Bearing False Witness

by

Gadfly

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

First, is Trump a man of good character?
  

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

  

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

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

        

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

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

  

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

  

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

Obstruction

by

Gadfly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One's Name Is Mud

by

Gadfly

            The title of this essay is an idiom that can be traced to several sources.  The one most common to Americans relates to the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth.  After shooting the President, Boothe jumped from Lincoln’s box seat onto the stage at Ford Theater, breaking his leg.   Doctor Samuel Mudd provided medical aid and was later accused of being a co-conspirator in the crime.  To this day, individuals receive the moniker, “one’s name is Mud,” when determined to be “in disgrace or embroiled in scandal.”

            Today, at a no Q & A nine-minute speech, Robert Mueller may have earned the “one’s name is Mud” moniker as his legacy.

            No doubt, in the short-term, Mueller is a hero to the impeachment-obsessed Democrats.  His speech did not put his 400+ page report to rest.  He sent a clear signal (“dog whistle”?) to House Democrats that he failed to complete a legal assassination but that his report was deliberately worded to fuel a political assassination.

            In the longer term, Mueller’s tactic will be trampled by clear and overwhelming evidence (contrary to his “insufficient evidence” distraction) that members of the Administrative State actually conspired to remove a duly elected President.  As some of the evidence becomes public, it is inevitable that “the law” will prevail over politics.  The challenge will be organizing the abundance of evidence along a timeline that tells the real story.  And as Democrat-led, House committee chairs issue their abusive subpoenas, they might soon be surprised when the DOJ investigating net reaches into Congress, where Congressmen and staff members may also receive subpoenas to testify as to what they knew and when they knew it.  Democrats will quickly learn that, as they love to say, “No one, even the President, is above the law,” the same maxim applies to members of Congress and the Administrative State.

            Two very well-researched articles provide a lot of the emerging evidence.  One of the major strawmen in the political assassination attempt is the notion that Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server.  After the Wikileaks release, Russia was blamed for providing this information after allegedly hacking into the DNC server.  Hillary Clinton and the DNC refused to give FBI forensic experts access to their server to verify the Russia hacking.  Rather, Clinton and the DNC hired a private company called Crowdstrike to do the analysis.  So, when you hear Brennan, Comey, and Clapper say Russia hacked into the DNC server, they are repeating what the DNC and Crowdstrike want the public to believe.  For a very credible analysis that debunks this claim, read “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack,” The Nation, August 9, 2017.  Drawing upon technical analysis provided by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), their conclusion was that “the theft of the DNC e-mails was not a hack, but some kind of inside leak that did not involve Russia.” Here is a lengthy excerpt for the article:

In the meantime, VIPS has assembled a chronology that imposes a persuasive logic on the complex succession of events just reviewed. It is this:

·        On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

·        On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it.

·        On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the “hack” reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source. It then posted the adulterated documents just described.

·        On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account.

It does not require too much thought to read into this sequence. With his June 12 announcement, Assange effectively put the DNC on notice that it had a little time, probably not much, to act preemptively against the imminent publication of damaging documents. Did the DNC quickly conjure Guccifer from thin air to create a cyber-saboteur whose fingers point to Russia? There is no evidence of this one way or the other, but emphatically it is legitimate to pose the question in the context of the VIPS chronology. WikiLeaks began publishing on July 22. By that time, the case alleging Russian interference in the 2016 elections process was taking firm root. In short order Assange would be written down as a “Russian agent.”

Note: DNC staffer Seth Rich was assassinated on July 12, 2019.  He was a Bernie Sanders supporter and apparently not happy about how the DNC rigged the primary.

Excerpt continued:

But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

·        There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them, they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.

            The second major article with abundant evidence is far more recent:  “Joe diGenova Discusses Declassification and Origin of Obama Political Surveillance Operation…,” The Last Refuge, May 27, 2019.  It is a lengthy article with links to sources/evidence.  It implicates the usual suspects, to include Robert Mueller.

            What the left continues to count on is a complicit media that is doubling down on the removal of President Trump and an unwitting public that remains somewhat content in learning only part of the story.

 

The left’s tortured logic can only last so long.  When someone does something dishonest, lying about it is not counterintuitive behavior.  Of course, it helps to be so corrupted by power that being unscrupulous is a necessary trait.  Here are just two examples of the left’s tortured logic.

            First, on Mueller’s obstruction logic, he says that, because the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel claims a sitting president cannot be indicted, he chose not to decide on the obstruction evidence, which is an insult to jurisprudence because intent to commit a crime is an antecedent to an actual crime. If there is no crime, intent is irrelevant.  No evidence that a crime was not committed is something to be found only in Alice and Wonderland.  The legal standard is sufficient evidence to support a crime, which is consistent with the legal standard that one is presumed innocent until and only when sufficient evidence determines a crime has been committed.  To say that he could not exonerate the President because there was no evidence to prove his innocence is not the way jurisprudence is supposed to take place in America.  Even the President is entitled to due process, despite his real crime of getting elected.

Mueller claimed that because there could be no court conviction from an indictment against the President, he would not decide on obstruction; yet, he still indicted Russian players who will never see a day in court.  Is this an example of Orwellian Doublespeak?

 

Part II of Mueller’s report consists of over 200 pages of text, citing many news articles based on anonymous government leaks (and manufactured evidence) as their source.  Mueller established a compelling picture that there “appeared” to be obstruction, so he clearly signaled to the Democratic House that even though there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction, he was passing the baton to Congress for a political trial, called impeachment.  On the notion of colluding with Russia, he did decide, based on “insufficient evidence,” that there was no collusion.  In other words, although there was some evidence, it did not rise to an indictable threshold.  To even the most casual observer, there is blatant incongruity in the decisions for Parts I and II of the Mueller report.  In pursuing this path, Mueller is demonstrating that in today’s America, politics can trump the law.

            The second example of tortured logic is the reminiscing about past impeachment experiences such as Nixon and Clinton.  The only thing these two experiments had in common was an intent to impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

In the Nixon case, he had just won a landslide reelection, both in the popular vote (60.7% to 37.5%) and Electoral College (520 to 17).  Against this backdrop, some who were associated with this apparent wave of political power engaged in tremendously stupid stunts, the most egregious of which were orchestrated by John Dean (an older media darling on the scale of today’s Michael Avenatti).  There was no crime by Nixon as the predicate for impeachment proceedings.  While the House made a strong case for a cover-up by Nixon of crimes committed by others, Nixon was essentially tried in the court of public opinion thanks to “show trial” hearings (something Congressman Nadler has already teed up) and strategic releases of information to the media.

 

There is a far more accurate story about the Watergate scandal, revealed by others who, unlike anonymous sources cited by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, interviewed actual people and mentioned them by name.  Len Colodny, among other reputable investigative reporters, published incriminating details in his book, Silent Coup:  The Removal of a President.  Dean, Woodward, and The Washington Post sued Colodny and St. Martin’s Press unsuccessfully to keep the actual truth silent.  Geoff Shepard in his book, The Real Watergate Scandal:  Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot That Brought Nixon Down, argues that based on new evidence members of the judicial system conspired with the House Judiciary Committee to engage in illegal activities to remove Nixon.  By the way, the FBI’s Mark Felt was conveniently outed as “Deep Throat” by Bob Woodward when he passed away.  As they say, “dead men tell no lies.”  For those who have taken the time to read Colodny’s book, “Deep Throat” was General Alexander Haig, serving as Nixon’s Chief of Staff at the time.  I discuss details in another essay, “A Praetorian Guard?”

So, how was the William Clinton impeachment different?  After an independent counsel’s investigation (which reported to the US House of Representatives, not the Attorney General), Clinton was found to have committed felony crimes.  The Kenneth Starr report found 11 grounds (criminal evidence) for impeachment.  The Republican-led House forwarded two charges for impeachment—perjury and obstruction of justice-- to the Senate for conviction.  Sixty-seven votes were needed for a conviction.  There were insufficient votes to convict because votes were based mostly on political party affiliation.  Not a single Democrat voted to impeach Clinton—for actual crimes.

         

During his impeachment proceedings, Bill Clinton was defended by Cheryl Mills.  Sound familiar?  Mills was also involved in Hillary Clinton’s legal issues with the DOJ and FBI.  Lawyer-client confidentiality were sanctified in this case while perverted for Trump and his lawyers.

Why did Mueller call for a press conference today?  He wanted to send a signal.  He failed to find a legal means for removing Trump, something he clearly wanted to happen.  He allowed or ensured his 400+ page report to keep the political coup alive.  It is now a race between the Attorney General’s investigation into the investigators and Nadler’s show trials.

 

          Two years ago, I suggested a more plausible Mueller report.   Regardless of the outcome of the race between Nadler’s show trials and Barr’s investigation of the investigators, Mueller chose a side.  He will forever be known as “one’s name is Mud.”          

Dear Mom: Your Son Is Dead

by

Gadfly

Dear Mom,

            Reminiscing my days as an OV-10 Bronco Forward Air Controller (FAC) in the early 80s and at the height of the Cold War in Western Germany, I listened with great affection to the fraternal and patriotic tribute to OV-10 Bronco FACs, “Dear Mom, Your Son Is Dead” (a rendition of which is located here).  This group committed their lives in deference to a greater cause:  freedom versus communism.

I regret to inform you that your son (or at least his brain) appears to have bought the farm, likely during his grooming at The London School of Economics and further necrosis at The New York Times.  His propaganda piece in yesterday’s edition provides sad evidence.  I understand that he has sacrificed his personal reputation for a greater cause; but, not all causes pursue the common good.

Let me point out some examples of David’s necrosis, its implications, and its toxic effect on truth.

·         David begins by asserting that Special Counsel Mueller is honorable and patriotic.  Attorney General Barr presented findings (quoting from the actual text) based on Mueller’s investigation report.

 

·         Timing a leak to The Washington Post (now owned by “anti-Trump” Jeff Bezos) for maximum effect, the Mueller team released an internal letter to Barr the night before he was scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Keep in mind, that under the current special counsel statute, Mueller worked for the Attorney General—no one else.

 

·         What the left fails to understand, let alone embrace, is the role loyalty plays in a virtuous society.  An apparent inquiry by Trump about Comey's loyalty was after all the first obstruction consideration by the Mueller team.  But, then again, perhaps the left has a different concept:  loyalty to them is to an ideology that promotes the rule by men rather than a system based on the rule of law.  “No one is above the law” really gets most people to the very core of their gut.  Yet, some, like your son, forget “no one is below the law” either.  This is why our Constitution guarantees “equal protection” and “due process.”  Unless, that is, if the ruling elite does not accept a duly elected President, then they apparently can do whatever they need to do (to include distorting public narratives, illegally colluding for dossiers, and spying with national intelligence and law enforcement assets).  This is why the left asserts Barr is acting as Trump’s personal lawyer, his “fixer.”

     

·         The release of Mueller’s letter was designed to control the public narrative; in other words, Mueller and Barr have different takes on the report.  Barr was focused on the legal bottom line; Mueller was focused on the circumstantial context to inject a preponderance of perceptions of misconduct that are of secondary importance (and most likely irrelevant) in criminal proceedings (unlike civil cases).  As David has already asserted, Mueller is honorable and patriotic; therefore, Barr must not be so.  During the hearing, Barr explained that he had offered the four-page summary of findings to Mueller for review and approval before releasing it to the public.  Mueller declined.  Why?  With the left's feeding frenzy to establish collusion and obstruction, what was Mueller’s motive for declining to review Barr’s four-page summary, abruptly followed by his letter disagreeing with Barr's summary?  Mueller could not disagree with Barr's findings:  they were direct quotes from the Mueller report.  Is Mueller obstructing truth?  Is he non-compliant with the special counsel's controlling statute that mandates a confidential report to the attorney general.  Does the Mueller letter leak to The Washington Post violate the statute?

·         Mueller knew he had to appease the side that controls the narrative.  This is why: (a) he held the “no collusion” finding until after the 2018 midterm elections; and (b) he refused to assert a similar finding for obstruction.

·         The Mueller report was a $35 million distraction and presented a tautological argument for the left.  Remember, it was Comey’s firing that triggered the investigation.  The lead argument was that Trump obstructed an investigation into Russia collusion (even though the record shows that Comey told Trump he was not the target of an investigation).  Thus, the left now claims, (a) “no evidence of collusion” does not mean that it did not happen—"look at all the examples in the report”; and (b) since there was no definitive statement that there was insufficient evidence to assert obstruction; but (c) Mueller said Trump could not be exonerated; therefore, (d) Trump is in fact guilty of a crime.  While the left’s attempts to obfuscate what actually happened, Trump’s real crime was getting elected.

·         Is David’s brain so necrotic that he sees no irony in Comey presenting a case where Hillary Clinton committed a range of criminal acts but “exonerated” her because no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her for these crimes?  Which Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole does he do his reasoning?

·         If Mueller is truly an honorable man, then why did his investigation not report actual collusion and obstruction committed by others and well known for quite some time?  The evidence, not mere allegations, is overwhelming.  This was Mueller’s mission to follow the evidence; and, if criminal activity was established, then prosecution should follow.  The excuse that a sitting President cannot be indicted does not justify Mueller’s nebulous conclusion on obstruction.  Mueller failed to establish a case for a legal solution and he deliberately crafted the report to do the best he could to allow the left to keep control of the narrative.  This is why the left must now pursue a political solution:  impeachment.

·         Impeachment is complicated, and the left’s leadership now finds itself in a dilemma.  Trump, Barr, and others are not playing the left’s game.  The “removal of a president” script developed and rehearsed during Watergate is not working as expected.  What to do now?  For the American public, watch:  Trump's side is the tortoise of legal accountability in a race against time with the left's hare of political payback (thanks to Aesop's enduring wisdom).

     

In an effort to redeem your family name, I would encourage you to read and evangelize among the left and those who control the narrative and political power in the Washington D.C. establishment, a speech by Professor John Marini, “Politics by Other Means:  The Use and Abuse of Scandal,” published in the March 2019 edition of Hillsdale College’s Imprimus.  We can liberate ourselves from manufactured legends (Watergate and the left’s hopeful, pressing Russia-gate scandal) that stifle the truth and justice promised by the only Constitutional Republic among the hundreds of nations.  Truth and justice represent the objective arbiter in the contest between payback’s vices and accountability’s virtue.

In closing, “The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace” (Numbers 6:24-26, NKJV).

Sincerely,

Gadfly    

America’s Dreyfus Affair

Abstract:  Making sense of the political tension and division within America is no easy task.  For most Americans, we are experiencing conditions without precedent.  Yet, history has documented similar circumstances in the past.  Why not examine these recorded observations to ascertain what ever wisdom might be derived from such an analysis?  This article attempts such an examination in a conversation between Old Gadfly, an American citizen with an inquiring mind (IM), and a seasoned combat aviator with an inquiring mind (AM).  Gadfly then summarizes the discussion and offers two predictions.

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, are you familiar with the Dreyfus Affair?

IM:  Yes, in 1894, a French Jewish artillery officer, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, was accused of spying, court-martialed, convicted of treason, and sentenced to life in prison at Devil Island.  Before imprisonment, he was paraded before the public where they shouted, “Death to Judas, death to the Jew.”  Two years later, evidence eventually surfaced that another French (non-Jewish) officer, Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, was the actual traitor; Esterhazy was court-martialed but not convicted.  In 1899, Dreyfus was again court-martialed and again found guilty, yet was quickly pardoned.  Finally, in 1906, Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated in the French army.

AM:  This sentiment coincided with the anti-Semitism that permeated Western Europe, Russia, and even the United States.  For example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a widely circulated publication that claimed Jews were colluding to dominate the world.  In Europe, the Rothschild family was particularly singled out because of its vast wealth.  In America, Henry Ford purchased and then distributed 500,000 copies of The Protocols within America.  Ford even published a series of anti-Semitic articles in the Dearborn Independent, a newspaper he owned.  In hindsight, historical facts now show that Ford materially contributed to a false narrative.

IM:  Ironically, today Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.  The nearly wealthiest man in the world is deliberately and aggressively consolidating the retail industry and possibly the news industry.  Bezos’ consolidation efforts crush competition and the novelty of diversity of ideas—not the left’s arbitrary distinction in terms of ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so forth.  Where is the opposition from the left?  Perhaps the answer is because The Washington Post is clearly anti-Trump.

Old Gadfly:    Do you see any similarities between The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and any other publication in America?

IM:  Yes,  the so-called “Russian Dossier” is a similar publication.  The Protocols document was a complete fabrication of lies; yet it had a huge impact in fueling anti-Semitism.  Hannah Arendt, in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, identified the phenomenon of anti-Semitism as a critical seed in the emergence of totalitarianism, which included both forms of socialism--communism and Nazism.  Like The Protocols, the Russian Dossier also fabricated lies for effect.  The Dossier fueled the Russian collusion sentiment that still exists, especially in the justification for the current Mueller investigation. 

Old Gadfly:  In regard to the Russian Dossier, here are some questions the public deserves to know:  How did Senator McCain get word of the dossier?  Why did he unilaterally dispatch an aide overseas to get a copy?  Was this an act of collusion?  Should he be questioned in the same manner as Donald Trump, Jr., who met with a Russian lawyer by invitation?

AM:  Great questions, Gadfly.  It appears anti-Trump Republicans initially paid GPS Fusion (headed by Glenn Simpson) for opposition research against candidate Trump.  The research was then handed off to another paying customer—the Hillary Clinton campaign.  Further, “British-American businessman and anti-Kremlin crusader Bill Browder” claims GPS Fusion took money from the Russian government.  This is why Congress is now investigating the Russia GPS Fusion connection (collusion?).

IM:   Do you know who Bill Browder is?  He is a billionaire who, after the fall of the Soviet Union, has done extensive business in Russia.  He is now an anti-Putin activist, seeking justice for the conviction, torture, and murder of his Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky.  Browder’s grandfather, Earl, headed up the American Communist Party, twice running unsuccessfully for President of the United States in 1936 and 1940.  Browder tells his story in his recently published book, Red Notice:  A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s get back to Arendt’s book, The Origins of Totalitarianism.  She does an excellent job explaining how anti-Semitic sentiment contributed to the phenomenon of totalitarianism.  After the book’s release, she was very careful in responding to critiques to point out that “seeds” may have been more accurate than “origins,” because it is difficult to establish precedents for the unprecedented.  Yet, it was the hatred and contempt that coalesced against a perceived enemy that allowed the seed to crystallize over time.  In the early 1900s in Europe and Russia, the hatred and contempt crystallized among those on the collective left against those who had different beliefs and values such as those who appear to be aligned with individual liberty, private property, and free-market capitalism.  In today’s America, there are groups such as the New Black Panthers, Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other leftist groups characterized by anger and hatred. The left loves to claim the KKK and white supremacist groups are far right; but, they are not.  Historical records explain the true nature of these groups and they tend to be leftist—Marxian, Nietzschean, and so forth.  To suggest a white supremacist group is right-wing, conservative, or Republican is political heresy.  It is like certain politicians (e.g., Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, or Tim Kaine) advocating for abortion or same-sex marriage rights while also claiming to be devout Catholics.  In this case, progressive orthodoxy trumps church orthodoxy.

There is a new leftist hate group called Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement (check out the video).  Notice also, the accelerated aggressiveness of the Communist Party USA (until it’s taken down, the homepage has a headline:  “Can Trump Forge a New White Supremacist Governing Coalition?”).  Here is a print screen image of the homepage:

IM:  Another “seed” discussed by Arendt was imperialism--in the form of ideological world domination.  Arendt’s first chapter under the section on imperialism had an interesting title:  “The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie.”  In this case, the bourgeoisie represented those who controlled the centers of production (and wealth).  Bourgeoisie did not include the “aristocracy”—those in government roles—or the labor class (the proletariat in socialist orthodoxy).

Old Gadfly:  What can we learn from this?  How does it apply to today’s circumstances?

AM:  Obviously, it is very dangerous for business leaders to align with a particular political ideology.  And by ideology, I do not mean a political philosophy; I mean orthodoxy or dogmas that become moral truths.  Progressivism in America is an ideology—it believes in secular humanism, the redistribution of wealth, and other man-made rights (e.g., reproductive rights to justify abortion, sexual orientations) that are contrary to the laws of nature and the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Progressivism is coercive in that progressive values must become everyone’s values.  Those that resist are punished.  This is why the left, and not the right, has invented moral slurs for those who possess different values:  slurs such as homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogynist, and so forth—modern equivalents of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism.  In 2006, Bernard Lewis argued antisemitism represents a special case of prejudice and hatred, that it is directed against people who are different from the rest and deemed to represent “cosmic evil.” This is why progressives such as UC Berkeley Professor George Lakoff feel compelled to indoctrinate the masses by publishing books with such titles as:  Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think.  Lakoff’s framework justifies explaining that conservative views are not only wrong, they are immoral.  This is also why those who are skeptical of the anthropogenic theory and so called “settled science” for climate change are labeled “climate deniers” and considered evil.  For interesting contrary “evidence” on the subject see recent Congressional testimony by Dr. John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

IM:  Given the rampant crony capitalism and corporate welfare that characterizes the current situation in America, there are now perverse incentives for the government aristocracy and the business sector to collaborate for the expansion of power and the perpetuation of that power.  Remember the “business world” reaction when then Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law?  The act was eventually amended to accommodate the demands of the LGTBQ special interest group who pressured businesses to boycott Indiana.  There have been other cases as well.  Last year the Seattle Seahawks chef faced similar pressures.  Recently, President Trump gave Congress six months to provide legislation related to the unconstitutional Presidential policy known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  A 31-year old Millennial, who happens to be the fifth wealthiest man in the world (for inventing a gossip platform—arguably a modern Marxist opium for the alienated masses), quickly organized a joint letter with roughly 300 business leaders representing the politically emancipated bourgeoisie to demonize Trump’s adult, well-reasoned constitutional action.  After all, authority for immigration policy rests on the legislative powers of the U.S. Congress, specifically articulated in Article I of the Constitution.

Old Gadfly:  It seems as though secular humanistic movements are aligning against America’s Judeo-Christian tradition.  Is this a modern “anti-Semitic” development?

IM:  If it is such a development, then it reflects concerns Arendt shared in a reply to a letter from Professor Eric Voegelin, another prominent political philosopher, in 1953.  The excerpt below talks about a lack of common interest and the atomization of society (something clearly reflected in social media phenomena):

For similar reasons and for the sake of distinguishing between ideas and actual events in history, I cannot agree with Mr. Voegelin's remark that "the spiritual disease is the decisive feature that distinguishes modem masses from those of earlier centuries." To me, modern masses are disintegrated by the fact that they are "masses" in a strict sense of the word. They are distinguished from the multitudes of former centuries in that they do not have common interests to bind them together nor any kind of common "consent" which, according to Cicero, constitutes interest, that which is between men, ranging all the way from material to spiritual and other matters. This "between" can be a common ground and it can be a common purpose; it always fulfills the double function of binding men together and separating them in an articulate way. The lack of common interest so characteristic of modern masses is therefore only another sign of their homelessness and rootlessness. But it alone accounts for the curious fact that these modem masses are formed by the atomization of society, that the mass-men who lack all communal relationships nevertheless offer the best possible "material" for movements in which peoples are so closely pressed together that they seem to have become One. The loss of interests is identical with the loss of "self," and modem masses are distinguished in my view by their selflessness, that is their lack of "selfish interests" (p. 81).[1]

In the following excerpt, Arendt emphasizes the danger of atheism:

I know that problems of this sort can be avoided if one interprets totalitarian movements as a new--and perverted--religion, a substitute for the lost creed of traditional beliefs. From this, it would follow that some "need for religion" is a cause of the rise of totalitarianism. I feel unable to follow even the very qualified form in which Professor Voegelin uses the concept of a secular religion. There is no substitute for God in the totalitarian ideologies - Hitler's use of the "Almighty" was a concession to what he himself believed to be a superstition. More than that, the metaphysical place for God has remained empty. The introduction of these semi-theological arguments in the discussion of totalitarianism, on the other side, is only too likely to further the wide-spread and strictly blasphemous modem "ideas" about a God who is "good for you"-for your mental or other health, for the integration of your personality and God knows what-that is "ideas" which make of God a function of man or society. This functionalization seems to me in many respects the last and perhaps the most dangerous stage of atheism (pp. 81-82).[2]

Old Gadfly:  How would you characterize these observations in relation to the American culture?

IM:  The idea of America, “our nation,” has been deeply rooted in an understanding of human dignity and the need for a political system to protect that dignity.  Donald S. Lutz, a political scientist at the University of Houston, conducted an analysis of archived documents between 1760 and 1805 to determine the source of influence in political thought during the founding of our nation.[3]  The number one source cited was the Bible with 34% of the citations.  The number two source, representing 22%, was a set of Enlightenment authors with Montesquieu topping the list.  The implication is that political thought inherent in the Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition.  It was the Judeo-Christian tradition that championed tolerance for faith, regardless of the religion or lack of religion.  The Declaration clearly established “self-evident” truths and rights—all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  There was no implied source for these truths and rights.  Our founders explicitly identified the source:  “their Creator.”  In the early 20^th Century, members of the U.S. armed forces received citizenship training that was grounded in ethical and legal foundations.[4]  This 179-page manual includes an explicit explanation of the role philosophy and religion play in understanding individual liberty and the moral duty of citizenship.  Culturally, Americans predominantly affiliated with the Judeo Christian tradition, peaking in 1956 with 99% of surveyed Americans—71% Protestant, 25% Catholic, and 3% Jewish.[5]  Since 1956, the number of Americans affiliating with the Judeo-Christian tradition now represent 72%, a decrease of 27%--37% Protestant, 10% Christian nonspecific, 22% Catholic, 3% Jewish.[6]

Old Gadfly:  Arendt’s explanation of the decline of the Christian tradition combined with the political emancipation of the bourgeoisie established conditions for imperialism.  Imperialism for many is commonly understood to represent the colonization that European nations engaged in during previous centuries.  How would you explain imperialism in the 21^st Century?

AM:  Progressives in America and Europe believe in the power of central planning.  This is why they are strong advocates for the United Nations and other international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.  In today’s vernacular, they are not imperialists; they are globalists.  This is why it is becoming more common to hear globalists, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, call themselves “citizens of the world.”  International institutions can be useful if understood as collaborative instruments in support of sovereign nations and people.  Unfortunately, progressives (globalists) see them as primary authorities.  Arendt reminds us that Soviet Communism and German Nazism were intended for world domination.  Progressivism and its central planners have a similar intent.  By the way, Hillary’s recent book title is What Happened.  A quick glance at the content reveals a lot of complaints about her struggle-bound presidential campaign and all the great ideas she had for policies across the board for social, political, and economic life for the masses.  I could not help but think that a better title for the book would have been My Struggle, but another figure in history already used that one.

IM:  Pretty clever, AM, on the book title observation!  But, then again, I noticed Samantha Power wrote the “Introduction” to the 2004 edition of The Origins of Totalitarianism.  The “Introduction” has two parts.  The first was a brilliant analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of Arendt’s thinking.  The second part revealed Power’s progressive and globalist nature.  I was not surprised then to recently learn that she participated on behalf of the Obama Administration in the “unmasking” of individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Old Gadfly:   Let me summarize this excellent discussion and then close with two predictions:

Summary:  First, America’s Dreyfus Affair is an attempt by the leftist progressives to create anger, contempt, and hatred against Donald Trump and all that he symbolizes—to include Americans Hillary Clinton demeaned as “deplorables.”   Second, there are anti-Semitic-equivalent movements that need to be called out and diminished.  Third, there is an imperialistic manifestation in the form of the business sector aligning with the political ideology of progressivism, further compounded by the unholy alliances of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.  These developments should also be called out by virtuous customers and politicians.[7]   

          Prediction:  First, it is now becoming apparent that moral (not political) courage helped Trump get elected.  Ninety-three percent of Americans classified as “Spiritually Active, Governance Engaged Conservative Christians” voted for Trump.  Only 1% voted for Clinton. If Donald Trump survives the manufactured Russia collusion scandal, those who believed in his sincere and authentic vision of the American idea (“Make America Great Again”) will become greater in number and more courageous in fulfilling their moral duty, grounded in our Judeo-Christian tradition. Second, virtuous Democrat leaders will realize the opportunity they have to “heal” the anger, contempt, and hatred that is so prominent (and rampant) among those who vote Democrat.  However, this will only come about after a serious evaluation of the progressive “ideology” and its dogmatic principles that are intolerant of other ideas and values.

---

[1]  Arendt, H.  (1953). [The Origins of Totalitarianism]: A Reply, The Review of Politics, 15(1), 76-84.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Robert S. Lutz, The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1 (March 1984), 189-197.

[4] See Training Manual 2000-25, Citizenship, November 30, 1928.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://constitution.org/mil/tm/tm_2000-25/tm_2000-25.pdf

[5] Gallup Poll on Religion.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

[6] Ibid.

[7] See for example, Ken Buck, Drain the Swamp:  How Washington Corruption Is Worse Than You Think, (Washington, D.C.:  Regnery Publishing, 2017).