Cicero on McCain and other Ruling Elite

Abstract:   A lot is going on and the Olympics seem to be a convenient distraction.  For over a year, we have been inundated by a Russian collusion narrative.  To date, there has been no evidence to support this allegation.  To the contrary, facts are emerging that are not consistent with this narrative.  The challenge for us consumers of the news is to be able to sort fact from fiction.  The following article introduces emerging facts that challenge the prevailing fiction.

            Old Gadfly:  Senator McCain was quick to rebuke the Nunes memo.  Why?

            AM:  Central to the memo is the role the Russian dossier played in justifying FISA-approved surveillance on those associated with the Trump campaign.  As we discussed previously, it was McCain’s staffer that was sent overseas to get the dossier and then for McCain to hand it over to the FBI.  McCain has a fingerprint on this manufactured document that clearly shaped and controls the public narrative.  Amazingly reported in The New York Times, here is how McCain’s role was portrayed:

 

James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director whose firing by Mr. Trump prompted the appointment of a special counsel to oversee the Justice Department’s Russia investigation, received a copy of the memos after Election Day from Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. Mr. McCain had dispatched David J. Kramer, a former top State Department official, to obtain the dossier directly from Mr. Steele.  And before Election Day, the F.B.I. reached an agreement to pay Mr. Steele to continue his research, though that plan was scrapped after the dossier was published.

            IM:  McCain offered no rebuke when his colleague Senator Feinstein publicly and unilaterally released the closed door testimony of Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS, against the objections of the committee chair.  Some argue this release was designed to defuse the role Fusion GPS played in manufacturing the dossier.

            AM:   McCain is one of the longer standing ruling elite.  I just finished reading Red Notice by Bill Browder, grandson of Earl Browder who was the former President of the Communist Party USA.  Browder’s book is a true story about corruption in Russia.  To make a long story short, one of his Russian accountants was tortured and murdered by the Russian government.  Bill Browder wanted justice and advocated the Magnitsky Act in the US Congress.  A multi-billionaire, Browder was unsuccessful in getting an audience with McCain until he convinced a powerful lobbyist to facilitate a meeting.

            IM:  Is McCain really that naïve about the Nunes memo?  At some point in time, facts do catch up with fiction.  He must be naïve in this case, otherwise he must have some equity in perpetuating the fiction.  At any rate, he knows his days are numbered so perhaps he anticipates mortality will win the race with the facts.

            Old Gadfly:  Joe DiGenova, a former federal prosecutor, provides a compelling narrative (take notes and watch more than once) to the Daily Caller News Foundation.  The two heroes in this narrative are Vice Admiral Mike Rogers and Representative Devin Nunes.  We need heroes today to offset those Cicero warned us about:

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.  

Pragmatism versus Politics

Abstract:  President Trump has been in office for a year already.  Despite a growing economy and better labor numbers, the political elite have doubled down on their mission to oppose President Trump’s agenda for Making America Great Again.  Today’s segment on NBC’s Meet the Press provided more evidence.  Disturbed by some of the themes—the political capital of DACA and insinuations of a post-heroic period—it was not until I read a well-timed email from my uncle that I more deeply understood the political elite’s mind set.  They do not understand the difference between pragmatism and politics.  Politics requires glibness and visceral emotions; pragmatism requires reason unconstrained by “looking good” and “feel good” language.

Old Gadfly:  Gentleman, did you watch NBC’s Meet the Press this morning?

IM:  Yes. Amazingly, there was no mention of the Top Secret memo circulating within the halls of Congress about Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance System Act (FISA) system (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and other non-mainstream media sources).  Rather, Chuck Todd and four panel members pontificated on the government shutdown, mostly blaming President Trump for injecting chaos into this week’s deliberations focused mostly on the unconstitutional executive order by the previous President called the Deferred for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  Todd later showed some polling to show why DACA is so critical to elections in districts along the southern border, Florida, and some districts elsewhere in the United States.  It was clear from a Democrat perspective that DACA is critical to their political fortunes by showing “empathy” for those brought illegally to the US by their parents.

 

Old Gadfly:  So, if I understand the implications of Todd’s analysis related to DACA and political fortunes, we can infer that the political elite see DACA as really a political opportunity tied to their political fortunes.  So much for the “Dreamers”—they are mere instruments in the action for political power.

 

AM:  Even Peggy Noonan ventured to claim that President Trump represents the “post heroic” period in American history.  Here is an excerpt from today’s transcript:

Look, as for the presidency, we just past one year anniversary two days into the second year. I think what we are seeing up close every day relentlessly is a post-heroic presidency. A presidency for a post-heroic era. People don't have illusions about how high and upstanding and rigorously upholding of values that the president is. And at the same time everybody in politics around him sees it, sees that it plays fairly well for him, that he is sometimes gross or abrupt or rude in his terminology. So they do it too. It does lower everything. We are living through a cultural lowering.

Old Gadfly:  As a credentialed psychologist, from a psychological perspective I do not believe Noonan truly understands what she is revealing when she says, “what we are seeing up close relentlessly.”  What we are “seeing” is social constructivism by a progressive elite who control the public narrative and the desire to create a culture based on their values.  For example, race is a socially constructed concept that has been very useful for political purposes.  Racism is therefore an inevitable socially constructed concept as well.  Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, misogynist, and the entire litany of similar terms are other examples. More importantly, regarding Noonan’s claim about a post-heroic period, what do you infer from this?

AM:  Obviously, the implication is that Trump represents the antonym of heroic. Think about this.  By implication, Noonan places the previous president (not mentioning him by name to honor his current practice of not mentioning President Trump by name when being critical of him during evening talk shows) in the heroic category.  According to Thesaurus, here are synonyms for heroic: bold, courageous, daring, epic, fearless, gallant, grand, gutsy, noble, valiant, classic, elevated, bigger than life, dauntless, doughty, exaggerated, fire-eating, grandiose, gritty, gutty, high flown, impavid, inflated, intrepid, lion-hearted, mythological, stand tall, stouthearted, unafraid, undaunted, valorous.  Certainly, the previous President can be described with some of these terms.  Yet, pigeon chess master is not one of them—but that would fit more under a psychiatric manifestation of delusions of grandeur, not heroism.  On the other hand, Thesaurus lists the following as antonyms of heroic:  afraid, cowardly, fearful, meek, shy, timid, and weak.  Strangely, none of these terms fit for either the previous President or President Trump.

Old Gadfly:  Ironically, after watching Meet the Press, I opened an email from my uncle.  He forwarded a reflection by Mychal S. Massie, who “is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry.  Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit ‘In His Name Ministries.’  He is the former National Chairman of a conservative Capitol Hill think tank; and a former member of the think tank National Center for Public Policy Research.  In his official capacity with this free-market, public-policy think tank, he has spoken at the U.S. Capitol, CPAC, participated in numerous press conferences on Capitol Hill, the National Press Club and testified in private session concerning property rights pursuant to the “Endangered Species Act” before the Chairman of the House Committee on Resources.”  Massie explained why President Trump is such a mystery to the establishment in Washington DC and other political elite in political parties, the media, academia, and Hollywood.  President Trump is neither liberal nor conservative—he’s a pragmatist.  He further contends President Trump has risked a hard earned fortune to solve problems both political parties have created, let alone solve.  Sounds heroic to me.  Here is Massie’s article.  I now more deeply understand the political elite’s mind set.  They do not understand the difference between pragmatism and politics.  Politics requires glibness and visceral emotions; pragmatism requires reason unconstrained by “looking good” and “feel good” language.  Meanwhile, those who earn good livings based on ideological politics, glibness, and visceral arguments, will continue droning on and demonizing President Trump while he keeps moving forward pragmatically Making America Great Again.

IM:  Doesn’t President Trump need some help in this process?

Old Gadfly:  Yes, he does.  Help may be on the way in the form of the Article V (of the US Constitution) movement.  Here is an excellent observation from Bob Berry (author and economist), one of the pioneers in the movement:

 [Thomas] Paine’s words ring especially true regarding our present situation.  As he observed, “there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island.”  How much more absurd is it today, the whole of our country’s land-mass and its 310 million inhabitants is ruled with an iron fist from a 68-square mile swamp along the Potomac.  Excerpt from Amendments without Congress:  A Timely Gift from the Founders (2012) by Bob Berry

The nearly miraculous part of this movement is that it is nonpartisan.  It avoids political agendas in favor of restoring the sound governing principles of a Constitutional Republic gifted to us by heroic and pragmatic Americans.  Unfortunately, opponents tend to base their arguments on political agendas.  See for example the excellent analysis provided by Dennis Haugh in Political Vertigo and other postings at his website.

 

While the political elite play their political games, let me know if you want to learn more about this self-governing citizen effort (Old Gadfly at oldgadfly@gmail.com)

S***Holes and S*** Sandwiches

          Old Gadfly:  Frustrated at Democrat intransigence (i.e., for Democrats it can only be win-lose, or lose-lose) in resolving DACA in particular and illegal immigration in general, President Trump said what many already think and know:  some countries in the international system really are s*** holes.  As an Air Force officer I served in more than one.

 

Even though God created all humans in His image, all human beings do not live up to His image.  Would God kill a baby in His womb?  Would God use humans as instruments to increase His power—like pushing for a welfare state where millions are dependent upon Democrat generosity coercively enabled by other people’s earned wealth?  I could list other examples, but this should suffice in light of yesterday’s announcement by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  Here is their statement:

Reports of recent disparaging remarks about African countries and Haiti have aroused great concern.  As our brothers and sisters from these countries are primarily people of color, these alleged remarks are especially disturbing.  All human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and comments that denigrate nations and peoples violate the fundamental truth and cause real pain to our neighbors.  It is regrettable that this comes on the eve of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and could distract from the urgent bipartisan effort to help Dreamers and those with Temporary Protected Status.  As a vigorous debate continues over the future of immigration, we must always be sure to avoid language that can dehumanize our brothers and sisters.

Dehumanizing language?  So, is the USCCB saying these areas are paradises?  It is the political corruption in these areas that dehumanizes our brothers and sisters.  There is plenty of evidence the citizens of Venezuela are angry with the socialist initiatives ushered in by the late Hugo Chavez—turning this previous first-world nation into a s*** hole.  And, as a former President (in following Obama’s practice, I am not mentioning his name while he denigrates his successor without mentioning his name—but the media does not find this as immoral as one being open and authentic in his descriptions) would say about getting off our high horses, Old Testament prophets were brutally “honest” about s*** holes during their time.  During the same “high horse speech,” this former President said nothing about the s*** hole called the Middle East that has killed hundreds of thousands in the name of their “high horse” religion—generating millions of refugees.

 

I suppose the USCCB would qualify its language when referring to the Islamists who cut off heads and enjoy sex with captive women, whom “their right hands possess” (Qur'an 4:25), according to modern Islamic jurists.  Even St. Thomas Aquinas was blunt about Mohammad in Summa Contra Gentiles (Chapter 6), when he argued “THAT TO GIVE ASSENT TO THE TRUTHS OF FAITH IS NOT FOOLISHNESS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ABOVE REASON.”  Since his thinking predated the wisdom of modern political correctness, here is what Aquinas actually claimed about Muhammad:

On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this. The point is clear in the case of Muhammad.  He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth.  On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.  Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.  It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

 

            By the way, to demonstrate how s*** sandwiches are created, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Editor-in Chief of The Study Qur'an, states “Without the advent of the Qur'an, . . . would there be the Summas of St. Thomas Aquinas, at least in their existing form, since these Summas contain so many ideas drawn from Islamic source” (p. xxviii).  When readers have been threatened against reading other sources, this claim is difficult to challenge, let alone refuted.  We can see from Aquinas’ own words above that Nasr seems to be making stuff up.

To the USCCB, I offer this warning.  President Trump is actively and boldly fighting for religious freedom in America.  His predecessor (the unnamed President) and the progressive secular humanist left is fighting hard to take it away.  P*** him off and President Trump might just stop fighting for our religious freedom, letting you do all the heavy lifting.

This brings me to s*** sandwiches.  As I watch the media feeding frenzy about President Trump’s honest description of very corrupted regions of the world, the “characterization” of this description  contributes to the s*** sandwich being created by the progressive left.  So, if I suggest the bread in our sandwich is white, I’m a racist.  So, let’s assume the bread is rye.  When people eat a sandwich, it is what is between the slices of bread that is the essence of the sandwich.  The slices in this case represent credibility and plausibility—something a free press is supposed to provide.

Here is the first sandwich—the Affordable Care Act—designed to be affordable, more accessible, and if you like your doctor and health insurance plans, you can keep them.  This s*** proved to be false.  Swallowing it proved more disgusting than the s*** hole rhetoric.

Here is the second sandwich—bringing America together, not red America or blue America, but one America.  The only problem with this promise is that it required “transforming America” into “progressive America.”  This meant socialism, about which younger generations have no idea—but they are of voting age. Heck, who doesn’t want a free lunch, let alone health care, education, smart phones, and so forth?

Here is a third sandwich—using the government bureaucracy to serve political agendas.  Fast & Furious, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, the Iran nuclear deal, unmasking of American citizens, the Russian dossier, and so forth are all examples of how to weaponize a government against political opponents.  When he is the prime target, President Trump is supposed to play by their rules?  Thank God for Twitter.

 

I can go on, but let there be no doubt.  President Trump did not fall out of the sky.  He was elected by discerning Americans who are not willing to consume the left’s s*** sandwiches.

Speaking of discernment, I am reminded of the Roman Catholic’s understanding of five of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit:  knowledge, understanding, discernment, wisdom, and courage.  The first four speak to recognizing s*** holes and s*** sandwiches.  The fifth speaks to the capacity to do something about them.  Right or wrong, our actions then relate to the remaining gifts of the Holy Spirit—Fear of the Lord and Reverence.  We will be held accountable in the afterlife, and unfortunately (for the left and those who mimic its sound bites) it requires doing what is right—whether elegant or not.  

Who’s Afraid of Michael Wolff?

Old Gadfly:  The buzz dominating the current news cycle is Michael Wolf’s book, Fire and Fury:  Inside the Trump White House.  Your thoughts?

IM:  I watched his interview on Meet the Press this morning, and he said he was welcomed into the West Wing with no agenda.

AM:  Is that possible?  As a graduate of Columbia University and Vassar College, a copy boy for the New York Times, columnist, and entrepreneur, Wolff took advantage of a money-making opportunity.  He clearly had an agenda.  How can any individual claim to have no preconceived notions or predilections?  He claims to have been allowed to wonder about, “to sit on the couch,” simply observing and asking occasional questions.  If so, members of the White House appear to be open and transparent.  If so, they did not suspect Wolff’s intentions.  Knowing the public has yet to turn off all the fake news, Wolff generated material to feed off of this feeding frenzy.  He will become wealthy, possibly with “30 pieces of silver” from this book.  Perhaps someday he may come to grips with a conscience like Judas.

IM:  The picture you paint reminds me of an observation by Cicero:

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.

AM:  Ironically, in 1962, Edward Albee wrote a book that became a hit on stage:  Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolff?  He also made a fortune from this work.

The themes in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff? dealt with reality and illusion.  Although Michael Wolff claims he had no agenda, based on the themes in Albee’s book, it seems Wolff may have “plagiarized” Albee's creative essentials to sensationalize human behavior in an atmosphere already agitated by a swarming anti-Trump mainstream media.  Here is a critique (presented by Wikipedia) of Albee’s work—notice the parallels to M. Wolff’s book:

. . . this play stands as an opponent of the idea of a perfect American family and societal expectations as it "attacks the false optimism and myopic confidence of modern society".  Albee takes a heavy-handed approach to the display of this contrast, making examples out of every character and their own expectations for the people around them. Societal norms of the 1950s consisted of a nuclear family, two parents and two (or more) children. This conception was picturesque in the idea that the father was the breadwinner, the mother was a housewife, and the children were well-behaved.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? smashes these conventions and shows realistic families that are far from perfect and possibly ruined. The families of Honey and Martha were dominated by their fathers, there being no sign of a mother-figure in their lives. George and Martha's chance at a perfect family was ruined by infertility and George's failure at becoming a prominent figure at the university. Being just a few of many, these examples directly challenge social expectations both within and outside of a family setting.

Old Gadfly:  On a broader level, this book episode merely affirms the progressive left’s notion that man is perfectible—the Marxist notion of a state-created Utopian paradise this side of the grave.  Trump is caricatured by the progressive left as the antithesis of their holy mission.  I'll just close with this.  Earlier this week, I watched a Star Trek movie, Star Trek:  The First Contact.  It introduced the Borg.  I could not help but suspect it could happen much earlier than their timeline.  Like now.  In witnessing today's political and media behavior, this line from the movie stood out:  "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

Caution: Draining the Swamp Can Be Perilous

            Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, what is intended by President Trump’s desire to drain the swamp?[1]

            IM:  First, it recognizes political corruption in America.  Most of this corruption flows from crony capitalism and a politically emancipated media that has shifted more power to the central government in Washington DC and has disenfranchised the individual.  Second, it recognizes that the progressive left advances socialism, which is contrary to our self-governing constitutional republic and the rule of law.  This is why there is such an anti-Trump public narrative--controlled by the mainstream media in collaboration with the political establishment in Washington (elected and unelected bureaucracy), academia, and Hollywood.

            AM:   Too many voting Americans have been conditioned to believe what progressives want them to believe.  The Soviet Union’s Nikita Khruschev predicted this outcome in 1957 when speaking to the National Press Club:   “. . . 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”  (Nikita Khruschev before the National Press Club in 1957, cited in J. Edgar Hoover’s book, Masters of Deceit, 1958, p. 3).  America’s ruling elite were aware of this threat.  For example, Communist goals were published in the Congressional Record in the 1960s.  Of the 45 goals listed, 28 have arguably been met (see goals 15 through 42).  Goal number 40 states:  “Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.”  Trends reflect this achievement.  See the graph below (published in The Washington Post):

Moreover, in a recent survey, half of Millennials (the grandchildren predicted by Khrushchev) claimed they would rather live under socialism or communism than capitalism.  An alarming 20% believe Joseph Stalin was a hero.

            Old Gadfly:   Do these facts represent pure chance; that is, do the facts represent an undirected evolution in our culture?

            IM:  In my opinion, no.  There seems to be an organizing principle or set of principles that attract collaborating efforts.  While labels are dangerous because they tend to be pejorative and conducive to the art of smearing (see for example an essay by Ayn Rand, “’Extremism’ or the Art of Smearing”), we cannot define phenomena (organizing principles) without using properly defined terms.  For example, most Republicans are called conservative.  To a Democrat, this is either “extreme” or “far right.”  Some (maybe even most) Democrats claim that if you vote Republican, you are a racist (and a xenophobe, Islamaphobe, homophobe, misogynist, etc.).  For example, because President Trump did not take sides at Charlottesville and claimed both sides were guilty of bigotry and violence, he is considered a white supremacist.  He was further excoriated for suggesting there are good people on both sides.  What he meant by this is that people can have differences based on good intentions, while unequivocally stating that there is no justification for violence.  This position, to the left, is immoral because only the left is moral.  For clear evidence of this, read (check it out from the library instead of purchasing it) George Lakoff’s Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think.  In a nutshell, Lakoff argues that conservative views are not only wrong, they are immoral.

            AM:  The left has masterfully engineered public sentiment.  I am amused (and sobered) when the left-leaning press produces polls that show how unpopular President Trump is while constantly and shamelessly attacking him and his associates in their news presentations.  When over 90% of press coverage is negative and 100% of Democrats in Congress obstruct anything he does, one would think over 90% of the public would disapprove of Trump’s performance.

 

Let’s not forget, Hillary Clinton was the left’s champion going into this past election.  She idolized Saul Alinsky (as indicated by her Wellseley College Thesis).  In his Rules for Radicals, Alinsky provided rules for taking power away from the powerful.  Rule # 13 said:  “Pick the target, freeze it, and polarize it.”  Is it any surprise that more information seems to be leaking into the public domain about Hillary’s involvement in the infamous Russian dossier?  To the left, Hillary is not “the target”; so, they have no incentive to shine a light on this actual Russian collusion.

 

What I find especially disturbing is how Republicans either get duped into collaborating in efforts such as this or reveal their true colors.  Remember, it was Senator McCain who delivered the dossier to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Also, when allegations of sexual misconduct were reported by The Washington Post, Senator McCain took the allegations as fact and said Judge Roy Moore should immediately step aside.  McCain’s complicity and hypocrisy are nauseating.  Let me share some other facts about Senator McCain.

 

First, while celebrated as a hero who endured years of torture as an American prisoner of war, he signed a confession that said, “I am a black criminal and I have performed deeds of an air pirate, I almost died, and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors . . ..”[2]  Although this is an abbreviated confession, solid investigative work produced a recording of a lengthier confession that was first broadcasted on June 2, 1969 as propaganda over the Vietnamese radio airwaves (listen to the recording here, in particular 16:05 minutes into the broadcast).  Does this make Senator McCain less honorable?  How many Americans, when subjected to true physical torture (beyond the mere psychological inconvenience of water boarding), offered similar propaganda confessions?  The answer is irrelevant; however, does such an action diminish any other heroic actions?  If Senator McCain went on to live an honorable life, is it worth drudging up these confessions decades later?  Yet, Senator McCain was quick to convict Judge Moore for mere allegations from decades ago.

 

Second, then Lieutenant Commander McCain also returned home to discover that his wife had been in a serious car accident leaving her significantly disfigured and disabled.[3]  He soon left her for a wealthy younger woman (by 17 years) and the glamour of politics (see here and here).  So much for loyalty.

 

Third, in addition to his part in delivering the Trump Russian dossier to the FBI, McCain has been silent in regard to the left’s attempt to scandalize Donald Trump, Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer.  The purpose for the meeting was to “lobby” America, on behalf of Russia’s Putin, to repeal the Magnitsky Act.  Why is this significant?  William Browder, ironically the grandson of Earl Browder who ran unsuccessfully for President of the United States under the Communist Party in 1936 and 1940, is the individual who championed the Magnitsky Act through Congress.  In trying to consult with Senator McCain, the only way he was able to achieve access was by working through a lobbyist (i.e., through the crony capitalism venue).  Browder explains these details in his book, Red Notice:  A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice.  The Act was designed to name 60 individuals in Russia who were responsible for the arrest, torture, and murder of Sergei Magnitsky, one of Browder’s lawyers in Russia.  Browder had challenged the Russian oligarchy and Magnitsky’s torture and murder were the consequence.  There are other lurid details of political resistance in America (such as John Kerry’s opposition of the Magnitsky Act to avoid complications in becoming the Secretary of State), but I would encourage you to read the book for more detail.  The point being, McCain was directly involved in this case.  Combined with his involvement in the Russian dossier, McCain seems to have sided with political expediency over truth and justice.  Unfortunately, given his most recent medical circumstances, Senator McCain (and others who are complicit in shaping a dishonest public narrative) may not have the time to reflect and to seek redemption in the same manner as Jean-Baptiste Clamence in Albert Camus’ novel, The Fall.

Old Gadfly:   None of this is covered in the mainstream media.  Why should we believe that a corrupt establishment would address these matters in a noncorrupt manner?  Unfortunately, the only way to cover up corruption is through more corruption.  This is what President Trump (and Judge Moore and others) faces as he tries to drain the swamp.          

---

[1] For an excellent set of arguments and evidence, see Ken Buck, Drain the Swamp:  How Washington Corruption Is Worse than You Think, (Washington, D.C.:  Regnery Publishing, 2017).

[2] See Robert Timberg, The Nightingale’s Song, (New York, NY:  Simon & Schuster, 1995), p. 136.  Note, Timberg did not include the entire text of the confession.

[3] Ibid, pp. 96, 99, 230-31, 232, 235, 236, 238, 299, 373.

Restoring Liberty in America

Dear Fellow American,

What is liberty?  Many equate it to freedom.  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of four freedoms:  freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  The implication is that government provides these freedoms, which is an example of classical conservatism (more on this later).  This is not liberty.  American liberty is freedom, constrained by the rule of law, to do what one wants without harm to another.  This notion is consistent with language in our Declaration of Independence—all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.  People through their state legislatures delegated specific, enumerated powers to a national government for this purpose.  Unfortunately, over time, our national government has gradually usurped this self-governing authority and as a consequence diminished individual liberty.

Language matters; yet, the concept of liberty means different things to different political factions.  In his book, The Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism, F.A. Hayek devotes a chapter to this topic with the title, “Our Poisoned Language.”  He argues there has been a deliberate effort to inject ambiguity to blur distinction, such as justice versus social justice.  To drive home his point, he provides a list of over 160 nouns qualified by the adjective “social.”[1] Laws or regulations stemming from the notion of social justice promote egalitarianism over liberty—taking from some (such as progressive taxation) to give to others.  Social justice is not equivalent to charity.  The former is noblesse oblige.  The latter represents liberty in so far as an individual freely exercises his or her natural right to help another in need.

Today, in America, there is a desire to label people for political differentiation:  liberal, conservative, progressive, alt-right, and so forth.  Over time, the meaning of these terms has changed.  Today’s modern conservatives were originally known as classical liberals.  They believe in individual liberty, limited government, private property rights, and a free market.  They also believe in the rule of law and equality of justice for all.  Today’s modern liberals, or progressives, were originally known as classical conservatives.  They believe in collective liberty, a strong central government, noblesse oblige, and a government-controlled economy.  They also believe in conserving privilege based on notions of social justice (a form of nobles oblige).  Today, we see this differentiation and corresponding tension as the tug of war between capitalism and socialism.  The two major political parties generally align with these distinctions.  The Reagan revolution is often credited with the conservative movement in America.  In reality, the revolution was an attempt to “conserve” classical liberalism and its grounding in religious liberty tradition that provided the moral philosophy for civil behavior within the American society.

Progressive (modern liberal) thinking emerged in the late 1800s in response to industrialization and the rapid urbanization of America, with the notion that a central government can more easily solve problems through central planners and advance social and economic reform to improve the quality of life for citizens.  Teddy Roosevelt is generally recognized as our first progressive president as signaled by his Square Deal speech in 1905.[2]  The Protestant Social Gospel movement aligned with political progressives, giving the political movement legitimacy as a divinely inspired effort.  Woodrow Wilson began to institutionalize progressive thinking, especially with the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, followed by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and a massive expansion of federal agencies.  Then, the cultural revolution of the 1960s, notably spawned by the Port Huron Manifesto of Students for a Democratic Society,[3] moved modern liberals and progressives even further left, emphasizing socialism and secular humanism over capitalism and religious liberty.  Today, the consequences have been manifested in the multiculturalism and relative morality that has diminished the importance of a virtuous, civil society that Tocqueville observed as “habits of the heart.”  Ironically, Tocqueville realized America’s desire for liberty in general was advanced in parallel with a passion for religious liberty.  To the contrary, the promises of a better society stemming from the French Revolution were thwarted because a commitment to religious liberty was shunned (thanks to the Enlightened) in favor of political and economic freedom.

America is terribly divided.  One faction believes in the idea of America as championed by the classical liberal philosophy grounded in religious liberty.  The other faction wants to transform America in a socialistic direction, despite the damning historical evidence of its inevitable tyranny.  The latter faction stems from an educational system that no longer emphasizes the importance and essence of liberty and how self-governance contributes to its vitality in a free society.  Three generations of Americans have not been exposed to the principles and concepts that contribute to healthy “habits of the heart.”

We can recover this loss in a number of ways.  Tactically, by educating the public on the wisdom of Article V of the US Constitution and its means of correcting government corruption, we introduce or refresh in their minds the essence of liberty, checks and balances, and the moral obligation of self-governance.  We do this by arming them with the knowledge and arguments to persuade their State elected officials to return Tenth Amendment authority to the States.  More strategically, we do this through programs that provide classical education from K-12.  Hillsdale College has developed such a program called the Barney Charter School Initiative.[4]   There are now over 20 affiliate schools across the nation.  Finally, we do this one-person-at-a-time by exercising our moral obligation for self-governance through civil discussion and virtuous example, “making goodness fashionable.”[5]

Respectfully yours,

Old Gadfly

oldgadfly@gmail.com

---

[1] F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism, Edited by W.W. Bartley, (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 115-116.

[2] See Theodore Roosevelt, The Square Deal, speech delivered at a banquet in Dallas, Texas on April 5, 1905.  Retrieved on October 14, 2017 from http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/speeches/trsquaredealspeech.pdf  See also, The Square Deal—The Effects of Progressivism at http://independence.guhsdaz.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_759199/File/Lovell/APUSH/9%20-%20Gilded%20Age/The%20Square%20Deal-The%20Effects%20of%20Progressivism%20chart.pdf

[3] See Michael Kazin, The Port Huron Statement at Fifty, Dissent Magazine, Spring 2012.  Retrieved on October 14, 2017 from https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-port-huron-statement-at-fifty

[4] See The Barney Charter School Initiative at https://www.hillsdale.edu/educational-outreach/barney-charter-school-initiative/. 

[5] See Eric Metaxas, If You Can Keep It:  The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, (New York, NY:  Penguin Books, 2017), pp. 168-176.

An Open Letter to Service Academy Superintendents

Dear General/Admiral,

            Although the thrust of this letter applies mostly to the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), themes apply to all of the Service Academies.

Two matters prompted this letter:  the USAFA Superintendent’s Mitchell Hall balcony speech and West Point’s Spenser Rapone.  The USAFA Superintendent mentioned to all those in attendance during his speech that “this is our institution.”  I agree.  This is why I am compelled to write to you.  As a graduate, the purpose for my letter is to express concern about the Academy culture and its perceived departure from the core values of integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all that we do.  I contend this is happening because Academy leaders are losing focus on an American warrior ethos and its essence in the profession of arms.

    

American Warrior Ethos

Academy cultures should be grounded in an American warrior ethos.  The singular and unique concept of an American warrior ethos is that it does not beget warmongering; rather, it stands watch for threats against liberty and justice and defends against tyranny.  Beyond armed conflict, an American warrior ethos represents a morally responsible citizen who understands the central idea of American liberty, remains apolitical in light of cultural evolution, and is prepared to do the right thing for justice over injustice.

Profession of Arms

In terms of the profession of arms, professionalism calls for a commitment to standards of excellence that requires integrity and service before self.  The four-year class system was originally designed to inculcate this understanding.  The academies have sacrificed this aspect of the warrior ethos in favor of individualism and feel-good support between the classes.  As I have discovered in recent discussions with sponsored cadets, friendships are more important than honor.   This is not to deny the importance of authentic friendship.  A warrior ethos requires honor and toughness that chooses justice over injustice and that has the capacity and commitment to tolerate great adversity.  In the USAFA balcony speech, to suggest diversity as the Academy’s central value merely mimics prevailing political correctness.  I will discuss this at greater length later.  For now, however, in terms of professionalism and the capacity to endure adversity, should there be any surprise that America’s Navy Seal Team 6 has earned such a noble reputation?

National Character and Leadership Symposium

Developing American military leaders of character, firmly grounded in the Air Force core values (integrity, service before self, and excellence in all that we do) in support of a warrior ethos, is important enough that former graduate Classes have invested in this process through financial support of the annual National Character and Leadership Symposium (NCLS).  Each year, the Academy planners invite an interesting set of speakers based on a symposium theme.  Listening to the stories of courage, valor and endurance, and interacting with the story-tellers makes a powerful impression on cadets and challenges their understanding of truth and justice in a free society.

 

How might the Academy experience in general and the NCLS in particular restore a warrior ethos in the profession of arms?

The Issue

    

Let me begin with the Academy’s mission.  “The mission of the United States Air Force Academy is to educate, train, and inspire men and women to become leaders of character, motivated to lead the United States Air Force in service to our nation.”^[1]  Service to our nation implies possible combat and a corresponding need for a warrior ethos.  A warrior ethos represents a set of virtues.  Virtues such as temperance, prudence, courage, fortitude, loyalty, obedience, and so forth have long been understood[2] to be critical in achieving victory in a just war.   Thus, the cultivation of these virtues should be the central feature of the Academy experience; moral decision-making and ethical behavior require virtue, especially when wielding great destructive power in a just war.

 

In the mid-1800s, Alexis de Tocqueville recognized virtuous behavior as a uniquely American trait and called this phenomenon “habits of the heart.” What is the basis of the virtue that shapes and compels morally responsible behavior, whether as a husband or wife, father or mother, neighbor, or a warrior?  This is not a new societal need or phenomenon.  We had virtuous people defeat an oppressive world class power in order to found a new nation based on a creed that all persons are created equal and that they are endowed by a Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.  We had virtuous people fight a civil war with the cost of over 600,000 casualties to overcome the sin of slavery.  We had virtuous people liberating oppressed people in two great world wars, and so forth.  These great endeavors were no accident.  They represented our American creed and clearly demonstrated “habits of the heart.”  These virtues were taught by parents, ministers, coaches, and teachers.[3] This teaching was grounded in philosophy and America’s historical Judeo-Christian tradition.[4]  I do not think it a stretch to claim that our yearning for truth (whether philosophical or theological) benefits from a deep and enduring tradition.  Tradition implies time-tested approximations of truth.  Without truth there can be no knowledge or justice.

   

Implications

            America is experiencing a cultural evolution in terms of moral values and the source and legitimacy of those values.  One week the mainstream media celebrates Hugh Hefner for championing the sexual revolution.  A week later, Harvey Weinstein becomes a national scapegoat for a lack of restraint during this revolution.  With the influx of secular humanism,[5] developing great momentum in the 1960s, motivations for serving in our armed forces have become somewhat blurry.  There are a growing number of individuals permeating American society and its institutions who have no need for accountability to a greater power, to include our Service Academies.  For many, service has become more of a career than a calling, and the moral compass is moral relativism, a central feature of secular humanism—whatever it takes to advance.  A recent presentation by the new Director for Strategic Communication demonstrated the Academy’s effort to “brand” the institution.  Nowhere in this presentation was there any mention of a warrior ethos.  It looked like a pitch for recruiting students to a prestigious campus that (a) appeals to their individualism, (b) pays homage to technology (as prophesied in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World) , and (c) just so happens to require uniforms.

As another example of moral relativism, I want to address a recent event that is somewhat delicate.  Having been a “tree in the forest” for 34 years and now retired and a relative outside observer, I now see the Academy through hearsay and what I read or hear in the news.  So, I hope the observation and feedback I am now offering may be received with an open mind.

 

I first became aware of racial slurs at the Academy Prep School through our local news media.  It went viral.  My first questions were:  Who would write such things?  Why would they do it?  Who photographed the writing and posted it to social media?  The “hands up, don’t shoot” meme immediately came to mind--a false report[6] that many still believe to be true, perpetuating a lot of the racial tension that currently exists.

 

Once the P-School slurs went viral, it appears the USAFA Superintendent was compelled to address the issue.  I respect the swiftness and tone of moral authority (and it was widely praised among my contemporaries).  The short speech[7] also went viral (posted on YouTube by the Academy; as well as generating activity mostly on CNN as well as CBS and NBC[8]).  The emphasis on diversity as a mandated value reflects more political correctness than a simple civic virtue of respect for human dignity.  Many people know that “the value of diversity” incorporates behaviors or life styles that are not consistent with other traditional values, which sets up a moral conflict for many of these individuals.  Unfortunately, organizations that promote traditional family values, for instance, are labeled “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  To overcome this conflict, the institution established policies of “zero tolerance” regarding discriminatory (and sexual harassment) behavior.  While the First Amendment protects free speech, even when it is contrary to public sentiment, it is the policy that restricts such behavior.  When young Americans voluntarily choose to join the military, they understand that they give up some freedom to become a member of the profession of arms.  Commanders have no choice in enforcing such policy.  Those who willfully violate the policy are held accountable.  To “moralize” beyond this point (which, in my opinion, the balcony speech clearly did), risks implying one’s own biases when it comes to “political values.”  This is a fundamental violation of the apolitical nature of America’s warrior ethos.

The command “if you can’t treat someone with respect and dignity, get out” made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  This command essentially proclaimed “there are limits to diversity, and if you do not understand what those limits are, then I do not respect you and I will not treat you with dignity.”  The Superintendent drummed up the national backdrop of Charlottesville, Ferguson, the NFL, and so forth.  These national icons have now become the bellwether landmarks for political correctness.  The national narrative in these cases is not consistent with actual truth.  The narrative is based more on folklore and what special interest groups want to believe.  And, as the USAFA Superintendent discovered during his interviews with CNN, this particular episode was nicely teed up to criticize our commander-in-chief.  For members of the military, public contempt for the commander-in-chief is a court-martial offense (this is more serious than violating a “zero tolerance” policy).  The balcony speech and CNN interviews essentially achieved this end.

 

More seriously, the balcony speech reminded me of F.A. Hayek’s warning in a chapter with the title, “The End of Truth” in his book, The Road to Serfdom.  Here is what Hayek observed during the regimes of Russian and European totalitarianism in the early 1900s:

 

The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends.  To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends.  It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends.  Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants [italics added for emphasis])

I hope many of our leaders will take the time to more deeply reflect on this particular event, within the context of the national narrative and the Academy's "new environment" designed to shape these young men and women into leaders of character, in order to realize that we can also project slurs against those young men and women who bring traditional worldviews from a cross section of society. Slurs are pejorative words.  While we are very careful not to use the N-word, our politically correct society has developed a whole new set of slurs to demean those individuals that are not welcome in the diversity club:  evangelical, racist, xenophobe, Islamaphobe, misogynist, extremist,[9] and so forth.

 

Regarding the P-School slurs, we now know the answers to my questions about who would do such a thing, why would they do it, and who would upload images to social media.[10] With this new information and the Superintendent’s reluctance to mollify his balcony performance, this episode now joins the “hands up, don’t shoot” folklore.

Was the balcony speech a missed opportunity to truly advance respect for human dignity in the unique American pluralistic society?  There is too much “anti-America” vitriol sucking the oxygen out of the room.  Combined with a rabid press that is hell-bent on destroying the current President (over 90% coverage is negative; and arguably, he represents a threat to socialist ideology/forces), our nation needs courageous leaders to keep our fledgling leaders focused on the idea of America.

What would have been the balcony speech impact had the perceived “wrong-doing” been rebuked without demeaning others?  It is understood that individuals who have violated policy will be held accountable.  This then could have been an unemotional segue to reflecting on what makes America the “shining city on a hill,”[11] or to comprehend what 28-year-old Abraham Lincoln understood in his speech at the Springfield Young Men’s Lyceum[12] (especially in light of the Superintendent’s references to Ferguson, Charlottesville, and the NFL).  This approach is not without precedent.  For example, a month before the end of the American Revolutionary War, General Washington was made aware of a widely circulated anonymous letter complaining that officers had not been paid for the nearly eight years of waging war.  The anonymous author encouraged officers to leave their posts and even to consider a military coup.  On March 16, 1783, Washington assembled his officers to address the issue.  While rebuking the anonymous letter, he did not demean the officers.  He inspired them to stay the course.  Eric Metaxas observes in his book, If You Can Keep It:  The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, “Washington’s language is a far cry from anything we hear today.  I am not referring to his lofty and ennobling style of speech…But far more important is his use of specific words and phrases like ‘reputation,’ ‘patient virtue,’ ‘dignity,’ ‘glory,’ and ‘sacred honor.’”  Since our Academies play a critical role in producing leaders of character, understanding the occasional strategic opportunities our institutional leaders have to inspire these young men and women toward excellence is also critical.

Speaking of diverse worldviews, many Americans have either lost an understanding of, or have not been exposed to, the founders’ idea of America (i.e., individual liberty, limited government, private property, and a capitalistic free market) and how it was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  Amazingly, a year ago, during a conversation with a Fourth Classman, I asked what he knew about communism.  He responded, “What is it?”  I explained that when I was a 4-degree (freshman), I was anticipating combat in Vietnam against the spread of communism (i.e., an ideology based on collective liberty, a strong central government, no private property, and a government-controlled economy); and that for most of my 30-year career, I was prepared for the possibility of a large-scale or thermonuclear war against the communist threat of the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact) during what has been called the Cold War.  I described the hundreds of millions killed under Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, and other communist leaders.  Now, we read about Army Second Lieutenant Spencer Rapone,[13] an open communist at West Point and now serving on active duty.[14]  In my own experience as an academic, our public schools and universities have a very strong undercurrent of Marxist thinking, centered on Marx and Engels’ 1848 Communist Manifesto calling for the liberation of the oppressed.  It also demands erasing history.  Marx wrote, “In bourgeois society, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.”[15] History has recorded the dangers of this thinking; yet, (a) our younger generations have not been exposed to it (e.g., 1 in 5 Millennials think Joseph Stalin was a hero[16]) and (b) we allow its expression because of our tolerance for the freedoms codified in our First Amendment.  In the spirit of “selectively” celebrating diversity, we are allowing our society to become vulnerable to what our commissioning oath refers to as a domestic threat.

 

            America (and the Western world) faces a potentially existential foreign and domestic threat:  militant Islamism.  To call this out risks being labeled an Islamophobe because it is not deemed “politically correct.”  Despite the advance of secular humanism, our nation still places a premium on tolerance of religious pluralism, to include atheism.  Given this liberty, addressing the Islamic sacred texts and their use in justifying violent jihad mandates a national level conversation.  Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser,^[17] a champion for modernizing Islam for moderate Muslims in reconciliation with a secular government, was nominated as a guest speaker for the 2018 NCLS; yet was not accepted.  Dr. Jasser, at the risk of personal threats, has had the courage to advance reforms that are consistent with a secular constitutional republic.  Is it possible that a “presumed religious” speaker was deemed incongruent with a secular humanist approach to teaching moral foundations and ethical orientations?  How does a moral nation deal with a militant religion if it refuses to examine it?  Is there not some room for reason in understanding and managing an apparent conflict of values?

 

I contend the NCLS speaker selection has been skewed by a heightened sensitivity toward “diversity-oriented” speakers with a reluctance to entertain religious liberty speakers.  For example, I infer from that pattern of speaker selections that the current Center for Character and Leadership Development (CCLD) faculty and staff represent a secular humanist perspective.  Their focus is based on theory and empirical evidence from psychology and sociology disciplines.  They appear to consider philosophical and religious perspectives as too metaphysical and obsolete.  Yet, we ignore the actual evidence of a militant Islamism (see for example the data collected on over 32,000 separate attacks since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/).

A Way Forward

      

Our Service Academies should not represent a regression to the mean in terms of societal values.  This would be incongruent with the core value of striving for excellence in all that we do.  The goal for character development is to produce leaders with impact within the Air Force and their communities as citizens.  Acknowledging the role of philosophy or religion in our society is not a violation of the so-called “Establishment Clause.”  While USAFA has addressed legitimate instances of proselytizing, it comes in different forms, to include “religious” by an evangelical Commandant of Cadets and the “anti-religious” by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.  There is no evidence of an institutional attempt to “establish” a religion.  To the contrary, there may be an unwitting institutional reaction (i.e., capitulation to anti-religious threats) to eliminate philosophy and religion as legitimate sources of moral development.  Within 10 years following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, religion was deliberately and methodically removed from the entire society in submission to a Marxist philosophy.  On the other hand, Nazism in Germany initially justified societal reforms in the name of religion^[18] before morphing into an atheistic totalitarian regime, possibly reflecting similar justifications for violent Islamic jihad.  How does a free nation facilitate the essential character development to avoid these manifestations if it does not have the courage and capacity to examine the dynamics that led to these totalitarian regimes? Even before such an examination, it is absolutely critical that our future leaders be solidly grounded in our own history and the principles and concepts related to a Constitutional Republic.

Conclusion

            The Academy in general and the NCLS in particular have incredible potential to be exemplars in character development.  Those involved in its planning have a moral duty to encourage content that does not unnecessarily constrain the full range of inquiry that underwrites character development.  Character development demands critical thinking in response to a full set of ideas—from the bizarre to the brilliant.  We owe it to current and future American generations to expand the range of inquiry through a classical liberal arts education, to include mathematics, science, history, literature, religion, philosophy, and so forth.  This is the essential grounding that shapes and inspires the American warrior ethos—and the singular purpose of a Service Academy.

Very respectfully,

Gadfly     

---

[1] https://www.usafa.edu/about/mission/

[2] See for example, James H. Toner, True Faith and Allegiance:  The Burden of Military Ethics, (Lexington, KY:  The University Press of Kentucky, 1995).

[3] See for example, 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

[4] Gallup has polled Americans regarding religious affiliation every year since 1948.  In 1956, with 99% of surveyed Americans affiliated with the Judeo-Christian tradition--71% Protestant, 25% Catholic, 3% Jewish.  For the actual data, see Gallup Poll on Religion.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx 

[5] Here is a definition of secular humanism:  “humanism, with regard in particular to the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God.”  See also material from the Council for Secular Humanism retrieved on October 16, 2017 from https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260.  This may explain the 27% drop in those affiliating with the Judeo-Christian tradition since 1956.

[6] See for example, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Did Not Happen in Ferguson, The Washington Post, March 19, 2015, retrieved on October 16, 2017 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/19/hands-up-dont-shoot-did-not-happen-in-ferguson/?utm_term=.22a95f12e8f8

[7] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfjZ1otkS3o

[8] See for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FcqzDLMhBI, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23Z1p5gChFA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnVtWUnBPIE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23Z1p5gChFA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oinwPwCLG14, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0wZZ2LsysY, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnV4OPpBUj4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWBwXUAMbs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN6lK0Vh84k  

[9] See Ayn Rand, “Extremism,” or the Art of Smearing, an essay originally published in 1964 in the Objectivist Newsletter and later in Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal.  Retrieved on November 8, 2017 from https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1964/09/01/extremism-or-the-art-of-smearing/page1

[10] See Samantha Schmidt, A Black Student Wrote those Racist Messages that Shook the Air Force Academy, School Says, The Washington Post, November 8, 2017.  Retrieved on November 8 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/08/a-black-student-wrote-those-racist-messages-that-shook-the-air-force-academy/

[11] A metaphor first introduced by Puritan John Winthrop in a 1630 sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity: while sailing to America aboard a ship named Arbella.

[12] See Lyceum Address, retrieved November 8, 2017 from http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

[13] See Mark Alexander, West Point Digs Deeper Hole on Cadet Communist, The Patriot Post, October 12, 2017.  Retrieved on October 30, 2017 from https://patriotpost.us/articles/51824

[14] Partial motivation for this letter came from a letter by LTC (USA, retired, USMA ’97) Robert M. Heffington to his class, retrieved on October 16, 2017 from https://www.scribd.com/document/361328800/Former-West-Point-professor-Robert-Heffington-s-open-letter-signed

[15] See Jon Miltimore, 5 Things Marx Wanted to Abolish (Besides Private Property), Foundation for Economic Freedom, October 31, 2017.  Retrieved on October 31, 2017 from https://fee.org/articles/5-things-marx-wanted-to-abolish-besides-private-property/

[16] See Jarrett Stepman, Millennials Are Clueless About Communism. Here’s Why That’s a Problem, The Daily Signal, November 3, 2017.  Retrieved on November 3, 2017 from http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/03/millennials-clueless-communism-heres-thats-problem/

[17] M. Zuhdi Jasser, A Battle for the Soul of Islam:  An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.  New York, NY:  Simon & Schuster Threshold Editions, 2012.

[18] Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus:  Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany.  Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 2010.