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.”

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.             

Street Light Truth

AM:  Contrary to Democrat claims and even the New York Times Editorial Board position of “nothing new here,” yesterday’s Benghazi hearing revealed a lot.

IM:  I agree.  It demonstrated what I call street light truth, where the one who controls the streetlight, controls what is illuminated (even by the very objective, by their standards, New York Times).  Yesterday, there was a tug-of-war for control of the street light.  Republicans tried to shine light on how the Benghazi narrative was developed and Democrats tried to move the light to trivial or unrelated matters; but, worse, Democrats accused Republicans of political smear. 

Old Gadfly:  What made the greatest impression on you?

AM:  Evidence of deception and obfuscation.  In the run up to the Presidential election, many of us suspected the “video claim” was a deliberate deception.

IM:  At the time, I thought American leadership was being somewhat duplicitous by impugning freedom of speech if there really was such a video.  And our government even “tracked down” the video creator, arrested him, and sent him to prison.  The word, “fraud,” seems to have been the central reason for the conviction.

Old Gadfly:  Ironic isn’t it?  Fraud means deceit or trickery for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.  I watched the hearing and what Republicans revealed was a clear case of fraud for political gain.

AM:  Remember, this attack occurred not only on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, but within weeks of a Presidential election.  Obama’s campaign slogan was:  “GM alive, bin Laden dead, al Qaeda on the run.”

IM:  Within 72 hours of Obama’s second-term inauguration, Hillary testified before a Senate Committee.  During this testimony, she still defended the video narrative.  When she said, “What difference will it make,” I got a chill up my spine (no, not down my leg) that Hillary was actually being transparent—Obama won the election, after all, so let’s press forward. 

Even Harry Reid was finally transparent in admitting he lied on the Senate floor to defeat Romney. 

AM:  This was further evidence, in my mind, that the current cohort of Democrats truly believe in a win-lose strategy.  They subscribe to any means to achieve this end.  And if they can’t win, then both must lose.

Old Gadfly:  This dynamic explains to a certain extent the circumstances in Iraq—Bush had bipartisan support before going into Iraq; yet when it was reported that Bush had nearly 90% approval ratings for doing this, I anticipated Democrats would recognize the balance of political capital would favor Republicans.  Sure enough, Democrats and a complicit media forced Bush into a two-front war against foreign-born insurgents in Iraq and an opposing political party in America. By the way, the Democrat victory in this case is still providing fraudulent ammunition for today’s political contest.  But we’ll save this for a future discussion.

AM:  Wow, the street light is illuminating some serious corruption in American politics.  This brings me to the second impression the hearing made on me:  obfuscation.  Congressman Cummings was the lead pit bull in this effort.  He worked very hard to defend Hillary while viciously attacking committee Republicans.  Cummings and other Democrats kept complaining that the seven previous hearings found nothing, had consumed 18 months and nearly $5 million in taxpayer funding; Chairman Gowdy asked where were the Democrat complaints when it was revealed the Administration had invested $50 million to train four or five Syrian rebels.  Chairman Gowdy’s point was right on target, except the amount was $500 million, not $50 million.  The obfuscation by Democrats was to shift the light on Hillary strengths and successes.  But, if you were to listen to a progressive news analyst like Rachel Maddow of MSNBC News, you see more evidence of street light truth by criticizing the waste of $500 million and then linking that criticism not to Obama but by suggesting none of the current Republican Presidential candidates should be taken seriously.  See the pathetic analysis here.

IM:  You would think Congressman Cummings would keep a lower profile.

Old Gadfly:  Why?

IM:  While mainstream media is reluctant to shine a light on it, Cummings has fingerprints on the IRS scandal (for example, see here, here, and here).   Cummings and his staff were involved in clear attempts (and an unconstitutional abuse of power) to silence political opposition.

AM:  Aren’t we missing the 800 pound gorilla in this discussion?

Old Gadfly:  Shine a light on it.

AM:  Think “cover up.”

Old Gadfly:  You’re teasing us.

AM:  How many Americans died during the Watergate incident?

IM:  None.

AM:  At Benghazi?

IM:  Four.

AM:  That’s correct.  What was the motivation for the Watergate break-in (the Democratic Committee National Headquarters)?

IM:  It involved breaking and entering in an attempt to discover democrat strategy.

AM:  Correct.  But it was the “cover up” that generated the greatest interest and outrage. 

IM:  So who is the gorilla?

AM:  Hillary Rodham as a recent Yale law school graduate and staff member of the House Judiciary Committee doing legal groundwork to impeach Nixon.  While there are conflicting recollections (for example, see here and here) between some key members of the staff, two facts are undisputed:  Hillary wrote a memorandum that declared Nixon had no legal right to counsel during an impeachment process, and she collaborated in concealing evidence (in other words, made arrangements to prevent public access to relevant legal documents).  The concealed evidence in this case established a precedent in terms of the right to counsel in a previous impeachment proceeding involving US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.  Let me repeat, Hillary and others concealed it. 

IM:  Of course, Hillary was also intimately aware of the legal maneuvering involved an impeachment attempt against her own husband when he was President.

AM:  And look how they trashed those who brought scrutiny to Bill Clinton—not just Monica Lewinsky, but Paula Jones, and others who were sexual assault victims.  My good friend and former professional colleague, Buzz Patterson, a former military aid to President Bill Clinton, had the courage to present first-hand testimony about the Clinton’s abuse of power and varied corrupt behaviors in his book, Dereliction of Duty.  Buzz made a special point that there was a plastic box of files that never left Hillary’s presence.  Hmmmmmm . . . do you think they might have included files of evidence in the Whitewater case?  After all, a constant refrain from the Clintons when asked about wrongdoing in Whitewater was not that they were innocent of any wrongdoing; the response was “there is no evidence.”  So, is there any surprise that Hillary made sure there was no evidence of any wrongdoing while she was Secretary of State?

Old Gadfly:  Notice, none of the Benghazi hearings inquired about what the American presence at Benghazi was all about.  We, however, have discussed this in previous discussions (see here, here, and here) about CIA gun running for Syrian rebels.  Was this legal?  Now we know the Syrian rebel force consists of a formidable force of four to five men.  But where have all the arms gone?  How did the Jordanian fighter pilot get shot down?  Where did that missile come from?  But I digress.

AM:  Wouldn’t honesty be refreshing?

Old Gadfly:  The progressives sadly believe, as did Jack Nicholson in the movie, “A Few Good Men,” “you can’t handle the truth.”  Even after this latest Benghazi hearing, Hillary still has 53% of the vote in Iowa.  That is a large segment of our population that is truly drunk, looking for truth under the street light controlled by progressives.