The Mueller Report: June 15, 2018

            IM:  Gentlemen, I had an interesting dream last night.  It involved a report by newly appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein.  It summarized findings stemming from his investigation.  With Rosenstein’s permission the report was allowed to be made public at a national press conference on Friday, June 15, 2018 at 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.

            AM:  I suspect, as Democrats have been pining for, Mueller's report sought prosecution of President Trump and some of his lieutenants.  After all, when Mueller was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), he actually reported to Comey when Comey was the Deputy Attorney General.  News reports indicate they had a cozy relationship. In the left’s opinion, prosecution would be suitable retribution for colluding with the Russians to steal the election.

            

          Old Gadfly:  IM, before we hear about your dream, let me remind you that there is a reason we have heard members of the left refer to the current developments as “Nixonian” or “shades of Watergate.”  There have been deliberate actions by Democrats that parallel efforts to take down Nixon.  The media amplified the effect then as now. On the 10^th of May, this was a New York Times headline:  “In Trump Firing of James Comey, Echoes of Watergate.”  Today’s Democrats essentially held Rod Rosenstein hostage to the idea of a special counsel in order to secure confirmation.  Similar actions took place when Democrats held hostage Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshaus for attorney general and deputy attorney general, respectively.  This took place during Senate confirmation hearings as Watergate was unfolding.  Although this may sound like a strange connection, Richardson’s so called “independent prosecutor,” Archibald Cox, was cozy with Democrats, actually inviting Senators Ted Kennedy and the widow of Robert Kennedy to his swearing in ceremony.[1]  One would think that Cox would take the necessary precautions to avoid appearing partisan. 

As I explained in a previous discussion, in the 1950s U.S. Congressman Richard Nixon was the lead investigator that led to the conviction of Alger Hiss, a Communist agent for the Soviet GRU but a close friend of highly placed Democrats.  According to Philip Elman, in 1943, he, Alger Hiss, and Archibald Cox worked together under Dean Acheson at the State Department.[2]  Do you get the drift? 

Unfortunately, a lot of what we know about Watergate is folklore.  More recent historians secured access to recently released original documents that indicate Nixon was innocent of any crimes yet unjustly convicted based on fabrications and manipulation of the public narrative.  In other words, Nixon was tried and convicted in the public court, orchestrated by power centers on the left:  Democrats (elected and in judicial roles) and the media.  In the process, laws were broken in terms of conspiracy and collusion by prosecutors and judges.[3]  And the media loves leaks now as they did then.  Tell me again.  How are The New York Times and The Washington Post different from Wikileaks?

            

           AM:  They are worse—they betray the essence of freedom of the press in America.  However, there is some irony and an abundance of truth in Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s observation that American newspapers are like the Communist newspapers of the former Soviet Union.  So Trump is screwed!!  Déjà vu all over again!!  

           

           IM:  Take a breath guys.  Let me tell you my dream.  You are going to find this hard to believe.  Here goes . . .

Going into the summer of 2018, Democrats were projected to rout Republicans in the mid-term elections—nationally and at the state level.  The media was already spiking the football as public figures from the left talked about the final phase of a transformed America.  Finally, one political party was on the verge of completely dominating political values for America.  America was about to become Soviet America, adopting the Communist Party USA’s slogan:  people and planet before profit.

Democrats kept investigations going in the House and Senate, periodically giving press reports that they were close to completing them, that they were convinced of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  Every week there was some bombshell report in The New York Times or Washington Post based on leaks from anonymous sources within the government.  Hillary Clinton began building a campaign staff for the 2020 elections.  Surprisingly, throughout this time, Mueller provided absolutely no reports on the investigation.  Miraculously, there were no leaks from his staff.

Then, on Thursday, June 14, 2018, Mueller announced that he would publicly present the results of the investigation the next day at 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.  Not known for drama, Mueller requested a coliseum and maximum coverage on all the networks.  Republicans and Trump supporters were already preparing for the bad news.  Democrats and the media were already talking about lengthy prison terms and celebrating final retribution for stealing the election.

The appointed time arrived.  Mueller took the stage and announced two major findings.  First, there was no evidence of collusion with Russia.  Second, the investigation into any evidence of obstruction of justice revealed serious violations of the law.  Commentators on MSNBC and CNN wanted to be the first to start listing names of those they believed were involved:  President Trump when he suggested that “I hope you can let it go,” Lt General Flynn, Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, and so forth. 

Then, Mueller looked into the camera and declared the investigation revealed a network of conspirators with an overwhelming rabbit trail of incriminating evidence.  Secret grand juries had already been held, gag orders were issued to all parties involved. 

The thread for this aspect of the investigation began with Comey.  Mueller wanted to know if the Wikileaks material had any other source other than Russia.  He discovered that the Washington DC police had been investigating the death of Seth Rich, an idealistic 27-year old staff member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) but had been pressured by Comey to back off since the FBI was already investigating this issue in light of the broader Russian collusion investigation.  Mueller discovered that while Russia had in fact hacked into the DNC email system, the actual material from Wikileaks actually came from Seth Rich.  Rich was found with two bullets to the back.  His wallet was intact with cash and credit cards—clearly the appearance of an assassination.  Authentic emails from Podesta previously expressed the intent to make an example of a leaker, “whether or not we have any real basis for it.”  This communication was more than circumstantial and far more egregious than President Trump’s “I hope you can let it go” request of Comey.  The Clinton campaign insisted upon not working with the press, unless they could directly control the narrative.  Yet, when it came to their attempt to spin the news with the trumped up Russian dossier on candidate Trump, I became very concerned that the FBI actually contributed to the narrative by leaking it to the press.

Obviously, we opened the aperture and justified reopening the Clinton email case.  We reversed immunity granted to various members associated with this case.  Despite an aggressive attempt to destroy evidence—an act that is obstruction of justice—we gathered sufficient evidence to seek indictments from a grand jury.  Besides Hillary, husband William, John Podesta, Sidney Blumenthal, and a host of other associates, we will be pursuing prosecutions and maximum sentences.  Commentators on MSNBC and CNN were visibly shocked.  Some began to cry uncontrollably.

Mueller continued.  The thread of our investigation led to other criminal activity within the Justice Department, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the National Security Council (NSC), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).  Although Lois Lerner deserved prosecution for her role in censoring voices on the right, we granted immunity to get evidence that took us not only to the political officer appointed to the IRS, but to members of the White House staff.  Valerie Jarrett immediately sought immunity to provide evidence that proved Barack Obama was involved in covering up illegal activity in Fast and Furious, the Benghazi attack, prisoner exchanges with Afghanistan and Iran, and other less known activities.  Attorneys General Holder and Lynch also conspired to support political actions contrary to public law.  These were the big fish in the conspiracy.  Since the evidence is irrefutable, we are pressing forward with these prosecutions as we also continue to follow the thread throughout the conspiracy, to include leakers within the NSC, the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA.  We are also considering seditious behavior considerations for journalists who collaborated in these activities knowing the motive or intent of the leakers was to subvert the legitimacy of a constitutionally elected President.

Although I did not vote for President Trump, nor do I even appreciate his agenda or style, as a man of the law, I had no other moral obligation but to enforce actions in his attempt to drain the swamp.  That completes my presentation; I will be taking no questions.

AM:  Wow.  Your dream is wishful thinking.

Old Gadfly:  Cicero observed similar dangers in his own day.  We would be wise to recognize the similarities captured in Cicero's statement:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

Let us hope that Mueller understands this caution and helps our nation save its soul.   

---

[1] For a well-documented history on Archibald Cox and his Watergate connection, see Archibald Cox. (2017, May 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 22:50, May 18, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archibald_Cox&oldid=780960548

[2] Norman I. Silber, With All Deliberate Speed:  The Life of Philip Elman:  An Oral History Memoir in Mr. Elman’s Words, (Ann Arbor, MI:  The University of Michigan Press, 2004), p. 140.

[3] For instance, see Geoff Shepard, The Real Watergate Scandal:  Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot that Brought Nixon Down, (Washington, DC:  Regnery History, 2015).

Trump Qualification Concerns

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

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

  

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Gadfly:  OK . . . continue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Gadfly:  Well?  Are they wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masters of Deceit

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

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

   

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popular Despite Incompetence

Hillary Clinton is running for a third Obama term, banking on Obama's popularity.  

Can someone tell me why Obama is popular?  It is not due to policy success. Obamacare, his signature legislation, is a disaster—coverage is becoming narrower, premiums and deductibles are climbing, and the number of government-funded Medicaid recipients has skyrocketed.  Even democrats are distancing themselves from this Frankenstein’s monster.  The economy is limping along at about 1% GDP growth.  Labor participation rates are the lowest since 1977, compounding the significant increase in the number of Americans dependent upon government subsidies.  Our national debt is at $20 trillion while unfunded liabilities are in the hundreds of trillions.  Our military has been emasculated.

As the presidential election looms, Russia has become the preferred partner to Syria, Turkey, and Iran. Now, the Philippines have aligned with China. These developments stem from foreign policy incompetence.

          Mr. Trump made this observation in the third debate: "If she did nothing, we'd be in much better shape. And this is what's caused the great migration, where she's taking in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, who probably in many cases -- not probably, who are definitely...in many cases, ISIS-aligned, and we now have them in our country, and wait until you see -- this is going to be the great Trojan horse.  And wait until you see what happens in the coming years. Lots of luck, Hillary. Thanks a lot for doing a great job."

Thus, domestically and internationally America’s policies have failed to make things better, let  alone maintain some semblance of stability, prosperity, and peace; Obama policies have made domestic and foreign conditions worse.

Perhaps Obama's popularity is due to one major change:  as promised, Obama has in fact transformed America.  This transformation affects the economic, political, and social dimensions of our society.  He has convinced many socialists that capitalism is evil, and that the wealthy have not paid their fair share of taxes (despite generating the most tax revenue in our nation’s history).  He has convinced many progressives that their ideology is the only correct and moral view of the world.  And, he has convinced the secular humanists that Judeo-Christian principles and traditions are a threat to a woman’s reproductive rights, homosexual sodomy, and those who are confused about their gender.  Facts don’t matter, only a good story does (as he emphasized during a 60 Minutes interview in terms of his only regret during his first term).  This is why movements like Black Lives Matter (which emerged from the unsubstantiated belief that Michael Brown was unjustly killed by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri) are so important in his vision for transformation.  Actual facts are irrelevant as the following FBI data reveals blacks are killed by blacks 10 times more frequently than by whites:

          There are too many Americans who see the truth, but are afraid to share it with their friends because they do not want to be accused of being racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, misogynist, and so forth.  When Hillary trotted out the Gold Star Khan family at the Democratic National Convention, the purpose was not to honor sons and daughters lost in combat, but to demonize Trump.  The Khans became a human shield for Hillary’s (and her progressive mafia) orchestrated attacks on Trump.  This was designed as a trap—one that Trump could not avoid.  Trump’s first comments about this were in response to questions by George Stephanopoulos (a former Clinton policy adviser and Clinton Foundation donor).  This was a masterfully manufactured and orchestrated news cycle to demonstrate Trump's Islamophobia.     

So, why is Obama so popular?  The voice of the public narrative (mainstream media, academia, Hollywood, and the ruling class in general) wants him to be popular because he is the face of progressivism—the ideology that seeks utopia this side of eternity, which can only be made so through social justice administered by a ruling elite.  Yet, the mess that is everywhere reeks of incompetence in light of a once great America known for its vision, declared in the Declaration of Independence, and its system of limited and enumerated governance, described in the original Constitution.

Trump fights for a renewal of this vision, for everyone, especially our indentured classes within Democrat-run inner cities.  Clinton and her supporters represent the domestic enemies I swore to defeat in my commissioning oath:  “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  Cicero observed similar dangers in his own day.  We would be wise to recognize the similarities captured in Cicero's statement:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

The significant divisiveness and lack of civility that permeates our nation reflects such a rotted soul.  Obama owns this transformation.  It is difficult for many to discern the reason's for America's rotted soul because Cicero’s “traitor” is popular.  Betting on this popularity by electing Hillary to a third Obama term would be foolish because it would reinforce the incompetency that has placed America and the entire international system on the threshold of utter catastrophe. 

          Rise up Americans.  This is our country.  Fight for it!  America must be great again.  Americans and the rest of the world depend upon it.

Mind Manipulation

IM:  I hear a lot of my fellow Republicans now saying Trump is a catastrophe and do not want to support him; some are even talking about voting for Hillary.

Old Gadfly:  Does that come as a surprise to you?

AM:  What I see playing out in the news is a very deliberate attempt to not only control what we see and understand, but to control our reactions as well.  Take the news today.  All the networks focused on how Trump claimed to have seen a video of an aircraft carrying $400 million in cash as ransom for four hostages released by Iran.  Trump later corrected this claim by saying it was actually another clip of an aircraft carrying the hostages.  The focus was Trump’s incorrect claim.  There was no interest in the $400 million in cash in exchange for the hostages.  In other words, Trump is dishonest or a loose cannon.  How about a glib president that chuckled away the $400 million in cash for four hostages, saying this was not ransom money?

IM:  Remind me what glib means.

AM:  Glib means “fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow.”  Voluble is “characterized by a ready and continuous flow of words” in order to dominate the narrative.  See how the press reacted?  They focused on Trump’s erroneous video clip—something considerably trivial compared with a ransom for hostages.

Old Gadfly:  Remember, F.A. Hayek made two important observations related to these dynamics.  The first was about how the political elite shape reactions to any opposition to their established values in the Chapter, “The End of Truth,” in his book, The Road to Serfdom.  Those sufficiently indoctrinated with these values are to spontaneously attack those who express any opposition to these values.  This explains the vitriolic reporting following George Stephanopoulos’s questions to Trump following the Kahn attacks at the Democrat National Convention.  The second observation in his book The Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism is that “the mind is the product of cultural evolution and reflects more imitation than reason.”

IM:  I hear a lot of people repeating what is in the news.  When I ask them to provide more detail or examples to support allegations, they go silent.  So, this must be a form of imitation.  Just this morning, I read Michael Morell’s op-ed, “I Ran the C.I.A.  Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton” in the New York Times.  This evening, quotes from his article were all over the news—a classic echo chamber.

AM:  I read the same article—pure propaganda.  He said, “Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. . . . I spent four years with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room.  In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.”  These are called platitudes.  If this is representative of the type of analysis he provided as the acting head of the CIA, no wonder we did so poorly on the international stage.  None of these qualifications relate to actual achievements.  But they do “glibly” disguise the tremendous foreign policy failures during her tenure—Benghazi, Libya, Egypt, Syria, ISIS, a resurgent Russia (who took Crimea and threatened Ukraine), North Korea, China, Cuba, and so forth.  None of these were successes—they were all setbacks.  Obama had no foreign policy expertise when he ran for president.  When McCain confronted him with this realization, Obama laughed at him and said, “but I have superior judgment.”  As if judgement is in one’s DNA and has nothing to do with experience and the wisdom that follows.

IM:  Morell, obviously pandering for a Clinton administration appointment, then went on to criticize Trump for his character traits:  “The traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement [nothing compared with the narcissist in chief, Obama], his overreaction to perceived slights [there have been no vicious attacks of Trump—they are all in his imagination], his tendency to make decisions based on intuition [he offers no examples, but don’t forget intuition is what Obama’s superior judgment depended upon], his refusal to change his views based on new information [even Hillary refuses to change her views about lying to the people even from old information on the record from Director Comey], his routine carelessness with the facts [nowhere near to Obama’s characterization of the ISIS threat, the economy, and so forth], his unwillingness to listen to others [Obamacare is the right thing to do even though the majority of Americans didn’t want it], and his lack of respect for the law [enforcing immigration laws do not count and Obama is exempted from similar criticism because it would be racist].

AM:  In my view, the most egregious part of his article is when he suggested Putin “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”  Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation were involved in very serious “pay to play” actions with Russian actors.  Joy Overbeck provides a detailed expose in her article, “None Dare Call Her Treasonous.”  On the same page of The New York Times is another op-ed article by Arkody Ostrovsky, the Russian and Eastern European editor of the Economist.  The title of his article was “For Putin, Disinformation Is Power.”  The ideological zealots who make up the editorial staff at The New York Times completely missed the irony of these juxtaposed op-ed articles.  The Morell article is disinformation.

IM:  Mr. Ostrovsky said, “After Mikhail Gorbachev opened up the Soviet media, the contrast between socialist and capitalist economic systems had become too apparent.”  Yet, the progressive Democrats in America are pushing socialism while condemning capitalism.  Trump represents capitalism, which is why the progressive Democrats must diminish him as a candidate.  Ostrovsky continued, “Mr. Putin has reason to fear in one respect.  His system does face an existential threat from the Western model of governance.  Just as the economic inadequacies of Soviet Communism were exposed by comparison with the wealth produced by Western capitalism, Mr. Putin’s authoritarianism cannot match the appeal of an economy based on the rule of law, openness and competition.  The best way for the West to resist Russia, now and then, is to uphold its own values.”  Obama’s vision for fundamentally transforming America took us away from these values.  Hillary Clinton wants to accelerate this transformation.  Trump wants to reinstate them by “making America great again.”

Old Gadfly:  In the cold, gray month of January 1980, my wife and I traveled to Berlin, which included a visit to the Berlin Air Safety Center, a facility manned by officers from the four occupying nations—the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  As we met those on duty who were controlling flights into and out of Berlin corridors, two Soviet officers were in the room.  A younger one was sitting near the wall with his feet resting on the desk, reading the Pravda newspaper.  I shook hands with the senior Soviet officer on duty.  We were told by a younger Soviet officer, who spoke fluent English, the senior officer was a lieutenant colonel and a former MIG-25 pilot.  He was a first lieutenant, but the colonel reported to him—in other words, the lieutenant was the political officer for their unit.

AM:  The Russian word Pravda means “truth” in English.  We know Pravda was the government-sponsored and controlled paper.  It was the propaganda machine for the communist party—it reported on what the people were allowed to know or believe.

          Old Gadfly:  If the communist party controlled what was reported in the Soviet Union, then is it possible for an American ideology to have similar control over news reporting even in so called free societies?  Obviously it is.  American progressives—politicians, media, academia, and Hollywood—control the narrative.  The Trump and Clinton we see is the Trump and Clinton they want us to see.  Aggressive research is contrary to these images.  Hillary Clinton is unapologetically corrupt.  Peter Schweizer reveals some of this corruption in Clinton Cash (here is a free video that provides some of the evidence).  The last couple weeks I have asked friends, family, and complete strangers if they had seen Dinesh D’Souza’s movie or read his book:  Hillary’s America:  The Secret History of the Democratic Party.  Nine out of 10 have never heard of it.  The media is suppressing it.  This is called censorship because the facts and analysis are so contrary to the progressive idea of “truth.”  Americans—all Americans--need to realize this.