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.

            

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. 

An Immoral Wall?

By

Old Gadfly

As of today, nonessential portions of the federal government have been shut down for 19 days.  Tomorrow, thousands of these individuals will not be paid.  Some have already applied for unemployment benefits.  Why is this happening?

President Trump has not agreed to sign an appropriations bill that would provide funding for the federal government because it does not include $5.7 billion for a wall at our southern border.  This is one of the campaign promises that led to his election.  New Speaker of the House Pelosi calls this promise immoral.

Yesterday, President Trump met with Congressional leaders to negotiate a deal.  After about 20 minutes, the President asked the new Speaker of the House if she would agree to funding the wall if he approved government funding, and she said no.  At this point, he stood up, said "we're done here," and walked out.  Leaving the White House, Democrat leaders immediately addressed reporters describing this part of the meeting as a tantrum: "the President slapped the table and stormed out."  This tactic was recently described by Speaker Pelosi as a "wrap-up smear" that Republicans employ, which is itself a "wrap-up smear" because there is little to no evidence of Republicans using this tactic especially in light of a mainstream media that is ideologically aligned with the left.  Republicans in attendance said the President never raised his voice, slapped the table, or "stormed out."  Yet, "stormed out" is the language used on the front page of today's The New York Times.  Shepard Smith even used that expression at Fox News. 

The night before, even before the President’s Oval Office address, many of the news outlets were cautioning those who were prepared to tune-in about all the lies to be told and that fact checkers were already prepared to point out the lies.  Should we be concerned?  Douglas Hyde, a Brit and author of I Believed, described his conversion from a believing Christian to a militant, atheistic Marxist (Communist).  Here is how he reflected upon the Communist movement riots, strikes, and other violent forms of protest:

And then?  The end of capitalism and the end of all crises, all unemployment.

After all, there was evidence which appeared to support this argument for the communist and left-wing Press was daily proclaiming the liquidation of unemployment in the Soviet Union.  And if the opposition Press said that Russian unemployment was concealed by the millions in forced labour camps, why, that, we knew was just bourgeois propaganda and, as such, suspect.  Was it really to be wondered at if a generation which had grown up in the din and strife of modern propaganda rejected all that which came from official and “respectable” sources and accepted only what fitted in with what it wanted to believe?  There was a certain “kick” to be had out of rejecting all that came from the most respectable quarters and accepting all that came from those who were most abused and distrusted (pp. 35-36; published by The Reprint Society of London, 1952).

Earlier today, a good friend forwarded a video clip of Charlie Kirk, of USA Turning Point, responding to a question about the border wall from an attendee at one of his public appearances.  The implication in the question is that those who argue for the wall provide no evidence or logic.  Unfortunately, the young man asking the question, like so many in America, is at the mercy of the “wrap-up smear” that dominates most of the news networks.  Kirk answered the question with facts and explained the importance of fairness and sovereignty as they relate to border security.

Thousands of Americans lost their jobs just before Christmas when General Motors closed three plants.  They weren’t furloughed like today’s federal employees.  General Motors jobs are gone.  The real crime here, however, is that General Motors’ plant closures came after a $10 billion bailout from the American taxpayer.

On border security, Americans are hoping for compromise.  For Democrats, compromise is really capitulation:  win-lose, or lose-lose.  Win-win or no deal are not acceptable options. 

My prediction is that Democrats will double down and force President Trump to invoke his Constitutional responsibility to protect our nation by declaring a national emergency.  Democrats already have a bench of prepositioned federal judges to block any action by the President.  Meanwhile, “catch and release” for illegal aliens crossing the southern border will continue and collateral damage (low skill job competition, crime, and federal subsidies paid for by American taxpayers) outside the Washington D.C. swamp will accumulate.  The Democrat-controlled House will crank up the heat by re-energizing the Russian-collusion meme even though there is no indication that special prosecutor Mueller and his team succeeded in uncovering any criminal activity here.  There will be plenty of “wrap-up smear” to be employed, just as Douglas Hyde realized during his own seduction by the militant left.

This is the new America: the “transformed” America promised by a previous occupant of the White House.  Shall we get used to being called “comrade”?  The alternative could be decapitation and not knowing we are bleeding.  These are not nice people.  Several associates of President Trump are experiencing the wrath of a political party that refuses to accept the presidential election results.  I guess to Democrats, these political targets are just road kill, as opposed to mere “speed bumps,” (the former White House occupant’s label for the four Americans killed at Benghazi) on their way to power.           

Some Are More Equal

IM:  Events during this week demonstrated life imitating satire.

Old Gadfly:  What do you mean, IM?

IM:  In Orwell’s Animal Farm, after the socialists took command, they issued seven commandments.  Over time, seeing how easy it was to control the other animals, Napoleon (styled after Joseph Stalin) reduced the commandments to just one:  “all animals are created equal; some are more equal than others.”

Old Gadfly:    Animal Farm’s class distinctions certainly appear to reflect the FBI Director’s decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton despite his own well-described case of someone who grossly violated federal statutes.  Comey was very careful in his wording:  “no evidence of criminal intent” and “extreme carelessness.”

IM:  This wording was precisely what President Obama signaled when interviewed by Chris Wallace on April 10, 2016 on the Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace program.  Obama said he believed there was “no intent” to violate laws, although the actions certainly were “very careless.”

AM:  Then, on a Monday, June 27, 2016, in an unscheduled but well-choreographed arrangement, Bill Clinton privately (no witnesses or photographers) met with Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General of the United States, on her plane on the airport tarmac in Phoenix.  When leaked, Lynch claimed it was just a casual discussion about grandchildren.

IM:  Five days later, on Saturday, July 2, 2016, several FBI agents interviewed Hillary Clinton for about three hours.  This was not a sworn deposition, and there was no recording or transcript of the session.  Yet, Democrats wanted to compare this case to the Petraeus case—the big difference is that the FBI interrogated him under oath.  Do you think Bill advised Lynch to remind the FBI that when they talked to Hillary, it should not be under oath to avoid perjury implications?  Bill remembers his own experience under oath regarding his sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky.

AM:  Then, on Sunday, July 3, 2016, the New York Times published an article that sent a signal to Loretta Lynch:  “. . . Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general, who took office in April 2015."  Of course, by then Lynch said to the public that she would do whatever the FBI recommends.

IM:  All of which led up to FBI Director, Comey, making his announcement on Tuesday, July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton.  This announcement was just in time for Obama and Clinton to emerge from Air Force One in Charlotte, North Carolina, for a campaign stop.  The optics were powerful—Air Force One, the President, and an unindicted felon flaunting the notion that some people are above the law and thus more equal than others—like Obama, another anointed one.  Obama declared Hillary the most qualified person for President ever in our history.  Sadly, job titles are not sufficient qualifications.  What has Hillary actually accomplished that is positive?  A lot of wreckage followed her wake:  the Russia reset, a Middle East in absolute turmoil, ISIS, North Korea, Iran nuclear deal, and so forth.

AM:  In the military we had a saying, screw up and move up.  It was recognition that senior people who made mistakes somehow got promoted. 

IM:  With the “above the law” precedent clearly established thanks to Lynch, Comey, and Clinton, Tom Perez, Secretary of Labor, appeared on the Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace program (hosted by Shannon Bream) today in his “private capacity” on national television to stump for Hillary Clinton.  Can you imagine Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunsford, presenting himself in a business suit on the same talk show to stump for a politician?  He’d be court-martialed for violating the Hatch Act—which applies to all federal officials by the way.  Clearly some Americans are more equal than others.

Old Gadfly:   My son-in-law is a legal immigrant.  When I asked him why foreign nationals come to America, he unhesitatingly said, “America has been known as a prosperous and peaceful society based on the rule of law” (bold italics added for emphasis).  He is very disappointed by what is playing out by this corrupt administration, in general, and by an unscrupulous, above the law, presidential wannabe, in particular. 

Gentlemen, we talked about a ruling class in January.  This week provided more evidence.  How do we wake up Americans? 

Stupid Is as Stupid Does

IM:  Gentlemen, remember scenes when Forrest Gump’s mother coached him on life matters?  One of the notable quotes in the movie is from Forrest’ own observations:  “stupid is as stupid does.”

Old Gadfly:  Where are you taking us with this theme?

IM:  Current talk about a possible government shutdown.

AM:  And the question is typically worded this way:  Are Republicans willing to shut down the government to push legislation to defund Planned Parenthood? 

Old Gadfly:  What exactly is the logic being implied by this question?

AM:  The majority of Americans are repulsed by videos portraying the harvesting of fetal tissue for profit.  Responding to this concern, Republicans in the House have advanced legislation that shifts nearly half a billion in taxpayer funds away from Planned Parenthood and to reallocate these same funds for other health providers providing similar services, but not the abortions.  Democrats are saying they are opposed to defunding Planned Parenthood and will vote against the legislation.  Republican leadership in the Senate, fully aware that Republicans were blamed for the last shutdown talk about kicking the can down the road because even if the Senate passed defunding legislation, President Obama will veto it.

IM:  If Democrats and the Administration are not willing to acknowledge the will and intent of the majority of Americans and to compromise with Republicans who are legislating on behalf of the people, then why is it logical to blame Republicans for shutting down the government?  It sounds like Democrats are not willing to compromise, but expect Republicans to fully capitulate, that is, surrender any moral obligation to stand on principle.

Old Gadfly:  Americans have short memories.  During the last shutdown, Republicans in the House of Representatives tried several iterations of legislative language to defund or at least delay funding portions of the Affordable Care Act.  The final version gave Democrats everything they wanted but delayed funding for some of the more controversial measures of the Affordable Care Act.  Two months earlier, the Obama Administration issued an Executive Order delaying the employer mandate by one year because it would have been a political disaster for upcoming Democrat elections.  Not only was the Executive Order unconstitutional, it was an insult to the Republicans who already understood the consequential impact on the American economy.  Ever since the passage of the Affordable Care (without a single Republican vote) the labor participation rate plummeted and is now the lowest it has been since October 1977, with most of these Americans now on government subsidies.

It was the Democrat caucus that refused to compromise even on this last version proposed by the House.  By choosing not to compromise, Democrats are the ones that chose to shut down the government because they could shamelessly blame it on Republicans for refusing to compromise.  Republicans made numerous compromises.  Democrats allowed none.  This Democrat-manufactured notion that Republicans shut down the government is called a meme, and it took on irrefutable truth in the minds of Americans.  This was a case of unconditional surrender, and Republicans bought it.  And now they own it, until they grow a backbone and argue for the actual truth. 

AM: So, why are Democrats willing to lie and cheat to keep Planned Parenthood funded?

 IM:  It’s all for political power.  Planned Parenthood spends millions each year lobbying the government and contributing to political campaigns.  Just in Colorado, according to Secretary of State data, Planned Parenthood spent $3.3 million since January 2013.  This money was spent on promoting Democrat candidates, defending two Democrat incumbents during recall elections, and on opposing statewide ballot measures to redefine the term "person.”  These data represent only one of the 50 States.  Can you imagine the impact defunding Planned Parenthood would have on Democrat resources for political campaigning?  The half billion in funding does not just go away.  House Republicans reallocated the funding to other health care providers to provide similar services, minus abortion.

Old Gadfly:    Walter Cronkite, often called “the most trusted man in America,” wrote the preface to a 1983 Signet Classic version of Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Here is an excerpt: "If not prophecy, what was 1984? It was, as many have noticed, a warning: a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where political organization and technology can manufacture power in dimensions that would have stunned the imagination of earlier ages." In our time, it is manufactured "pop culture" folklore (such as “the war on women” and “war against reproductive rights”) that wires so many to think the way the political establishment wants. Progressive Democrats cannot continue their success in advancing an administrative state (as we discussed in our last conversation) without the duplicitous, mendacious, and complicit collaboration of Planned Parenthood.  This is why Obama and Democrats in Congress have drawn a line in the sand.

IM:  So, if I may be so blunt, who are the stupid ones?

Old Gadfly:  Well, I think we can identify at least three groups:  (a) establishment Democrat politicians who subscribe to their own lies and deceitfulness; (b) Democrat constituents who subscribe to the establishment narrative; and (c) establishment Republican politicians who are either naïve in the face of blatant duplicity, mendacity, and complicity, or lack courage to stand for moral principle.

AM:  How about Republic constituents?

Old Gadfly:  Republican constituents are frustrated and disappointed.  Elected Republicans failed to deliver on expectations following elections in 2010 (Republicans took control of the House) and 2014 (Republicans kept even stronger control of the House and regained control of the Senate).  The notion that “we just need to elect the right people” is not working.  Thus, there is now a growing movement to seek another solution to overcome the corruption in Washington, D.C.  It is called the Convention of the States Project (www.cosaction.com; authorized by Article V of the U.S. Constitution) to propose amendments to the Constitution under three main topics:  fiscal responsibility, power and jurisdiction, and term limits.  If 34 State legislatures pass a resolution for such a convention, Congress shall establish a date and a location.  Any amendments proposed by the convention would then be sent to the State legislatures for ratification, which requires 38 or more States to approve.  This is a peaceful, Constitutional solution, advanced by “we the people” on behalf of State legislatures to rebalance political power in our nation. 

IM:  Of course, understanding the vision and wisdom of our Constitutional framers, who anticipated the need for such a solution, requires some refresher education. 

Old Gadfly:  The fate of our nation depends upon such a refresher and a commitment to action if we are to preserve our self-governing Constitutional Republic.  We cannot assume this problem will take care of itself.  We will all own the consequences, whether we choose to be stupid or not.

Obama's Rubicon

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, yesterday, President Obama took full credit for reopening the government and saving our nation from default.  Here is what he said:  “Well, last night, I signed legislation to reopen our government and pay America’s bills.  Because Democrats and responsible Republicans came together, the first government shutdown in 17 years is now over.  The first default in more than 200 years will not happen.”  Based on his desire to speak to the American public in the way he did, how would you characterize Obama’s vision of a “transformed” America and the logic of his arguments? 

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Let me start.  If we reflect upon Obama’s strategy over the past few weeks, it clearly indicates that he is repeating Julius Caesar’s political power overreach in crossing the Rubicon.  The Rubicon crossing meant that Caesar wanted complete imperial power in defiance of the established distribution of powers at the time. 

In defiance of the Constitution and the laws of our nation, Obama has indicated he has absolutely no need for the role Congress plays in his vision of a transformed America.  Incidentally, let’s recall John Stuart Mill’s arguments in his essay, “The Contest in America,” that we discussed last month in our conversation, “Beyond Negotiation.”  Both Democrats, yes even Democrats, and Republicans in both houses of Congress were mere “human instruments” in the service of master Obama.  Democrats and their collaborators in mainstream media, if they have any reasoning capacity, moral decency, and respect for the Constitution and its insistence upon the sovereignty of the people, then they should feel degraded.  Republicans were truly targeted as the enemy of the master, with the firing of canon fire and thrusting of bayonets “in the service and for the selfish purposes of the master.”  I watched ABC’s World News with Diane Sawyer yesterday evening and it was clear the mainstream media is doing Obama’s bidding by employing Saul Alinsky’s rule number 13.

Old Gadfly:  It is unfortunate that the ideal of a free press advanced in the First Amendment is so blinded by the progressive ideology.  Obama obviously has achieved a concentration of political power according to prevailing mainstream media public narratives.  AM, aside from a lot of rhetoric, why do you believe Obama’s behavior justifies being characterized as crossing the Rubicon?

AM:  Obama wants to change the constitutional process of government and concentrate more power in the executive branch.  Here is what he said in today’s speech: 

But to all my friends in Congress, understand that how business is done in this town has to change.  Because we've all got a lot of work to do on behalf of the American people -- and that includes the hard work of regaining their trust.  Our system of self-government doesn’t function without it.  And now that the government is reopened, and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists and the bloggers and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do, and that’s grow this economy; create good jobs; strengthen the middle class; educate our kids; lay the foundation for broad-based prosperity and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul.  That’s why we're here.  That should be our focus.

Old Gadfly:  Despite the arrogance of telling us where we can or should not get our information on current affairs, there are a lot of abstractions and rhetorical platitudes in that quote.  How does any of it relate to actually crossing the Rubicon?

AM:  In a nutshell, Obama wants a single, vanguard party that enables a large, centrally managed statist administration.  That single party would be a progressive Democrat Party.  That’s what he means when he says Washington must change.  While he says he’s open to ideas and is willing to compromise, Obama refuses to negotiate or compromise in actual behavior.  The past sequester was not a compromise.  It was Obama’s idea, supposedly in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.  The “appearance” of compromise was a deliberate attempt to inflict visible pain presumed to follow the effects of the sequester.  The plan was to use “human instruments” in service to a master to reinforce a narrative that Republicans do not care for the people.  This is what Obama and progressives hoped to achieve by shutting down the government because they knew they could count on the mainstream media to repeat their logic in shaping the public narrative.

Old Gadfly:  So, Obama’s Rubicon is the complete and irreversible commitment to transforming America, which involves changing the constitutional logic of governance.  IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind), let’s hear your thoughts on the logic.

IM:  All this transformational action is being done using Orwell’s “newspeak” and by controlling the public narrative.  The logic of Obama’s arguments is designed to “frame the issue” in order to control the narrative; this logic, by the way, is also advanced by other members of the progressive caucus.

Old Gadfly:  What do you mean by “framing the issue”?

IM:  Obama and his progressive cohort are masters at sophistry. 

AM:  Define sophistry.

IM:  The sophists believed in the power of rhetoric.  Arguments merely need to be plausible, not necessarily true.  Dictionary.com defines sophistry this way:  “a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.”

AM:  That concept nails what we are enduring under Obama.  Sometimes, the approach is not so subtle.  I heard today from one of the “talking heads” Obama told us to avoid in his speech yesterday, that while Obama was appearing presidential during the government shutdown, members of his administration were tweeting followers with pejorative (Mill’s canon fire and bayonet attacks) comments about Speaker Boehner and the Republicans.

IM:  Absolutely.  Let’s get back to the logic.  Obama and his progressive followers use syllogisms to frame issues.  This, by the way, is a tactic George Lakoff had advanced and employed in training progressive politicians and political activists.  Some of this intellectual indoctrination and training took place through The Rockridge Institute before it lost its 501c(3) status.  But, the intellectual momentum and activism continues through Cognitive Policy Works.

Old Gadfly:  Before we get into specific arguments, explain what you mean by syllogism.

IM:  A syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning that includes a major premise followed by a minor premise that in turn leads to an apparent conclusion.  Here’s an example:  The major premise states:  educated people are liberal.  The minor premise states:  Mary is educated.  Therefore, it follows that Mary is a liberal.  The problem with syllogisms is that oftentimes major premises are not true.  In the example just provided, we know “educated people” are liberal, conservative, and in between.  Thus, the fact that Mary is educated does not necessarily make her liberal.  Yet, there is a prevailing meme that educated people are liberal.

Old Gadfly:  One of the arguments I keep advancing in our discussions is that many Americans who claim to be liberal, are not.  They are progressive.  And, as F.A. Hayek pointed out in The Road to Serfdom, many who claim to be “liberal” are really “conservative” in terms of preserving privilege.  We discussed evidence of this notion in the presumption (major premise) that Democrats protect classes of people (unions, minorities, reproductive rights, illegal immigrants, gays, and so forth).

IM:  So, in the “government shutdown,” what progressives have advanced in terms of a syllogism are the following arguments:

Argument 1:

Major premise:  House Republicans passed a bill to shut down the government.

Minor premise:  The government was shut down.

Conclusion:  House Republicans shut down the government.

Argument 2:

Major premise:   A government shutdown will hurt people.

Minor premise:  News reports indicate examples of people who were adversely impacted by the shutdown (e.g., WW II vets, furloughed government employees).

Conclusion:  The government shutdown did in fact hurt people.

IM:  So, collectively these arguments lead to an even stronger narrative:  House Republicans shut down the government to hurt people.

AM:  Exactly.  This narrative was blatantly obvious in the mainstream news.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s correct the logic.

IM:  First of all, in his speech yesterday, Obama lectured Republicans by saying

So let's work together to make government work better, instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse.  That’s not what the founders of this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self-government.  You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president, then argue for your position.  Go out there and win an election.  Push to change it. But don’t break it.  Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building.  That's not being faithful to what this country is about.

IM:  Our founders envisioned a limited government, not the Leviathan Obama and progressives want.  The Tea Party is not anti-government.  The Tea Party represents Americans who fully understand what our founders had in mind regarding limited government with appropriate checks and balances.  While Obama presumes to lecture Republicans, he completely ignores the fact that “self-governing” Americans argued against Obamacare when then did elect members to represent them in the House of Representatives.  Obama and progressives in government and the media refuse to acknowledge the fact that in 2010, following the partisan passage of Obamacare, Democrats lost 64 seats to give Republicans a majority with a 49-seat margin.  Granted, Republicans lost eight seats in the 2012 elections, but this was due to the Obama Administration via the Internal Revenue Service successfully demonizing and censoring the Tea Party voice between 2010 and 2012.  Yet, despite a majority voice in the House of Republicans, they are treated as a fringe, extremist minority in one of the branches of government designed constitutionally to maintain “power of the purse.”  And regarding Obama’s comment, “don’t break it,” Obamacare has broken the founder’s ideal of self-government.  Obama is a bully with a pulpit and a legion of Copernican drones repeating his messages.

Old Gadfly:  Excellent analysis, IM.  Let’s get back to some corrected logic.

IM:  The arguments should look like this:

Argument 1:

Major premise:  As 2010 elections arrived, the majority of Americans had concerns about the effect of Obamacare on the economy and individual freedoms.

Minor premise:  Democrats lost 64 seats to Republicans, giving Republicans a 49-seat margin as the majority party.

Conclusion:  Self-governing Americans wanted to repeal Obamacare.

Argument 2 (aside from over 40 House-passed bills to repeal, defund, or delay Obamacare or various provisions, none (that is zero) were sent to committee or presented to the Senate for an up or down vote):

Major premise:  In the current crisis, House Republicans passed a bill to fund the federal government with the exception of Obamacare (representing the will and intent of those who elected them).

Minor premise:  Senate majority leader Reid refused to allow a vote on the bill, claiming Obamacare must be fully funded.

Conclusion:  Reid (not House Republicans) would not allow the federal government to be funded.

 Argument 3:

Major premise:  In a spirit of compromise, House Republicans passed a bill to completely refund the federal government and included a one-year delay on implementing the individual mandate (despite the President already granting numerous exemptions or delays, in violation of the law he pushed and approved).

Minor premise:  Senate majority leader Reid refused to present the bill the bill for a vote, claiming Obamacare must be fully funded.

Conclusion:    Reid (not House Republicans) would not allow the federal government to be funded.  Thus, the government was allowed to be shut down by Reid with the full support of Obama (who had blatantly indicated he would not negotiate).

Old Gadfly:  So, Obama’s idea of compromise is really capitulation or surrender.

AM:  That’s exactly right.  And after nearly five years of perverting the idea of what the founders had in mind in combination with an abysmal economy with millions either unemployed or underemployed, lower incomes, and fears of additional costs for Obamacare, he is even more confident in crossing the Rubicon.  Add to this his ability to completely dodge, for now, scandals such as Benghazi and the IRS harassment of the Tea Party that are far more egregious than Watergate, strengthen his resolve to further exploit obvious mendacity, complicity, and duplicity among those who control the public narrative.

Old Gadfly:  As we discussed just prior to national elections this past year, Walter Cronkite foresaw 30 years ago what is currently playing out in the lives of Americans.  Cronkite said the following in the Preface to a 1983 edition of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984:

Seldom has a book provided a greater wealth of symbols for its age and for the generations to follow, and seldom have literary symbols been invested with such power.  How is that?  Because they were so useful, and because the features of the world he drew, outlandish as they were, also were familiar. . . . We’ve met Big Brother in Stalin and Hitler and Khomeini.  We hear Newspeak in every use of language to manipulate, deceive, to cover harsh realities with the soft snow of euphemism [George Lakoff demonstrates this in Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think when he metaphorically classifies liberals as nurturing parents and conservatives as strict fathers].  And every time a political leader expects or demands that we believe the absurd, we experience that mental process Orwell called doublethink. . . . If not prophecy, what was 1984?  It was, as many have noticed, a warning:  a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where political organization and technology can manufacture power in dimensions that would have stunned the imaginations of earlier ages.[1]

AM: Obama is a seasoned community organizer and he has surrounded himself with communications experts who are experts in the use of social media technology.   I have often wondered what symbolic role Obama’s personal logo has played since he started campaigning for president.  I visited his website Organizing for Action.  Here is an example of how the logo has been used in organizing followers:

IM:  This is eerie.  In the movie, 1984, a logo also plays a key role.  Here’s a snapshot from one of the scenes:

AM:  What does INGSOC represent?

IM:  INGSOC is Newspeak for “English Socialism,” a political ideology advanced by the political party that had power over society.  Obama’s logo signifies a rising sun within a circle that represents “O” in Obama.  The sun represents hope over the “changed” landscape of America as symbolized in the complete restructuring of the elements of the American flag.  The change is the fundamental change Obama keeps promising and pushing in violation of the “self-governing” ideal “gifted” to us by our founders.  AM, I agree with your notion that Obama has crossed the Rubicon.

AM:  Sad . . . so very sad. 

Old Gadfly:  Yes, but I think the situation is still redeemable.  We’ll discuss such a strategy during our next conversation.

---

[1] George Orwell, 1984, (New York:  Signet Classic, 1983), pp. 1-2