version of Planet of the Apes, Congressmen Adam Schiff (House Intelligence Committee), Elijah Cummings (House Oversight Committee), and Eliot Engel (House Foreign Affairs Committee) represent the three Orangutan judges, while President Trump portrays American astronaut George Taylor (played by Charlton Heston in the 1968 movie).  As one may recall in this dystopian production, apes dominate humans that have been silenced by frontal lobotomies and/or severed vocal cords.  Taylor, who had not been surgically silenced, defies the judges.

            On numerous occasions this week, Congressman Schiff claimed that President Trump’s persistent refusal to cooperate with their “impeachment inquiry” (more accurately an ideologically-inspired inquisition) by not allowing witnesses or documents be provided is evidence of obstruction of justice.  There is no doubt that Trump is obstructing their efforts.  However, his obstruction is based on an abuse of power, which is unjust and unconstitutional.

            As I have asserted in previous essays, there can be no justice without truth.  Truth does not need to hide or conceal itself in secrecy.  Yet, an inquisition of a duly elected president proceeds based on anonymous hearsay from an apparent political adversary via secret hearings hosted and controlled by political opponents.  The inquisition-cabal is not limited to Congress.  Now federal judges are collaborating by directing the President’s tax returns be turned over to a politically-driven district attorney in New York and the House Ways and Means committee.  Arguably, these actions violate President Trump’s Fourth Amendment protection to privacy and due process.  It is of no consequence to this power-hungry cabal that Donald Trump has experienced intense scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service and has found no illegal activity.

            In our Constitution, two specific offenses justifying impeachment are treason and bribery.  Ironically, Trump asked the Ukrainian President for assistance in a previous investigation into possible bribery involving former Vice President Biden ($1 billion in loan guarantees in exchange for the firing of an investigator who was looking into corruption of an energy company that paid his son as a director).  The cabal’s framing this request as “asking for dirt on a political opponent” places Biden above the law.

            The more serious offense is treason because it is “the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.”  Those involved in this anti-Trump cabal have arguably committed treason, ostensibly based on displaced loyalty.  How does loyalty factor into this argument?  All the individuals involved, whether Congress, the unelected bureaucrats, or a few federal judges, swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  Loyalty in this case is not to an individual but to the Constitution and its principles.  While journalists do not swear a similar oath, professional competence demands loyalty to the First Amendment, which is supposed to guarantee a free press.

Trump was Constitutionally elected.  Loyalty to our Constitution requires acceptance of his legitimacy and Constitutional authority.  Unfortunately, the anti-Trump cabal is displaying its loyalty to either an individual—Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama doppelgänger—or to an ideology that seeks to counter or destroy Trump’s political agenda that aligns with an Electoral College-mandated public will.

This public nightmare may change when Attorney General Barr and Prosecutor Durham complete their investigation.  Hopefully, the results will shed important light on the actual truth.  Then justice may be pursued, and our Constitutional Republic may be refreshed.             

A Deep and Dark Rabbit Hole

by

Gadfly

On more than one occasion during a conversation, the other party attempted to detour my line of reasoning by saying, “I’m not going down that rabbit hole!”  In some cases, I would admit that the thrust was tangential to the central theme or argument and backed off.  In others, I realized that I was actually trying to find an exit from the rabbit hole from which we were already starting.  This is America’s current dilemma:  we are in a deep and dark rabbit hole.  Most do not like it, yet also do not really know its nature and why we are in it.

In a sentence, how can we describe the rabbit hole?  We have a President that the left has never accepted and has never ceased to find a way to remove him.

The leftist cabal wants to forget the political and illegal maneuvers (protecting their favored candidate from criminal prosecution while illegally spying on their political opponent) that preceded the 2016 election.  The Mueller investigation failed despite the corrupt maneuvering to even get to the appointment of a special prosecutor (more still continues to surface, such as Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s seditious actions, yet the mainstream media is not interested).

Even Republicans or alleged Trump apologists argue that the name Biden should never have been mentioned in the July 25 telephone call between President Trump and the newly-elected Ukrainian President.  The rationale is that it implicated a motivation for dirt on a political rival.  Thus, by inference, this logic suggests a quid pro quo.

            Hardly anyone wants to advance an argument that Trump believes in the rule of law and as America’s chief law enforcer he has a moral and legal obligation to exercise his authority when he has probable cause of a crime.  In this case, the possible crime is bribery by the second most powerful man in the world.  Yet, like the recent whistle-blower, the leftist cabal cloaks him in a defensive shield because he is an opposing candidate in the 2020 presidential election.  To advance the notion that Trump’s motivation was to seek dirt (as Schiff blatantly claims in his fabricated script during a recent House Intelligence hearing) on a political opponent completely negates, through political fiat, the President’s Constitutional authority and obligations.

Ironically, the public becomes duped again by the current leftist cabal political smear, which advances the narrative from a “whistle-blower” perspective as opposed to “a leaker” perspective as highlighted in a recent New Yorker column.  The article is biased and employs cherry-picking tactics, but it provides a lens for peering into the leftist paradigm.  In the same issue of The New Yorker, there is a blatant hit piece (“The Invention of the Conspiracy Theory on Biden and Ukraine”) to debunk or censor views and evidence from other sources, such as Fox News and The Hill’s John Solomon.

To add to the confusion, on today’s Meet the Press, during a contentious interview with Senator Ron Johnson (this should happen more frequently by our elected officials—corruption can only be defeated by virtue, especially courage), Chuck Todd pressed him into answering the question, “Do you believe Russia interfered with our election?”  To which he answered, “Yes.”  This is how insidious propaganda can be.

 

The implication of Todd’s question is that Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server.  This meme followed a DNC email dump announcement in advance by Wikileaks.  Democrats had to deflect the focus from the actual contents of the emails, which were damning.  Instead, they shaped the narrative by suggesting Russia, in collusion with the Trump campaign, did the hacking and then shared the contents with Wikileaks.  The DNC refused to let the FBI examine the server for evidence.  Instead, they hired Crowdstrike to complete the examination.  Taking their word for it, Director of National Intelligence Clapper and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency announced that there was a consensus among the intelligence community that Russia hacked into the DNC server (for a far more compelling analysis of this scenario, which debunks these claims, see “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack,” The Nation, August 9, 2017).

 

A more precise answer to Todd’s question should have been, “According to Crowdstrike, a private firm hired by the DNC, Russia hacked into the server.  There was no corroborating investigation by government agencies.”  By denying government participation and hiring a private firm, the DNC avoided the risk of the discovery of criminal activity.  Imagine someone bringing a criminal allegation against another party where the district attorney’s office is expected to prosecute the case but only with “evidence” purchased by the accuser’s own sources. This is what happened in the Russia interference meme.

 

This meme almost happened in the McMartin trial mentioned in my last article.  When the defense lawyer actually examined video tapes of a therapist planting stories in the minds of children, he realized the therapist manufactured evidence that was then amplified by the media (in particular with a reporter that scooped all the exclusive interviews while he was sexually involved with the therapist—true story).  But it took seven years for the gears of the justice system to discover the truth and deliver justice for the defendants (even though they became financially bankrupt and their reputations were destroyed).  There was no justice for the perpetrators of the child molestation scandal.  They continued on with their lives and professions without any accountability.  Hopefully, this lack of accountability does not become the postscript for the current perpetrated scandals.  This is why Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham’s efforts are so critical.

Missing from this “Russian hacking” picture is why Seth Rich, a DNC staffer, was executed about a month after Wikileaks announced it would publish the emails.  Dead men tell no lies, nor truths for that matter.  The left has gotten away, so far, with destroying evidence (IRS, 30,000 subpoenaed emails, etc.).

For more confusion, even the right-of-center The Washington Examiner published an opinion piece, “Trump Misfires:  Senate Democrats’ Letter to Ukraine Was Fine,” that claimed there was nothing wrong when three Democrat Senators pressured (see the letter here) the government to cooperate in the Mueller investigation, specifically singling out Paul Manafort.  The article’s author claims the Senators had the right to do this based on a Mutual Legal Aid Treaty.  Yet, the author seems to deny the President of the United States, America’s chief law enforcer under Article II of the Constitution, the same right.  Ukraine has been seriously implicated in the Russian dossier that served as the predicate for spying on Trump’s campaign.  Why should the President be politically handcuffed in seeking justice?

According to The Hill’s John Solomon, a leading investigative journalist reporting on emerging details of the deep and dark rabbit hole: “Politics. Pressure. Opposition research. All were part of the Democrats’ playbook on Ukraine long before Trump ever called Zelensky this summer. And as Sen. Murphy’s [a Democrat Senators threat to Ukraine to back off of investigations if it wants to get American aid] foray earlier this month shows, it hasn’t stopped.”  For additional evidence to support this assertion see, “Let’s Get Real:  Democrats Were First to Enlist Ukraine in U.S. Elections.”

Lest we forget, at the manipulative urging by British spy Christopher Steele and GPS Fusion Glenn Simpson, the late Senator John McCain was used as an instrument to dispatch his aid David Kramer (employed by the McCain Institute) to get a copy of the dossier for presentation to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to leak it to the press.  If one has read the Mueller report, there are numerous footnotes to news reports, as if the news reports were actual evidence.    Fifteen news sources claim collusion; therefore, it must be true.  This is the way propaganda works.

As readers of these Gadfly Corner articles are aware, I have referenced material from former members of the Communist Party who have memorialized their experiences as Communists.  Douglas Hyde was an editor for The Daily Worker in London.  In his book, I Believed:  The Autobiography of a Former British Communist, Hyde documents how stories were told to advance the Party line and to discredit those who opposed the Communist doctrine.  The tactics are consistent with those at play today.  The attempt to discredit alternative news sources such as Fox News and John Solomon, in particular, seek to advance the Party line.

Closer to home, American Louis Francis Budenz memorialized his experiences as well, in particular, in his books This Is My Story and The Techniques of Communism.  In the latter book, Budenz devotes a chapter with the title, “Affecting Public Opinion.”  He talks about “psychological warfare” and asserts “the Communists were aware of the power of this weapon as an outstanding means to advance the ‘class war.’”  He goes on to say: “To the followers of Lenin and Stalin, . . . [t]heir great asset was infiltration of the institutions and organizations of the country they plan to undermine, following Lenin’s instructions to employ perjury and deceit and Stalin’s directive to make transmission belts of those organizations for the Communist line” (p. 153).  Communism is socialism.

My friends, the deep and dark rabbit hole is the socialist infiltration of America’s institutions:  the government, the media, Hollywood, academia, teachers’ unions, think tanks such as the Center for American Progress, religious institutions, and so forth.

 

As much as President Trump argues that America will never be a socialist nation, he is championing an effort to counter the fact that major institutions have already been afflicted.  Former Secretary of the Treasury William Simon warned us about the infiltration in his 1978 book, A Time for Truth.  Malachi Martin warned us about Soviet Communist infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church in his 1978 book, The Final Conclave.  Bella Dodd, in her memoir, The School of Darkness, confessed to the infiltration of labor unions (especially teachers) and the Catholic Church (she had direct knowledge, saying “in the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the church from within”).

In any socialist system, there is only one commandment (as Orwell tells it in his novel, Animal Farm):  All animals are equal; some are more equal than others.  Those in power are the ruling class in a totalitarian state.  They enjoy luxury and power while the rest of society are equally miserable.  The miserable in Venezuela who trusted in promised “hope and change” now suffer from the deep and dark rabbit hole its ruling class took them.

Despite the leftist cabal’s deliberate and concerted caricaturing (consistent with “Lenin’s instructions to employ perjury and deceit and Stalin’s directive to make transmission belts of those organizations for the Communist line”) of President Trump, my hope and confidence is in him as the means for escaping the deep and dark rabbit hole the left has taken us.