Socialism and the New Deal

Through this whole period, the Progressive Movement enlisted support from both major parties. One leader, Democrat William Jennings Bryant  had won both the Democratic Party and the  Populist Party nominations in 1896. When Teddy Roosevelt left the Republican Party in 1912, he took with him many of the intellectual leaders of progressivism, but very few political leaders. The Republican Party then became notably more committed to business-oriented and efficiency oriented progressivism, typified by Taft and Herbert Hoover. One progressive leader who remained in the Democrat Party was Woodrow Wilson.

 Author Jonah Goldberg  has a good summary of the Wilson administration:

 “Under Woodrow Wilson, the first American president to embrace the new cult of pragmatism and power that had overtaken “enlightened” thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic (and the first American president to openly disdain the U.S. Constitution), the progressives unleashed a crackdown on freedom that makes the supposed [and exaggerated] fascism of the McCarthy era and the Bush years seem like a teach-in at Smith College.

 Wilson established the American Protective League, a group of domestic fascisti (after the practices of the Roman fasces – political enforcers) charged with crushing dissent, beating “slackers,” and intimidating average Americans. Wilson’s Committee for Public Information was the first modern propaganda ministry. Indeed, according to the late sociologist and intellectual historian Robert Nisbet, the “…West’s first real experience with totalitarianism – political absolutism extended into every possible area of culture and society, education, religion, industry, the arts, local community and family included, with a kind of terror always waiting in the wings – came with the American war state under Wilson.”

 “… particularly prominent on the American Left were the Bellamys. Edward and Francis Bellamy actively promoted what they called “military socialism” and, largely under their influence, loyalty oaths, flag ceremonies, racist preaching and even the straight-armed salute were all common in America long before they were adopted by the fascist Mussolini and by the Nazis.

 Author John Ray says that “students of Marx identify Fascism with “Bonapartism” the type of regime devised by Napoleon Bonaparte and revived by his nephew Napoleon III.” “… Mussolini … certainly influenced by Marx and the ancient world, but he had a whole range of ideas that extended beyond that. And where did he turn for up-to-date ideas? To America, of course!

And the American ideas that influenced him were in fact hard to miss. They were the ideas of the American “Progressives”. And who was the best known Progressive in the world at that time? None other than the President of the United States – Woodrow Wilson – the man who would be most responsible for the postwar order in Europe and the creation of the “modern” Middle-East. So Mussolini had to do little more than read his newspapers to hear at least some things about the ideas of the very influential American Progressives.”

And the now notorious Ku Klux Klan was another of those parallels. It was once quite respectable in “Progressive” circles. In fact, the 1924 election [less than one lifetime from the Civil War] indicates the extent to which the Klan was entangled with the progressives. For that was the year of the Democrats’ infamous “Klan bake” convention, when Klansmen participated heavily as delegates and blocked a platform plank that would have condemned their order.” [Curious how that fact has just disappeared from the history books.]

 “Feminism, too was part of “Progressive” thinking. In the person of Margaret Sanger and others, feminists were very active in the USA in the first half of the 20th century, advocating (for instance) abortion. And Margaret Sanger was warmly praised by Hitler for her energetic championship of eugenics – the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those people with genetic characteristics judged desirable. And the American eugenicists were very racist. They shared Hitler’s view that Jews were genetically inferior and opposed moves to allow into America Jews fleeing from Hitler.”

 And many progressives were essential members, or strong and influential supporters, of the Franklin Roosevelt administration’s coercive and largely unconstitutional ‘New Deal’ in the 1930’s – people such as Rex Tugwell, Stuart Chase, James Hudson Maurer, John Brophy, John L. Lewis, Paul Douglas, Robert Dunn, Harold Ickes, David Lilienthal, Raymond Moley, Henry Wallace and more. What these Americans all had in common was a curious affinity for coercive government action which characterized the socialist, fascist and communist regimes of the first half of the century. Many had traveled to Stalin’s Soviet Union in the late ‘20s and had written favorably of the coercive economic system touted by Stalin himself.

Again, according to Goldberg;

  “The progressive agenda permeat(ed) the philosophy and the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, who was first elected President in 1932. He campaigned, successfully, on a pledge to re-create the war-socialism of the Wilson administration, a goal that was wildly popular with the liberal establishment of the day.

Once he had been elected, progressive-minded newspaper editorial boards, politicians, his wife Eleanor and pundits exhorted him to become a “dictator.” The revered reporter and political commentator Walter Lippmann, for instance, told Roosevelt in a private meeting: “The [economic] situation is critical, Franklin. You may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers.” Similarly, Eleanor Roosevelt mused that America might need the leadership of a “benevolent dictator.”

In FDR’s day, the term “dictator” did not carry, at least among the elite, all of the negative connotations with which it is currently [and properly] freighted; rather, it signified the idea that a political “general” or “commander” was needed to take charge of the battle against the economic depression in a manner similar to how Woodrow Wilson and the progressives had fought World War I.”

 Author William Engdahl has discussed Roosevelt’s First Inaugural and its forecasting of future coercive government actions:

 “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work…We must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers, and by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land.”

 Here FDR spoke about a major population resettlement from urban industrial centers to the land, anticipating his Civilian Conservation Corps [and Chairman Mao Tse Dong’s “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” in 1960s Communist China]As Roosevelt stated in the speech, that such government relief efforts, “…can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other public utilities…We must act and act quickly.”

 Most explicitly, Roosevelt declared he was willing to suspend the Constitutional ‘Separation of Powers’ between Congress, Executive and Judiciary if need be: “It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure. I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.”— foreshadowing Democrat Barack Obama’s selective enforcement of legislation passed by a Republican Congress or bills signed into law by previous presidents, Republican and Democrat alike.

 To leave no doubt what he was pointing to if deemed necessary, Roosevelt concluded his speech by threatening to press for dictatorial powers should Congress balk at his agenda: “In the event Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis – broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

 Roosevelt’s was a most extraordinary and demagogic speech, for a man elected on a promise to restore confidence and get the nation on the road to recovery and prosperity. Rather than call for combined cooperative effort of the entire Nation, to work together to restore confidence in banks and investing in the economy, Roosevelt went for what can only be termed a sort of class war attack against the “money changers in the temple.” This hardly restored confidence in the soundness of banks.

 The core group of FDR’s early advisers centered about the figure of Harvard Law School Professor, Felix Frankfurter, an FDR intimate since his World War I days. The inner circle also included at the outset Columbia University Prof. Rexford Guy Tugwell, author Stuart Chase (Chase, along with Tugwell and Robert Williams Dunn, had jointly written a report, “Soviet Russia in the Second Decade,” following their 1927 travel to Stalin’s Russia), Agriculture Secretary Henry A. Wallace (later revealed to be associated with the Communist movement in America), and a small number of others. These were the men who had the private ear of the President on economic issues in his first term (1933-1937).

Also in his First Inaugural, Roosevelt promised “a new deal for the American people.” The term was taken from a 1932 book by the same name, “A New Deal,” written by Stuart Chase. Its contents were the currency of White House economic policy discussion by Tugwell and other central planners around the new President.

 After leaving Harvard in 1910, Chase went to Chicago to work in progressive icon Jane Addams’ Hull House. As a young bureaucrat with the Federal Trade Commission in 1917, Chase investigated charges against Armour & Co. meat packers. This all shaped his social outlook, and the Soviet model gave it justification in terms of national planning.

In his 1932 book, “A New Deal,” Chase argued that “…The era of Trusts, monopolies, capital concentration by large banks, must now give way to central or collective planning.” Chase wrote, “…modern industrialism, because of its delicate specialization and interdependence, increasingly demands the collectivism of social control to keep its several parts from jamming.

 We find a government meeting that demand by continually widening the collective sector through direct ownership, operation and regulation of economic functions … Collectivism is … on the march.” Much of Chase’s book was filled with fulsome praise for Stalin’s Russian model of central planning and its achievements, reflecting the fascination of numerous younger American intellectuals in the early 1930’s.

 In his “A New Deal,” intended as a kind of blueprint for the Roosevelt campaign, Chase advocated [not an original concept but] what he called, “The Third Road, a road which runs neither to red [dictatorship – also communists’ favorite color] nor to black [business]” – an interesting choice of economic colors – red traditionally connoting losses and black connoting profits. Chase proclaimed that under the Third Road, “…private profit will not furnish the happy hunting ground it used to. State trusts, investment control, the curbing of speculation, will choke the muzzle of the more devastating forms.”

 He also proposed drastic economic controls, “The Federal Reserve will take over the control of currency, the stock exchanges, banks and domestic investment… A new Foreign Trade Corporation will supervise exports, imports and foreign loans. Public works will undoubtedly be centralized in one department…”

 Leaving no doubt that his sentiments were not market-oriented in any way, Chase concluded his tract by stating, “… It is not an attempt to bolster up capitalism, it is frankly aimed at the destruction of capitalism, specifically in its most evil sense of ruthless expansion. The redistribution of national income, the sequestration of excess profits, and the control of new investment are all designed to that end.”

 Rexford Tugwell, the Columbia University economics professor who traveled with Chase in 1927 to the Soviet Union, was the central person of this collectivist group around Roosevelt. Indeed, when it emerged that Tugwell was one of the inner circle of the new President, business leaders and newspapers began to research Tugwell’s economic writings, and came away shocked, leading some to nickname him, “Rexford the Red.”

 In a paper in the American Economic Review in March 1932, Tugwell wrote, that the quest for profit no longer motivated business, but that instead it produced “insecurity” because profits were, “…used for creating over-capacity in every profitable line; they are injected into money market operations in such ways as to contribute to inflation; they are used, most absurdly of all, as investments in the securities of other industries.”

 Tugwell proceeded further in his frontal assault on the core of the free-market private enterprise system which had created such extraordinary wealth and improvement of general living standards over the previous decade: “Industry is thought of as rather a field for adventure…The truth is profits persuade us to speculate.” This belief is at the core of progressive liberalism – the quest for life without risk – which drives their social agenda to this day – cradle to grave government handouts.

 In discussing a proposal to introduce national economic planning, Tugwell wrote in 1932, “…it seems altogether likely that we shall set up, and soon, such a consultative body. The day on which it comes into existence will be a dangerous one for business … There may be a long and lingering death (of the private profit enterprise), but it must be regarded as inevitable.” Private business, Tugwell added, “…would logically be required to disappear. This is not an overstatement for the sake of emphasis; it is literally meant.”

 In October 1932, one month before FDR’s election, Rexford Guy Tugwell formulated a six-point program for dealing with the depression crisis. Tugwell opposed wage cuts, then a common method of corporate cost cutting. He insisted, however, on reducing retail prices, and called for “drastic income and inheritance taxes,” as well as “avoidance of budgetary deficits and monetary inflation.”

 Obviously businesses could not possibly simultaneously maintain wage levels, reduce prices, and pay increased taxes, without risking bankruptcy in such crisis times. To this, Tugwell advocated, “…the taking over by the government of any necessary enterprises which refuse to function when their profits are absorbed by taxation.” This belief is at the core of progressive liberal economic ignorance at best – insanity at worst.

 In brief, Tugwell’s program (and this became the Roosevelt plan), would first make it impossible for business to function, then bring those failed businesses under nationalization or state ownership. Tugwell concluded his 1932 program, “So long as prices, profits and individual production programs are at the disposal of independent business executives, our system will continue to show much the same faults as it displays at present.” My “Auntie Ayn” was listening. She didn’t miss the profound ignorance and arrogance awash in the halls of power. She wound make them the central theme of her magnum opus.

 Again, according to author Jonah Goldberg;

 “FDR chose to attack the depression with his so-called New Deal, a series of economic programs passed during his first term in office. These programs greatly expanded the size, scope, and power of the federal government, giving the President and his Brain Trust near-dictatorial status.

 “I want to assure you,” Roosevelt’s aide Harry Hopkins [later suspected of having a Communist affiliation] told an audience of New Deal activists in New York, “that we are not afraid of exploring anything within the law, and we have a lawyer who will declare anything you want to do legal.” I’m sure that was meant to be funny. It is, instead, frightening.

Many of Roosevelt’s ideas and policies were entirely indistinguishable from the fascism of Mussolini. In fact, there were “…many common features among New Deal liberalism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism, all of which shared many of the same historical and intellectual forebears [French Revolutionaries – including Napoleon.] Like American progressives, many Italian Fascist and German Nazi intellectuals championed a “middle” or “Third Way” between capitalism and socialism.” President Bill Clinton called it “Triangulation” in the 1990’s.

 Goldberg explains:

 “The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds un-ideological and free-thinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices—’I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity.”

 The German and American New Deals – i.e., fascism and progressivism – also shared the bedrock belief that the state should be permitted to do whatever it wished, so long as it was for “good reasons.” Chief among those “good reasons” was the idea that government’s purpose was to protect the interests of “the forgotten man,” [that is – everyman – the worker who bears the burden of oppressive government] on whose behalf both FDR and Hitler were proficient at projecting deep concern.

Conversely, FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini alike made many populist appeals designed to spark resentment against so-called “fat cats,” “international bankers,” and “economic royalists.” Such appeals were, and remain, the tools of the trade for demagogues. [As recently as December 2009, for instance, President Barack Obama said “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”]

In fact, Roosevelt hijacked the idea of “the forgotten man” from a Yale philosophy professor who had coined the phrase in the 1880s, when industrialization was exploding at the expense of the working man. In her singularly superb book on the causes of the Great Depression – The Forgotten Man – author and economist Emily Shlaes makes the case that William Graham Sumner developed an anti-progressives lecture in defense of classic liberalism. His argument was that progressives often coerced unwitting average citizens into funding dubious social projects.

His central point was that progressive/liberal policy makers, and private supporters who may have ulterior motives, often decide what the social remedy will be for an issue that they determine to be wrong and which, in their view, negatively impacts the citizenry. They then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help their constituents. It is always the government’s way but – what about the citizens? According to Shlaes, “What was wrong was the law, and the indenturing of the citizenry to the cause. The citizen was the forgotten man, the man who paid, (but) the man who never is thought of.”

According to Roosevelt, the forgotten man wasn’t the citizenry – all citizens, it was a particular citizen – “… the poor man, the old man, labor or any other recipient of government help.” Now, in order to justify giving something to the new “forgotten man”, government had to make a scapegoat out of another man. In Roosevelt’s world, those scapegoats were financiers, industrialists and businessmen and the program became one of bullying and pitting one group of Americans against another. Sound familiar? The game remains the same today.

Ironically, this scapegoating abruptly ended when war began in 1939 and Roosevelt needed those financiers, industrialists and businessmen to save his job and Western Civilization.

Much like Wilson, Roosevelt used the FBI and other government agencies to spy on domestic critics. He also authorized the use of the American Legion to assist the FBI in monitoring American citizens. And a compliant press remained silent.

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was perhaps the most popular program of the New Deal, mobilizing some 2.5 million young men to work mostly as a “forestry army,” performing such tasks as clearing dead wood. In both substance and style, the CCC was essentially a paramilitary organization.

“Enlistees met at army recruiting stations; wore World War I uniforms; were transported around the country by troop trains; answered to army sergeants; were required to stand at attention, march in formation, employ military lingo…; read a CCC newspaper modeled on Stars and Stripes; went to bed in army tents listening to taps; and woke to reveille.”

While FDR justified these camps as useful vehicles for getting youth “off the city street corners,” their primary purpose was to expand the public sector. At the very same time, the Nazis were busy establishing similar camps that Hitler said would keep young people from “rotting helplessly in the streets.” A secondary objective of the camps – both in the U.S. and Germany – was to transcend class barriers and promote a sense of collective unity and duty.

 The most representative initiative demonstrating the admiration of the New Dealers for the communist social and economic model of Joe Stalin was the creation of the Export-Import Bank in 1934. The Ex-Im Bank was created to promote trade with the Soviet Union, which many New Dealers, as we know, had visited in the late twenties, and which we have already discussed, had written favorably about and which – even in 1934 – was known for its pogroms, purges and gulags, along with its universally coercive central planning.

 The Ex-Im Bank functioned by providing loan guarantees to the Soviet Union to allegedly encourage them to buy American products. Of course there weren’t many products to export in Depression Era America, except from large companies that had supported Roosevelt’s coercive policies that allegedly created jobs but which only gave them economic advantage. Today the Ex-Im Bank provides billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company – which itself was extorted from the American oil companies that had developed the industry – and to U.S. oil interests overseas.

Roosevelt also instituted the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which was led by Hugh “Iron Pants” Johnson, a passionate disciple of fascism who personally distributed innumerable copies of the openly fascist tract, The Corporate State (authored by Raffaello Viglione, one of Mussolini’s favorite economists).

Under Johnson’s leadership, the NRA imposed hundreds of onerous codes on businesses – mandating industry collusion and price-fixing that virtually eliminated competition and the free market. Threatening that Americans who failed to cooperate with the NRA’s dictates would get a “sock in the nose,” Johnson emphasized that the Roosevelt administration’s war on the depression was “lethal and more menacing than any other crisis in our history.”

The NRA established a stylized Blue Eagle as the patriotic symbol of compliance that all American business establishments were expected to hang from their doors, along with the motto “We do our part” – a phrase used by the Roosevelt administration the way the Germans used “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz” [“Public need before private greed”]. American and German newspapers alike often noted the similarities between the Blue Eagle, which clutched a band of lightning bolts in one claw and an industrial cogwheel in the other, to the German Reich eagle.

Johnson and the NRA dispatched a large army of informants, represented by such diverse constituencies as union members and Boy Scouts, to monitor compliance with the Blue Eagle program in neighborhoods across the United States. “When every American housewife understands that the Blue Eagle on everything that she permits to come into her home is a symbol of its restoration to security, may God have mercy on the man or group of men who attempt to trifle with this bird,” Johnson said.

To further promote “voluntary” compliance with the Blue Eagle program, Johnson organized many military parades and Nuremberg-style rallies, where marchers donned the uniforms of their respective occupations.

The fascist mindset underlying the NRA’s authoritarian mandates was confirmed in the results of a study commissioned by the NRA’s own Research and Planning Division. Titled “Capitalism and Labor under Fascism,” it concluded: “The fascist principles are very similar to those which have been evolving in America and so are of particular interest at this time.” Unbelievable!

 It is also possible that socio-political Utopian ideas that inform Freemasonry also resonated with Roosevelt, who was a 32nd degree Freemason. This contention is strengthened by the technocratic pedigree of FDR’s New Deal. In the early days of the 1932 election campaign, technocratic theoretician Henry A. Porter published Roosevelt and Technocracy. The book raised an interesting question: “Will TECHNOCRACY be the New Deal?”

 Based on his observations of FDR’s policies, Porter gravitated towards the affirmative. In fact, Porter made no effort to conceal his approval of FDR: “Only skillful statesmanship – the statesmanship of Roosevelt, and sound economic principles – the principles of Technocracy, can lead us out of the valley of Chaos and Despair into which we are plunging”. Meanwhile, technocratic enclaves in California even promoted “the granting of dictatorial powers to Franklin D. Roosevelt”.

Next time: Roosevelt, Hitler and Mussolini.


Progressivism v. Industrialism

In general, Progressivism began at local levels and did much good because it worked closely with the People. As Teddy Roosevelt found out, it was when it progressed to the national level that it came into conflict with the Constitution – and the “real enemy” of the Progressives became States’ Rights and limited government. Inherent in this view was the time tested European model of the use of coercion by the national government to effect changes at all levels of society – according to the popular fashion of the day – the print media.

 Context again – according to widely available sources;

 “(Reporters like) “… Ida Tarbell  … exposed the activities of the Standard Oil Company. In The Shame of the Cities (1904), Lincoln Steffins dissected corruption in city government. In Following the Color Line (1908), Ray Stannard Baker  criticized race relations. Other muckrakers assailed the Senate, railroad companies, insurance companies, and fraud in patent medicine. Novelists, too, criticized corporate injustices. Theodore Dreiser drew harsh portraits of a type of ruthless businessman in The Financier (1912) and The Titan (1914). In The Jungle (1906),  Socialist Upton Sinclair repelled readers with descriptions of Chicago’s meatpacking plants, and his work led to support for remedial food safety legislation.

 A universal and comprehensive system of education was at the top of the Progressive agenda, reasoning that if a democracy (meaning government) were to be successful, its leaders needed a good education – in contrast to the original purpose of public education in the mid-1800s – to enable the general public to find work in newly industrializing America. Progressives worked hard to expand and improve public and private education at all levels. They believed that modernization of American society into an efficient and empathetic institution necessitated the compulsory education of all children under government guidance. While home-schooling of the day was a privilege of the rich, when home-schooling by the middle-class began to become popular in the mid-20th Century, the progressives added it to their list of political enemies.

 Also on their list were workers’ rights, the direct election of Senators, the temperance movement, the income tax, child labor laws, women’s suffrage and stamping out government corruption. Further, labor progressives argued that industrial monopolies (“trusts”) were unnatural economic institutions which suppressed the competition which was necessary for progress and improvement. More than 130 Trusts were brought down in less than eight years by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft.

 It was the labor movement however, that did the heavy lifting for the Progressives. The American labor movement of the 1860s-1920s was initiated by strikes that began because of wage cuts, the new inventions of machinery, and the depersonalization of workers. During the late 1800s, the unions, principally the railroad unions, were conducting strikes that led to rioting and disorder. In order to restore peace, the government was taking action to secure power again. The public was angered by the carelessness of union officials who allowed violence to occur. As a result of their outrage, riots broke out, strikes began, and mobs formed.

 In 1886 the “Haymarket Affair began as a protest rally and subsequent violence on May 4 at the Haymarket Square in Chicago. The rally supported striking workers. When police began to disperse the public meeting, an unknown person threw a dynamite bomb [the favorite weapon of anarchists] into their midst. The bomb blast and ensuing gunfire resulted in the deaths of eight police officers, mostly from friendly fire [which didn’t make much difference to their families – they were still dead because of the actions of an unknown bomber], and an unknown number of civilians. 

 In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were tried for murder. Four men were convicted and executed, and one committed suicide in prison, although the prosecution conceded none of the defendants had thrown the bomb.

 The causes of the Haymarket Affair are still controversial but can be traced in part to an incident the previous day, in which police fired into a crowd of agitated workers during shift change at the McCormick Works, where the regular work force was on strike, and at least two workers were killed. In popular literature, the Haymarket Affair inspired the caricature of “a bomb-throwing anarchist.”

 Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld  later pardoned the three living survivors of the Haymarket prosecution, concluding (as have subsequent scholars) that there had been a serious miscarriage of justice in their prosecutions.

 At the head of the American Railway Union was Eugene V. Debs. His concern for the well-being of his workers was demonstrated when he instructed union members at the Pullman Company to avoid violence. However, the employees went on strike and events were soon out of control, resulting in Debs’ incarceration. During the Pullman Strike in 1893, Debs was not regarded as a good influence on employees but was seen as a lawbreaker whose disorderly teachings must be stopped.

 The first of these strikes was the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 which saw considerable violence by, and against, workers, and occurred before unions were widespread. It started on July 14 in Martinsburg, WV, in response to the cutting of wages for the second time in a year by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (B&O). Striking workers would not allow any of the stock to roll until this second wage cut was revoked. The governor sent in State militia units to restore train service, but the soldiers refused to use force against the strikers and the governor called for federal troops.

 Violent street battles occurred in Maryland between the striking workers and the Maryland State militia. When the outnumbered troops of the 6th Regiment fired on an attacking crowd, they killed 10 and wounded 25. The rioters injured several members of the militia, damaged engines and train cars, and burned portions of the train station. On July 21–22, in a compromise, President Rutherford B. Hayes sent federal troops and Marines to Baltimore to restore order.

 In Reading, PA,  workers conducted mass marches, blocked rail traffic, committed train yard arson, and burned a bridge. A militia shot sixteen citizens in the “ Reading Railroad Massacre”. The militia responsible for the shootings was mobilized by Reading Railroad management, not by local public officials.

 Chicago was paralyzed when angry mobs of unemployed citizens wreaked havoc in the rail yards. The strike was eventually suppressed by thousands of vigilantes, National Guard, and federal troops.

 In Pittsburgh, strikers threw rocks at local militiamen, who bayoneted their antagonists, killing twenty people and wounding twenty-nine others.

 During an 1888 strike against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, workers were arrested for wrecking a train. When one of those arrested turned out to be a detective, organized labor complained that the detective had incited the others.

 The year 1892 was one of considerable labor unrest. Governors of five states called out the National Guard and/or the army to quell unrest by miners in East Tennessee, in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, where a shooting war followed the discovery of a labor spy, against switchmen in Buffalo, NY, against a general strike in New Orleans, LA, and against the Homestead steel strike.

 The strike of 1892 in Coeur d’Alene, ID erupted in violence when a union miner was killed by mine guards and was further inflamed when union miners discovered they had been infiltrated by a  Pinkerton agent who had routinely provided union information to the mine owners.

 On Sunday night, July 10, armed union miners gathered on the hills above the Frisco mine. At five o’clock in the morning, shots rang out, and the firing became continuous. The union miners, exposed on the logged-off hillside, hadn’t positioned themselves for a gunfight, while mine guards were able to shelter in buildings.

 The union men circled above the mill where they could send a box of  black powder down the flume into one of the mine buildings. The building exploded, killing one company man and injuring several others. The union miners fired into a remaining structure where the guards had taken shelter. A second company man was killed, and sixty or so guards surrendered. Union men marched their prisoners to the union hall.

 The violence provided the mine owners and the governor with an excuse to declare Martial Law, and bring in six companies of the Idaho National Guard  to “suppress insurrection and violence.” Federal troops also arrived, and they confined six hundred miners in bullpens without any hearings or formal charges. Some were later “sent up” for violating injunctions, others for obstructing the United States mail.

 A strike known as the Homestead Strike began in 1892 with workers at the Carnegie Steel Company at Homestead, PA. Next was the Pullman Strike which occurred in 1893 when the nation was faced with another financial depression – The Panic of 1893. Labor was then relatively quiet for most of the next 30 years.

 Theodore Roosevelt and his third party supported such union goals as the eight-hour work day, improved safety and health conditions in factories, workers’ compensation laws, and minimum wage laws for women. Labor unions grew steadily until 1916, expanded quickly during the First World War. Then, in 1919 a wave of major strikes alienated the middle class, and the strikes were lost, which alienated the workers.

 Finally, Williamson County, IL, a county with a “unique history of violence” for a rural county, was the location of the “Herrin Massacre”, one of the most horrific and perplexing incidents of union violence. The 1922 incident is considered the most notorious of John L. Lewis’ United Mine Workers’ struggles in Illinois. 

 Williamson was a hotbed of Ku Klux Klan activity at the time, with many in the community embracing that organization in opposition to bootlegging of liquor during Prohibition, and for purposes of racial exclusion. The massacre was committed by members (and possibly at the instruction of local leadership) of the United Mine Workers. 

 Accounts differ, but most record the strike-related deaths of three union men, followed the next day by union miners committing the brutal murders of 20 men of a group of fifty strikebreakers and mine guards. The ruthless retaliation occurred against the backdrop of broken promises, double-dealing, and missed opportunities on both sides.

 For the rest of the 1920s the unions were in the doldrums; The American Federation of Labor, under Samuel Gompers after 1907, began supporting the Democrats, who promised more favorable judges would be appointed. The Republicans appointed pro-business judges. 

 Real life union bosses continued to rule with an iron fist and labor union power has survived. It still plays a major role in national politics – becoming a political weapon by attacking members of the public who may disagree with the progressive-socialist politics championed by union management, by raising huge sums for progressive/liberal candidates for elective office and providing an intimidating, and sometimes violent, presence in labor-management issues – just as their sans-coulottes ancestors taught them over 200 years ago.

 To keep their jobs, more than 550,000 American non-union workers per year are forced to pay union agency fees. In the 25 states without right-to-work laws, unions can take mandatory “fair share” or “agency” fees from workers who decline union membership. Those fees often amount to hundreds of dollars per year. Unions can’t spend agency fees directly on politics but, taking fees from non-members frees unions to spend more from members’ dues on political activism for “progressive,” big-government policies.

 So, in the fifty years between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the American interest in World War I, progressives had changed the face and character of America. They had seen the inhumanity and brutality of slavery and had slain the dragon of aristocratic slavers through the power of the Northern militia-armies. They had seen the unimaginable and incomprehensible poverty and filth of the tenement slums in the great northern cities and had slain the dragon of the aristocratic robber-barons of the North with the militant power of the trade and labor unionists.

 Now, with ultimate political power in their own hands, as Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson became President in 1913, what dragons were left? Only the inalienable power of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. The common People, of course, whom the Progressives had saved time after time, should be grateful for their freedoms – grateful to the Progressives – and should be ready to bow down to their altruistic protectors. They just needed to understand the truth about their Constitution – the Constitution which had allowed the plantations of slavery and the trusts of the robber-barons. They must learn the truth – the Progressive’s truth. Wilson was only too happy to help.

 But the Progressives also saw the saloon as political corruption incarnate, and bewailed the damage done to women and children. They believed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind’s potential for advancement.  Progressives achieved success first with state laws then with the enactment of the 18th Amendment in 1919. Unfortunately, the golden day did not dawn; enforcement was lax, especially in the cities where notorious criminal gangs, such as the Chicago gang of  Al Capone, and his chief lieutenant, Frank Nitti,engaged in a decade long crime spree based on illegal sales of liquor in speakeasies.

 The “experiment” (as President Hoover called it) also cost the treasury large sums of tax revenue. The 18th Amendment was repealed by the  21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1933. However, the working relationship between crime syndicates and the American labor movement was not.

 It is fair to say that by the end of the 20th Century, union violence/thuggery had gone full circle. At the beginning of the movement the violence was outer directed; toward the government, management, or the police who were using violence themselves to destroy the labor movement. As the movement matured, the violence became directed inward, targeted towards keeping the rank and file “in line,” going after replacement workers, or sabotaging the particular company under siege. According to a study in 1969, the United States has had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world, and there have been few industries which have been immune.

 Progressive minded women did succeed in one great campaign – the right to vote –

 A second, quiet American revolution began in 1840, when Susan B. Anthony’s colleagues, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were turned away and not allowed to speak against slavery at the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London — because they were women. In 1848, Anthony, Mott, Stanton and others held a historic meeting in Seneca Falls, N.Y., and issued a Declaration of Rights and Sentiments that spelled out women’s utter disenfranchisement.

 The first national suffrage organizations were established in 1869 when two competing organizations were formed, one led by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the other by Lucy Stone. After years of bitter rivalry, they merged in 1890 as the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) with Anthony as its leading force.

 Hoping the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that women had a constitutional right to vote, suffragists made several attempts to vote in the early 1870s and then filed lawsuits when they were turned away. Anthony actually succeeded in voting in 1872 but was arrested for that act and found guilty in a widely publicized trial that gave the movement fresh momentum.

 After the Supreme Court ruled against them in 1875, suffragists began the decades-long campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would enfranchise women. Much of the movement’s energy, however, went toward working for suffrage on a state-by-state basis.

When Anthony began the struggle for women’s equality, married women had to hand over their wages to their husbands. Their inherited property and their children belonged to their husbands, as well. Unwanted wives were sometimes gotten rid of by being locked away in mental asylums. Only single women could enter into contracts. Women had no political “voice” in the matters that related to their own destiny. Women could not easily attend college, law or medical school and could not belong to social organizations on campus. In fact, the first “sorority” was launched as a “fraternity” – Kappa Alpha Theta – at Oberlin College in 1870.

Anthony, Stanton and the American suffragist movement fought for 60 years to get women the right to vote. Anthony kept fighting until she died in 1906. The women’s vote was finally realized after seventy-two years of determined, courageous and hard work on August 18, 1920 by the ratification of the 19th Amendment (which was passed in 1919) – by a single tie-breaking vote, that of Tennessee Republican State Representative Harry Burn in a highly controversial special session of the General Assembly in Nashville, Tennessee, courageously called by Tennessee’s Democrat Governor Albert Roberts.

 Burn admittedly voted in favor of ratification because of his mother’s note persuading him to support the amendment, writing;

 “Dear Son:

Hurrah, and vote for suffrage!  Don’t keep them in doubt.  I notice some of the speeches against.  They were bitter.  I have been watching to see how you stood, but have not noticed anything yet. Don’t forget to be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the “rat” in ratification.

Your Mother.”

 Many say his vote cost Burn his political career. It should be noted that after Burn cast his historic vote, he hid in the attic of the capitol until the maddening crowds cleared away.  It is also rumored that the anti-suffragists were so angry at his decision that they chased him from the chamber, forced him to climb out a window of the Capitol and inch along a ledge to safety. He wrote;

 “I believe in full suffrage as a right. I believe we had a moral and legal right to ratify. I know a mother’s advice is always safest for her boy to follow, and my mother wanted me to vote for ratification.”

 Governor Roberts was defeated in his bid for re-election in 1920 and didn’t return to public office until being elected to the State Senate in 1949. He also was a delegate for Roane County to the state Constitutional Conventions of 1953, 1959 and 1965.

 What would Anthony have to say about the progress American women have made since 1920?

Women now account for a third of the nation’s lawyers and doctors. They have entered the military and the labor force in significant numbers, including in jobs that were traditionally “for men.” Women are now scientists, finance experts, programmers, chefs, stockbrokers, computer wizards, race-car drivers, electricians, basketball players, etc.

Since 1917, 313 women have served as U.S. senators, representatives and as non-voting delegates.

In 1972, New York Rep. Shirley Chisholm ran for the Democratic nomination for president. Two women — Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008 — have been vice presidential candidates. Nancy Pelosi has been speaker of the House. The U.S. Cabinet has had 31 female officials, including three secretaries of state, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton; an attorney general, Janet Reno; a secretary of transportation and of labor, Elizabeth Dole; and a secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano.

Anthony would be impressed that there have been 44 women astronauts, a good number of CEOs, and even sports announcers! Perhaps she would be disappointed that so few women vote in their own best interests.

It was at this point that John Reed came on the scene. John Silas “Jack” Reed (1887 –1920) was an American journalist, poet and socialist  activist, best remembered for his first-hand account of the Bolshevik Revolution, Ten Days That Shook the World . He was married to writer and feminist Louise Bryan . Reed died in Russia in 1920, and was buried at the Kremlin Wall Necropolis (a rare honor for an American).

Reed made use of a valuable contact he had made at Harvard (of course), the muckraking journalist Lincoln Steffins, who appreciated Reed’s skills and intellect at an early date. Reed’s serious interest in social problems was first aroused at about this time by Steffens and  Ida Tarbell, and once aroused it quickly led him to a far more radical position than theirs. In 1913 he joined the staff of  The Masses, edited by  Max Eastman and his sister Crystal. Eastman later turned against communism.

The first of Reed’s many arrests came in Paterson, NJ, in 1913, for attempting to speak on behalf of strikers in the New Jersey silk mills. The harsh treatment meted out by the authorities to the strikers and a short jail term which followed further radicalized him. Reed allied himself with the syndicalist trade union, the Industrial Workers of the World (a Communist International propaganda organ), at this time.

In the autumn of 1913 Reed was sent to Mexico by the Metorpolitian Magazine to report on theMexican Revolution. He shared the perils of Pancho Villa’s army for four months, and was with Villa’s Constitutional (Constitutionalist) Army (whose “Primer Jefe” was Venustiano Carranza ) when it defeated Federal forces at Torreon, opening the way for its advance on Mexico City. Reed adored Villa, while Carranza left him cold.

On August 14, 1914, shortly after Germany declared war on France, he set sail for neutral Italy, having been sent by the Metropolitan. He met his lover, Mabel Dodge, in Naples, and the pair made their way to Paris. Reed saw the war as having emerged from imperialist commercial rivalries and showed little sympathy for any of the participants. In an unsigned piece entitled “The Traders’ War,” published in the September 1914 issue of The Masses, Reed, obviously not familiar with the geo-political dictum; “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, passionately wrote:

“The real War, of which this sudden outburst of death and destruction is only an incident, began long ago. It has been raging for tens of years, but its battles have been so little advertised that they have been hardly noted. It is a clash of Traders” … “What has democracy to do in alliance with Nicholas, the Tsar? Is it Liberalism which is marching from the Petersburg of Father Gapon, from the Odessa of the pogroms? … “No. There is a falling out among commercial rivals….”We, who are Socialists, must hope — we may even expect — that out of this horror of bloodshed and dire destruction will come far-reaching social changes — and a long step forward towards our goal of Peace among Men…”But we must not be duped by this editorial buncombe about Liberalism going forth to Holy War against Tyranny.”

In France, he was frustrated by wartime censorship and the difficulty of accessing the front. Reed and Dodge went to London, and Dodge soon left for New York, to the relief of Reed. The rest of 1914 he spent drinking with French prostitutes and pursuing an affair with a German woman. The pair went to Berlin in early December. While there, Reed interviewed Karl Liebknecht, who was one of the few socialists in Germany to vote against war credits. Reed was deeply disappointed by the general collapse in working-class solidarity promised by the Socialist’s Second Internationale, and by its replacement with militarism and nationalism.

After returning to New York, he paid a visit to his mother in Portland, where he met and fell in love with Louise Bryant, who joined him on the East coast in January 1916. Though happy, both had affairs with others rather freely, in accord with the bohemian sensibilities of sexual liberation in common currency in that day. As the country raced towards war, the radical Reed was marginalized: his relationship with the Metropolitan was over. John pawned his late father’s watch and sold his Cape Cod cottage to birth control activist and sex educator Margaret Sanger.

When Wilson asked for a declaration of war on April 2, 1917, the now fanatical Reed shouted at a hastily-convened meeting of the People”s Council in Washington: “This is not my war, and I will not support it. This is not my war, and I will have nothing to do with it.” In July and August Reed continued to write aggressive articles for The Masses, which the Post Office now refused to mail, and for Seven Arts, which as a result of an article by Reed and others, had its financial backing cut off and ceased publication. Reed was stunned by the nation’s pro-war fervor and his career lay in ruins.

On August 17, 1917, Reed and Bryant set sail from New York to Europe, having first provided the State Department with legally sworn assurances that neither would represent the Socialist Party at a forthcoming conference in Stockholm. The pair were going as working journalists to see for themselves and report upon the sensational developments taking place in the fledgling “republic” of Russia.

Traveling by way of  Finland, the pair arrived in the capital city of Petrograd immediately after the failed military coup of monarchist General Lavr Kornilov, an attempt to topple the post-czar Provisional Government of Alexander Kerensky by force of arms. Reed and Bryant found the Russian economy was in shambles and several of the subject nationalities of the old empire, such as Finland and  Ukraine, autonomous and seeking to forge a military accommodation with Germany – Russia’s enemy.

Reed and Bryant wound up at ground zero for the October Revolution, in which the Russion Social-Democratic Labor Party (bolshevik) headed by Vladimir Lenin toppled the Kerensky government in what they believed to be the first blow struck in a worldwide socialist/communist revolution. The Bolsheviks, seeking an all-socialist government and immediate end to Russian participation in the war, sought the transfer of power from Kerensky to a Congress of Soviets, a gathering of elected workers’ and soldiers’ deputies to be convened in October.

The Kerensky government saw this as a clear effort to replace its own regime with another and moved to shut down the Bolshevik press, issuing warrants of arrest for the Soviet leaders and preparing to transfer the troops of the Petrograd garrison, believed to be unreliable, back to the front.

A Military Revolutionary Committee of the Soviets, dominated by the Bolshevik Party, determined to seize power on behalf of the future Congress of Soviets and at 11 pm on the evening of November 7, 1917, it captured the Winter Palace, seat of Kerensky’s government. Reed and Bryant were present during the fall of the Winter Palace, the symbolic event which initiated the Bolshevik Revolution.

Reed was an enthusiastic supporter of the new revolutionary socialist government and he went to work for the new People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, translating decrees and news of the actions of the new government into English. “I also collaborated in the gathering of material and data and distributing of papers to go into the German trenches,” Reed later recalled.

Reed was close to the inner circle of the new government. He met Leon Trotsky  and was introduced to Lenin during a break of the Constituent Assembly on January 18, 1918. By December, his funds were nearly exhausted and he took employment with an American, Raymond Robins of the Red Cross. Robins wished to set up a newspaper promoting American interests; Reed complied, but in the dummy issue he prepared he included a warning beneath the masthead: “This paper is devoted to promoting the interests of American capital.”

The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly left Reed unmoved, and two days later, armed with a rifle, he joined a patrol of Red Guards prepared to defend the Foreign Office from counter-revolutionary attack. Reed then attended the opening of the Third Congress of Soviets, where he gave a short speech promising to bring the news of the revolution to America, where he hoped it would “call forth an answer from America’s oppressed and exploited masses.” American journalist Edgar Sisson  told Reed that he was being used by the Bolsheviks for their propaganda, a rebuke he accepted. 

In January, Trotsky, responding to Reed’s concern about the safety of his substantial archive, offered Reed the post of Soviet Consul in New York; as the United States did not recognize the Bolshevik government, his credentials would almost certainly have been rejected and he faced prison (which would have given the Bolsheviks some propaganda material).

The appointment was viewed as a massive blunder by most Americans in Petrograd, and the businessman Alex Gumberg directly approached Lenin, showing him a prospectus in which Reed called for massive American capital support for Russia and for the setting up of a newspaper to express the American viewpoint on the negotiations at Brest-Litovsk. Lenin found the proposal unsavory and withdrew the nomination; thereafter, Reed only mentioned Gumberg’s name with a string of epithets attached.

Both Reed and Bryant netted books from their Russian experiences and, when back in America, Reed and Bryant took pains to defend the Bolsheviks and oppose American intervention, but a hyper-patriotic public incensed at Russia’s departure from the war against Germany, gave him a generally cold reception.

Affiliated with the Left Wing of theSocialist Party, Reed with the other radicals was expelled from the National Socialist Convention in Chicago on August 30, 1919. The radicals then split into two bitterly hostile groups, forming the Communist Labor Party of America (Reed’s, in the creation of which he had been indispensable) and, the next day, the Communist Party of America . Reed was the international delegate of the former, wrote its manifesto and platform, edited its paper, The Voice of Labor, and was denounced as “Jack the Liar” in the Communist Party organ, The Communist.

Reed’s writings of 1919 displayed doubts about Western-style democracy and defended the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, which he saw as a necessary step that would prefigure the true democracy “based upon equality and the liberty of the individual.”

Indicted for sedition and hoping to secure Comintern backing for the CLP, Reed fled from America in early October 1919 on a Scandinavian frigate by means of a forged passport, working his way to Bergen, Norway as a stoker. Given shore leave, he disappeared to Kristiania, crossed into Sweden on October 22, passed through Finland and made his way to Moscow by train.

In the cold winter of 1919–1920, he traveled in the region around Moscow, observing factories, communes, and villages; filling notebooks; and carrying on an affair with a Russian woman. His feelings about the revolution were now ambiguous: on the one hand, he told the anarchist Emma Goldman , who had recently arrived aboard Buford and especially complained about the Cheka, that the enemies of the revolution deserved their fate. However, he suggested that she see Angelica Balabanoff, a critic of the current situation, indicating he wanted Goldman to hear the other side.

His wife was holding his hand when he died in Moscow on October 17, 1920 from the ravages of typhus. After a hero’s funeral, his body was buried at the Kremlin Wall Necropolis. For the Communist movement to which he belonged, Reed became a symbol of the international nature of the Bolshevik revolution, a martyr buried at the Kremlin wall amidst solemn fanfare, his name to be uttered reverently as a member of the radical pantheon.

Reed has also been an influence upon the cinema. Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein’s influential 1927 silent film; October: Ten Days That Shook the World was based on Reed’s book. Progressive historian John Dos Passos included a highly stylized, brief biography of Reed in his 1932 novel/history work titled 1919 that was the second part of his U.S.A. trilogy.

Half a century later, liberals were still lionizing Reed, as Warren Beatty made the 1981 film Reds, based on the life of Reed. Beatty starred as Reed, while Diane Keaton  played the part of Louise Bryant and Jack Nicholson that of Eugene O’Neill. This marginal movie won three Academy Awards, and was nominated for nine others – demonstrating once again the continuing infatuation that progressive/liberals have with communism.

Next time: Progressives Wilson and FDR.

Abolitionist to Progressivist

Who were the defilers of the Constitution? The answer was not apparent at this time in the early 1950s. They were the intellectual descendants of the influential “progressive movement” leaders of the latter half of the 19th Century, inspired by the revolutionary spirit of European socialists of the 1840’s and 50’s, who embraced the coercive challenges presented by Marks and Engels in the mid-19th Century’s The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital.

 These “progressives” took up the “defense” of the popularly ‘exploited’ poor to advance their causes through coercion in institutions like labor unions, the arts, the press and government – people like Eugene Debs, William Jennings Bryan, Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair, George Norris, Jane Addams, Susan B. Anthony, the anarchist Emma Goldman, ‘Mother’ Jones, Margaret Sanger and, perhaps the most influential, John Reed. Their great coercive triumph was the 16th Amendment to the Constitution which established the ultimate coercive power and the gateway into every facet of the People’s lives for the federal government – the confiscatory income tax and the infamous and terrifying tax audit – a virtual and random “fishing expedition” into any American’s most private affairs and a chilling threat to every small business owner.

 Their history begins with good intentions in 1789 with the ratification of the Constitution and its provision in Article I that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. Out of this grew the Abolitionist Movement which helped coerce the States into tortured compromises in 1820, 1850 and 1854 that led to the Civil War, eventually resulting in the utter destruction of the slave industry and the amending of the Constitution (13th and 14th Amendments) in the late 1860’s. Some veterans then moved on to other “causes”.

 From the 1830s to the 1860s, the movement to abolish slavery in America gained strength in the northern United States, led by free blacks such as  Fredrick Douglas and white supporters such as William Lloyd Garrison, founder of the radical newspaper The Liberator, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, who published the bestselling antislavery novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” (1852). While many abolitionists based their activism on the belief that slaveholding was a sin, others were more inclined to the non-religious “free-labor” argument, which held that slaveholding was regressive, inefficient and made little economic sense.

 Free blacks and other antislavery northerners had begun helping fugitive slaves escape from southern plantations to the North via a loose network of safe houses as early as the 1780s. This practice, known as the Underground Railroad, gained real momentum in the 1830s and although estimates vary widely, it may have helped anywhere from 40,000 to 100,000 slaves reach freedom. The success of the Underground Railroad helped spread abolitionist feelings in the North; it also undoubtedly increased sectional tensions, convincing pro-slavery southerners of their northern countrymen’s determination to destroy the institution that sustained them.

America’s explosive growth – and its expansion westward in the first half of the 19th Century – would provide a larger stage for the growing conflict over slavery in America and its future limitation or expansion. In 1820, a bitter debate over the federal government’s right to restrict slavery over Missouri’s application for statehood ended in a compromise: Missouri was admitted to the Union as a slave state, Maine as a free state and all western territories north of Missouri’s southern border were to be free soil. Although the Missouri Compromise was designed to maintain an even balance between slave and free states, it was able to help quell the forces of sectionalism only temporarily.

In 1850, another tenuous compromise was negotiated to resolve the question of territory won during the Mexican War. Four years later, however, the Kansas-Nebraska Act  opened all new territories to slavery by asserting the rule of popular sovereignty over congressional edict, leading pro- and anti-slavery forces to battle it out (with much bloodshed) in the new state of  Kansas. Outrage in the North over the Kansas-Nebraska Act spelled the downfall of the old Whig Party and the birth of a new, all-northern Republican Party.

By the mid-19th Century, America’s westward expansion, along with a growing abolition movement in the North, would provoke a great debate over slavery that would tear the nation apart in the bloody American Civil War.

The root cause of the civil War, or, depending upon your politics, the War of Northern Aggression, or the War of the Rebellion, we all know – although some are loathe to admit it – was the elephant in the “political room” – slavery.

But, for those who actually fought for the Southern Cause, the reasons were varied. Some were standing up to a federal government they believed were abusing the Constitutional confederation of the States by treating some States more equally than others. A case in point:

“The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slave-holding interests and Northern Free-Soilers.

The Act was one of the most controversial elements of the 1850 compromise and heightened Northern fears of a “slave power  conspiracy”. It required that all escaped slaves were, upon capture, to be returned to their masters and that officials and citizens of free states had to cooperate in the enforcement of this law. Abolitionists  nicknamed it the “Bloodhound Law” for the dogs that were used to track down runaway slaves.

But, why was this law required by Southern politicians and patricians. Because, by 1843, several hundred slaves a year were successfully escaping to the North, making slavery an unstable institution in the border States causing economic strain on planters in the South.

The earlier Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was a Federal law which was written with the intent to enforce Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which required the return of runaway slaves. It sought to force the authorities in free States to return fugitive slaves to their masters but was largely ignored in the North.

Many Northern states wanted to circumvent the Fugitive Slave Act. Some jurisdictions passed “personal liberty laws”, mandating a jury trial before alleged fugitive slaves could be moved; others forbade the use of local jails or the assistance of state officials in the arrest or return of alleged fugitive slaves. In some cases, juries  refused to convict individuals who had been indicted under the Federal law. [an early and proud example of “jury nullification”].

The Missouri Supreme Court routinely held with the laws of neighboring free states, that slaves who had been voluntarily transported by their owners into free states, with the intent of the masters’ residing there permanently or indefinitely, gained their freedom as a result. The Fugitive Slave Law dealt with slaves who escaped to free states without their master’s consent. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), that states did not have to offer aid in the hunting or recapture of slaves, greatly weakening the law of 1793.

After 1840, the black population of rural Cass County, Michigan grew rapidly as families were attracted by white defiance of discriminatory laws, by numerous highly supportive Quakers, and by low-priced land. Free and runaway blacks found Cass County a haven.

Their good fortune attracted the attention of southern slaveholders. In 1847 and 1849, planters from Bourbon and Boone counties in northern Kentucky led raids into Cass County to recapture runaway slaves. The raids failed but the situation contributed to Southern demands in 1850 for passage of the strengthened Fugitive Slave Act.

In response to the weakening of the original fugitive slave act, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 penalized officials who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave, and made them liable to a fine of $1,000 (about $29,000 in present-day value). Law-enforcement officials everywhere were required to arrest people suspected of being a runaway slave on as little as a claimant’s sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus or promotion for their work.

Slave owners needed only to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture an escaped slave. Since a suspected slave was not eligible for a trial, the law resulted in the kidnapping and conscription of free blacks into slavery, as suspected fugitive slaves had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations. [The highly acclaimed recent film, 12 Years a Slave is based upon one freeman’s kidnapping under this regimen.]

The Act adversely affected the prospects of slave escape, particularly in states close to the North. One study finds that while slave prices rose across the South in the years after 1850 it appears that “the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act increased prices in border states by 15% to 30% more than in states further south”, illustrating how the Act altered the chance of successful escape.

In 1855, the Wisconsis Supreme Court became the only state high court to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, as a result of a case involving fugitive slave Joshua Glover and Sherman Booth, who led efforts that thwarted Glover’s recapture. In 1859 in Ableman v. Booth, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the state court.

In November 1850, the Vermont legislature passed the “Habeas Corpus Law,” requiring Vermont judicial and law enforcement officials to assist captured fugitive slaves. It also established a state judicial process, parallel to the federal process, for people accused of being fugitive slaves. This law rendered the federal Fugitive Slave Act effectively unenforceable in Vermont and caused a storm of controversy nationally. It was considered a “nullification” of federal law, a concept popular in the South among states that wanted to nullify other aspects of federal law, and was part of highly charged debates over slavery.

Noted poet and abolitionist John Greenleaf Whittier had called for such laws, and the Whittier controversy heightened angry pro-slavery reactions to the Vermont law. Virginia governor John B. Floyd  warned that nullification could push the South toward secession, while President Millard Fillmore threatened to use the army to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in Vermont. No test events took place in Vermont, but the rhetoric of this flare-up echoed South Carolina’s 1832 nullification crisis and Thomas Jefferson’s 1798 Kentucky Resolutions.

“Jury Nullification” occurred as local Northern juries acquitted men accused of violating the law. Secretary of State Daniel Webster was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous “Seventh of March” speech. He wanted high-profile convictions. The jury nullifications ruined his presidential aspirations and his last-ditch efforts to find a compromise between North and South.

Webster led the prosecution against men accused of rescuing  Shadrach Minkins in 1851 from Boston officials who intended to return Minkins to his owner; the juries convicted none of the men. Webster sought to enforce a law that was extremely unpopular in the North, and his Whig Party passed him over again when they chose a presidential nominee in 1852.

The Fugitive Slave Law brought the issue home to anti-slavery citizens in the North, as it made them and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. “Where before many in the North had little or no opinions or feelings on slavery, this law seemed to demand their direct assent to the practice of human bondage, and it galvanized Northern sentiments against slavery.” Moderate abolitionists were faced with the immediate choice of defying what they believed to be an unjust law, or breaking with their own consciences and beliefs. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) to highlight the evils of slavery.

Many abolitionists defied the law openly. Reverend Luther Lee, pastor of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Syracuse, New York, wrote in 1855:

I never would obey it. I had assisted thirty slaves to escape to Canada during the last month. If the authorities wanted anything of me, my residence was at 39 Onondaga Street. I would admit that and they could take me and lock me up in the Penitentiary on the hill; but if they did such a foolish thing as that I had friends enough in Onondaga County to level it to the ground before the next morning.

This was far from empty rhetoric. Several years before, in the Jerry Rescue, Syracuse abolitionists freed by force a fugitive slave who was to be sent back to the South; they successfully smuggled him to Canada. The case of Anthony Burns was an example of an unsuccessful attempt by opponents of the Fugitive Slave Law to use force to free a captured slave. Other famous examples include Shadrach Minkins in 1851 and Lucy Bagby in 1861, whose forcible return in 1861 has been cited by historians as important and “allegorical.” Pittsburgh abolitionists organized groups whose purpose was the seizure and release of any slave passing through the city, as in the case of a free black servant of the Slaymaker family, erroneously “rescued” by black waiters in a hotel dining room.

To many in the South, there never appeared to be any organized or effective response to these acts of nullification by the federal government. Another case:

Have you ever heard of the Morrill Act? Probably not. Although it is known best for its creation of “Land-Grant Colleges”, it also eliminated the ability of States to trade with any country by creating a tariff on such trade, which the Southern States did not believe was within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

To add insult to injury, more than 80% of the tariff revenues were spent on Northern public works and industrial subsidies – “further enriching the North at the expense of the South”. It was such an inequity that even Northern newspapers proposed that the Act was “at the root of much of the problems with making it impossible for the South to stay in the Union.”

In fact, many of the Civil War era soldiers, both North and South, did not fight to preserve slavery or to abolish it. Historians, over the years, have poured over thousands of letters from these soldiers writing home that have been discovered in estates all over the country. According to these historians, only a small fraction of the letters revealed the soldier’s intent was to preserve slavery.

So, why did so many soldiers fight for the Confederacy? Because they felt that they had been illegally invaded by the North. Virtually always, when a captured Confederate soldier was asked why he was fighting the answer was; “Because you’re here.” They were defending their home and their families. It was that simple.

In fact, only four of the eleven States that seceded from the Union identified in their respective declarations of secession the intent to preserve slavery. Tennessee is a case in point. When Tennessee held its convention on secession, they voted not to secede. It was only after President Lincoln requested troops to suppress the rebellion that Tennesseans reconvened their convention and voted to secede rather than take up arms against their neighbors, the last State to do so – and the first to be returned to the Union after being overrun by General U.S. Grant in 1862. There is much more on this subject dispersed throughout this treatise.

After stunning victories at Forts Henry and Donaldson in Northwest Tennessee, Grant sent Navy gunboats and soldiers up the Cumberland River to Nashville, the State capitol.When they arrived, all of the officials, including Governor Austin Peay, had abandoned the city leaving only terrified residents.

Though the Union victory freed the nation’s four million slaves, the legacy of slavery continued to influence American history, from the tumultuous years of percolating racial hatred, both black and white alike, personified in the Jim Crow Laws during Reconstruction (1865-77) to the civil rights movement that emerged in the 1960s, a century after emancipation.

The end of the war brought the end to slavery in America with the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The abolitionists had won and although the victory was bittersweet with the institution of “Jim Crow” laws in the South, the true believers in social justice had to move on to new campaigns. They now became “progressives” and social justice became social engineering.

In 1848 the Women’s Suffrage Movement began in Seneca Falls, NY and gained strength and influence after the Civil War when women were denied equal treatment in the 14thand 15th Amendments. Some also took up additional “causes” under the “progressive” banner.

 The Industrial Revolution came late to America but was hurried along by the Civil War. By the early 1870’s the industrialization of America was in full swing and laborers rightly began to feel exploited by industrialists who were literally inventing an entirely new world. Led by the National Labor Union, which was formed in 1866, American workers organized around ideas from European labor organizations which were decades ahead of America in industrialization and in socio-political movements that went along with it, most importantly – socialism – the ultimate form of elected coercive government. Like the suffragettes, other movements with other “causes” joined labor under the “progressive” banner.

 For context from widely available sources, more about socialism;

” The revival of republicanism (not the political party) in the American Revolution of 1776 and the egalitarian values introduced by the French Revolution of 1789 gave rise to socialism as a distinct political movement.

 Modern socialism originated from an 18th Century political movement, primarily in France, that criticized the effects on society of a capitalism of nascent industrialization and the large holdings of private property by the gentry. The political philosophies of several groups survived the French Revolution to provide tactical inspiration for later social movements.

 Since the French Revolutions of 1789 and 1848, the sympathy for the troubles of historic allies – specifically, the French working class – by many Americans during America’s industrialization was a significant inspiration in the tactical development of the intense social and political competition between labor and capital that marked the history of the Progressive Movement in America.

 In the French Revolution of 1789, the sans-culottes [French for “without pants” – their “uniform” being knee-length britches] were essentially an organization of Paris street-gangs rallied to provide critical crowd-support for the radical and far-left factions of the successive revolutionary governments. Shifting crowds of militant sans-culottes also provided the strength behind some of the more violent and visceral events of the revolution.

 Another group was the Jacobin Club. Lead by lawyer Maximillien Robespierre, the Jacobins established a revolutionary dictatorship. The Jacobin dictatorship was known for enacting the Reign of Terror, which targeted speculators, monarchists  and traitors, and led to many beheadings. When the moderate bourgeois Jacobin Club took over the National Convention in 1793, many sans-culottes even supported Robespierre’s bloody Reign of Terror.

 The rise and fall of Napoleon and numerous governments after him left France, along with most of Europe, unprepared to deal with the historic changes the Industrial Revolution would bring to the poor and middle classes alike. By 1848, European population had exploded and the Industrial Revolution had changed the very nature of life on the Continent. With changes came social unrest and growing conflict between a disorganized working urban poor and a disorganized middle class of land owners and industrialists, large and small. Both wanted reforms.

 To this environment came two German social philosophers writing in London, Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels, who published The Communist Manifesto in 1848 – criticizing the idealistic aspects of socialism and instead advocating socialism as a phase of industrialization which would come about through social revolution instigated by class conflict, sometimes violent, within capitalism.

 Using their organizing principles, isolated worker insurrections became more organized on the Continent. While much of the impetus came from the middle classes, much of the cannon fodder came from the working classes. Tens of thousands died. They were immortalized as revolutionaries in Victor Hugo’s classic, Les Miserables, in 1862. The uprisings throughout Europe failed within a year.

 By the latter Nineteenth century, “socialism” had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative, post-capitalist, system based on some form of social ownership. Alongside this there appeared other movements such as anarchism, Marxist-Leninism and social-democracy as well as the confluence of socialism with anti-imperialist and anti-racist struggles around the world.

 The socialist movement came to be the most influential worldwide movement and political-economic worldview of the 20th Century. Today, socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence in all continents except North America – leading national governments in many countries.

 In America, since Chief Justice John Marshall had been so successful in defining the centrality of private property (originally, concepts known as jus publicum and jus privatum) basic tenets of the Justinian Code – named for the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian in the early 6th Century and revived during the Enlightenment in the 17th Century), a distinct middle class had arisen. Class-warfare never became a popular political movement in America because of the many examples of upward social mobility based on personal initiative and the sanctity of private property – not to mention that half of the country didn’t have to pay for labor at all.

Young American readers, especially boys, were treated to wonderful examples of the value of how hard work and determination could lead to success in America by nearly 100 volumes of “juvenile novels” written by author Horatio Alger beginning in 1864.

Horatio Alger, Jr. (1832 –1899) was a prolific 19th Century American author, best known for his many juvenile-targeted novels about impoverished boys and their rise from humble backgrounds to lives of middle-class security and comfort through hard work, determination, courage, and honesty. His writings were characterized by the ” rags-to-riches” narrative, which had a formative effect on America during post-Civil War industrialization and the Gilded Age.

Essentially, all of Alger’s novels share the same theme: a young boy works hard work to escape poverty. Often though, it is not the hard work itself that rescues the boy from his fate, but rather some extraordinary act of bravery or honesty, which brings him into contact with a wealthy elder gentleman. The boy might return a large sum of money that was lost or rescue someone from an overturned carriage, bringing the boy – and his plight – to the attention of some wealthy individual.

Alger secured his literary niche in 1868 with the publication of his fourth book, Ragged Dick, the story of a poor bootblack’s rise to middle-class respectability. This novel was a huge success. His many books that followed were essentially variations on Ragged Dick and featured casts of stock characters: the valiant hard-working, honest youth, the noble mysterious stranger, the snobbish youth, and the evil, greedy squire.

In the 1870s, Alger’s fiction was growing stale. His publisher suggested he tour the American West for material to incorporate into his fiction. Alger took a trip to California.The trip had little effect on his novels: he remained mired in the tired theme of “poor boy makes good”. However, the scene was changed from the urban world to the American West. Nevertheless, “Horatio Alger” type success stories became part of the American lexicon and remain so today.

As a result of America’s middle-class mentality, socialism never gained a foothold in the United States. However, a movement with similar goals was born in the years immediately following the Civil War during the infancy of the great industrialization of America. This cousin of socialism became known as Progressivism.

 The Progressives in America believed in the Hamiltonian (from the first Secretary of the Treasury – Alexander Hamilton) concept of positive (read activist, coercive) government, of a national government directing the destinies of the nation at home (at the expense of the States) and abroad. They had little but contempt for the strict construction of the Constitution by conservative judges, who would restrict the power of the national government to act against social evils and to extend the blessings of democracy to less favored groups.

 Famous Americans, such as Jane Addams, Samuel Gompers, Wm. Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Robert La Follette and Walter Lippmann, among many others, all contributed to the success of the Progressive agenda.

 Among these, Theodore Roosevelt was the most interesting and influential. His biography is well known but, in short, he could best be described in the phrase “When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. He never met an issue that he didn’t want to bludgeon into submission and no one could influence TR to do anything other than what he wanted to do the way he wanted to do it.

 Unlike most Progressives, he was born to a life of privilege and was inspired by his family and social class to a life of philanthropy and service. To him, progressive ideals were not a political philosophy but were a lifeline for his chronic and compulsive energy. Although a frail youth, he idealized his father and, to live up to his expectations, he drove himself to overcome his health issues and, in a true-life story of “mind over matter”, literally willed himself to robust health with what can only be described as “hyper-kinetic” energy.

 One incident in his youth with which he never came to terms was the failure of his father to serve in the Union cause during the Civil War – choosing instead to buy his way out of service for a few hundred dollars. As TR matured, in all probability, he saw this as the abuse of power in a corrupt system and it probably inspired him to a life of service fighting corruption and abuse of power wherever he found it.

 This mindset and energy was eminently well suited to success in his first appointive government offices as a U.S. Customs Officer in Washington, D.C. and as a New York City Police Commissioner, tasked with rooting out corruption and abuse of power in both locales. However, his success at the local level in NYC and at the State level as Governor of New York did not translate well at the national level when the U.S. Constitution tended to get in the way of “progressive friendly” national reforms he desired to implement.

 His signature policy of ending the power of the industrial trusts is the best example of his activist philosophy. Believing that the trusts – cabals of industrialists and financiers – were anti-capitalist because they amounted to monopolies that prevented fair competition between large and small businesses, he threatened the use of federal government power through “Executive Order”, like nationalizing the coal mines or extorting the meat packing industry, to achieve his ends – the end of the trusts.

 It was his desire to make the American experience a winning one for all – what he called his “Square Deal” in the 1904 Presidential election campaign – that separates him from the European socialist-inspired progressives who desired to create an “equal” experience for all by taking from the rich and giving to the poor – thereby creating winners and losers – something anathema to Theodore Roosevelt.

 In the 1912 election campaign, as the candidate of the Progressive Party, he was “out- progressived” by the Democrat candidate, Woodrow Wilson, and was badly beaten in the election.

Next time: Progressivism in 20th Century America.


Words, Patriots and the People

Try running a railroad using the idea that words have any meaning we want. Do you need an example? Here’s a great one.


 Noun (often abbreviated to simply cis) is a term for people whose experiences of their own gender agree with the sexthey were assigned at birth. Cisgender may also be defined as those who have “a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one’s sex.” “I am perfectly comfortable identifying as the gender my parents put on my birth certificate. I am cisgender. ”

Adjective that means “identifies as their sex assigned at birth” derived from the Latin word meaning “on the same side.” A cisgender/cis person is not transgender. “Cisgender” does not indicate biology, gender expression, or sexuality/sexual orientation. In discussions regarding trans issues, one would differentiate between women who are trans and women who aren’t by saying trans women and cis women. Cis is not a “fake” word and is not a slur. Note that cisgender does not have an “ed” at the end.

A derogatory term  used by members of the trans community to refer to all the disgusting people in this world who don’t hate their genitalia.

A completely redundant and meaningless term used by both trannies and social justice warriors [and perpetual victims] to ostracize the vast majority of people who happen to accept the way they were born, instead of masquerading as  something  they’re not.

 Tranny A: “I found out recently that Lydia is a cisgender POS.”

Tranny B: “What? Lydia is a fellow member of the trans-community!”

Tranny A: “Wrong! Lydia was BORN a hermaphrodite. Lydia never needed to have surgery. That makes Lydia cisgender scum.”

 Gender Expression/Presentation: The physical manifestation of one’s gender identity through clothing, hairstyle, voice, body shape, etc. (typically referred to as masculine or feminine). Many transgender people seek to make their gender expression (how they look) match their gender identity (who they are), rather than their sex assigned at birth. Someone with a gender nonconforming gender expression may or may not be transgender.

Gender Identity: One’s internal sense of being male, female, neither of these, both, or other gender(s). Everyone has a gender identity, including you. For transgender people, their sex assigned at birth and their gender identity are not necessarily the same.

 Agender: An umbrella term encompassing many different genders of people who commonly do not have a gender and/or have a gender that they describe as neutral. Many agender people are trans. As a new and quickly-evolving term, it is best you ask how someone defines agender for themselves.

 Bigender: Refers to those who identify as two genders. Can also identify as multigender (identifying as two or more genders). Do not confuse this term with Two-Spirit, which is specifically associated with Native American and First Nations cultures.

 Cissexism: Systemic prejudice in the favor of cisgender people.

 LGBTQQIAPP+: A collection of identities short for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, aromantic, pansexual, polysexual (sometimes abbreviated to LGBT or LGBTQ+). Sometimes this acronym is replaced with “queer.” Note that “ally” is not included in this acronym.

 Normal. A term that is used as derogatory by the LGBT community who thinks everyone who is normal is the antichrist. People who like their genatalia how it came. “Jacob is cisgender, he was born with a penis and he still has one.”

 Here the “language-shifters” have deconstructed the entire biological basis for human civilization – the nuclear family – where man and woman create the next generation and, as mother and father, rear their children to carry on the species – our single most fundamental biological imperative.

So, having deconstructed humanity, the intelligentsia who feed the progressive/ liberal/Democrat Cabal, the PLDC, have come upon a method with which to contend that the words of the Constitution do not mean anything, or mean anything they might want them to mean and it is happening every day in ways that affect every American. It feeds the PLDC’s compulsion to deceive and deflect the People from the truth and their utter contempt for the Constitution – all in the pursuit of power and its accoutrements – at best.

To the Founders, truth was intrinsic (essential). It was the very foundation of the common law they grew up with. It became central in the writing of the Constitution.

Take, for example, the contention that abortion is not killing, it is “choice” – the deconstructed form of “abortion”; “no” doesn’t mean no in the 1st and 2nd Amendments – it means “maybe” – a deconstructed form of “no”; the President doesn’t have to see that “all” the laws are faithfully executed – it means “some” – a deconstructed from of “all”; eminent domain (the public taking of private property for public use) allows a public taking to be delivered to a private entity, a deconstructed violation of the 4th Amendment and the Supreme Court stating that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is a deconstructed “State”, just like New Jersey is a State; and so on.

One other issue which has fallen prey to deconstruction, which I will discuss later, is “diversity”. For the progressive liberals, “diversity” is the deconstructed form of “racial quotas”. No matter how it is described in the public square, it is the demand for all institutions to reflect the racial composition of the general population – that is, unless that institution already favors racial minorities – like college and professional athletics.

Unfortunately, diversity stops there. For instance, there is absolutely no desire for intellectual diversity on college campuses or in the press rooms of America’s newspapers or network news divisions. There, only progressive/liberal orthodoxy is allowed. Anything else is “unfair” – another deconstructed form, this one of the word “racist”. The fallacy of this view is that it is the pipeline of candidates for positions at these institutions that is the critical factor. If the pipeline doesn’t reflect the general population, then the pool of best candidates will not reflect it either.


 Patriots To “The People”

 Who were “the People” according to the great Americans I mentioned above? They were those who had personally endured the intensified deprivations and depredations of the British government of the new king, George III, from 1763 to 1781 – the fear of violence and murder; the torment of arbitrary laws and taxation; the quartering of troops in private homes; the warfare in their front yards, laws unevenly and unfairly applied, private property confiscated or destroyed without due process, arrest and transfer to England for trial along with the standard rape, pillage and plunder associated with war.

 They were the ones who remained after the war – the survivors – as their loyalist cousins departed for England, Canada or the Caribbean. They were the ones who had lived Martin Luther King, Jr’s maxim that,

 “There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but … must take because conscience tells [them] it is right.”

 They understood sovereignty, having experienced a sovereign first-hand in George III. It was to the sovereign whom the Framers addressed their grievances in the Declaration. They were also men of the Enlightenment who believed that their Creator was the ultimate Sovereign and was the entity who ultimately dispensed “unalienable” rights to human beings – the rights they were now intending to jealously protect from any government “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, … (to) mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (Closing sentence of the Declaration of Independence)

 And protect them they did. The prescient French writer and philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, who toured America extensively in 1831 and wrote of his observations,

 “I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers – and it was not there … in her fertile fields and boundless forests – and it was not there … in her rich mines and her vast world commerce – and it was not there … in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution – and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”

 With this kind of understanding, the Framers ensured that the ultimate premise of the Constitution was the recognition of the absolute, God given sovereignty of the individual in the collective state. It was therefore, no accident that the Framers began the document with the universal and immortal words “We the People” (note the capitalization). This was a continuation of the fundamental theme of the Declaration of Independence, where Jefferson laid out the primary argument for the existence of the United States when he wrote:

 “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …”

 Their’s, and the People’s understanding of the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments was unambiguously clear – the federal government could not exercise any coercive power over the States that the States – and, ultimately, the People – not specifically granted in Article I of the Great Document.

 The Bill of Rights was the collective voice of a People who had endured much too much governmental coercive power. When government becomes destructive of these ends, it is, “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

 The entire exercise of the Framers was directed at the “fashion(ing) of durable  agreements” (per Constitutional scholar Jack N. Rakove) concerning the relations among and between the thirteen new ‘States’ and between the States and the new federal entity. Because of the fatal flaw of the Articles of Confederation – lacking any power to coerce the colonies to act in concert with each other and with the national authority – the Framers made the coercive power of federal law an essential, though profoundly limited, element in the new Constitution.

 In the 10th Amendment, the People insisted upon limiting the scope of the coercive powers to those areas specifically enumerated in Article I and in the Ninth Amendment the Ratifiers confirmed the sovereignty of the People to all areas beyond their enumeration in the Constitution.

 It is this central and essential element of the Constitution that is now under attack from the progressive liberals.

 So, what did all of these great contemporary minds believe the People had become in the early ‘50s? They were for the most part the success stories of the 150 years since the debates about ratification, the presidency of George Washington who established executive power and the career of John Marshall as Chief Justice who, by nursing commercial and financial interests under the protection the Constitution, “invented” a nation where, according to President Calvin Coolidge, “…the chief business of the American people is business – the life-force of the nation.

 They were mainly the sons and daughters of European immigrants, the heirs of thousands of years of Western Civilization. They brought to America the heritage of Socratic Greeks, Roman solons, dauntless Scandinavians, German engineers, the English and French enlightenment, Spanish flair, Portuguese curiosity, Italian art and Scots/Irish determination and built a culture over those 150 years based upon personal liberty and unbridled opportunity.

Later, they were the intensely industrious Chinese and Japanese, brought to the “Left Coast” to help invent the American West and finally, they were the extraordinary survivors of slavery who had developed a unique identity as a captive community and continued, under the enormous burden of Jim Crow, to strive, undaunted toward the attainment of full participation in the American Dream.

These adventurers, both men and women, brought physical courage, industriousness, ingenuity, inventiveness and an indomitable spirit that resulted in the frontier moving inexorably westward until it reached the West Coast of the continent. By the late 1800s, legendary historian Fredrick Jackson Turner would declare the frontier gone.

As soon as stories first began to circulate in Europe of an unexplored land to the west – across the Great Sea – the die was cast that this would become another chapter in the European Age of Exploration – the final phase of the Epoch of Conquest – seagoing  adventurers traveling on voyages of discovery to new and exotic lands in Africa, the Far East and now the Americas, sponsored by sovereigns or merchant companies in search of treasure or valuable raw materials, establishing a Western style civilization in aboriginal lands and returning with precious cargoes to enable their monarchs to support growing populations and compete with Continental rivals.

At first, North American settlers crossed the ocean to seek peace from ancient religious struggles and prosperity from new economic opportunities to be found in fertile and available land, new crops, the fur trade and timber in a mysterious land populated by (constantly warring unfortunately, and sometimes barbaric) aboriginal tribes. These native people were called Indians based on their first historical contact with a European – the Italian explorer Christopher Columbus – who thought he had reached India by sailing westward in 1492.

The settlers knew how to defend themselves from political enemies in Europe – or from unfriendly natives in foreign lands not under the jurisdiction of a competing empire (first in Africa, then in the Middle East, South Asia and finally, the Americas) – using superior technology (like gunpowder from China), weaponry, engineering and tactics – skills they first learned the hard way – from the world-traveling Scandinavian Vikings starting in the 9th Century.

As Europeans, they believed themselves a superior people simply by their record of being successful in their missions to explore and exploit raw materials and wealth from new lands. They considered the natives they found in most of the new lands (Africa, the Americas, the East Indies, the South Pacific etc.) to be primitive by European standards – living in a virtually pre-historic world that seemed to lack much permanence in favor of a nomadic culture.

As Christians, their first impulse was to convert and “civilize” them and, in virtually every expedition, although always greatly outnumbered, they survived and returned home as heroes (Ferdinand Magellan notwithstanding – having been killed in the Philippines on the way home from his attempt to circumnavigate the globe in 1521).

These settlers, as diverse as they all were, amazingly had one thing in common. They had left their homelands forever and crossed vast oceans to reach America. But, no matter their homeland, they all came from a place that lived in the past – where memories of the hard times collectively clouded their view of the future. Each immigrant had clawed their way up that mountain of despair to break free of the fog of times-gone-by, that would hold their families and friends in perpetual, psychological bondage, and had seen a clear vision of their own future – a future in a sunlit America – a future that would belong to them alone and not to age old customs and traditions.

They would come singly or in great migrations from England, Ireland and Scotland, from Germany and Scandinavia and from Eastern Europe as the industrial revolution and westward expansion took hold in America. They first endured crushing and incomprehensible poverty in the stifling, filthy and overcrowded tenement houses in the great cities along the Atlantic seaboard. Fathers and young sons working side-by-side in the factories; mothers and daughters doing “piecework” on their kitchen table in the hovel they called home. They threw buckets of human waste into the streets.

Occasional trips by horse-drawn streetcar to the suburbs for a day in the country or at the beach allowed them to see where some had been able to build a small cottage of their own on a small piece of land away from the smog of the fire-belching factories and the stink of the tenements. This became their dream – the American dream.

Later migrants headed west into hostile territory, crossing the continent in covered wagons and on foot, enduring attacks by fierce, painted and merciless assassins, survived wildfires, floods and mind-numbing cold as they pushed the frontier into the Pacific. They cultivated the Great Plains and made them the world’s breadbasket. They lived in sod houses. They built the railroads that connected the oceans. They persevered.

They knew there was no going back so they spiritually cut ties to the old country, adopted that optimistic spirit that is the essence of America and applied themselves to assimilating into and succeeding in American society by adopting the American culture, “Americanizing” their very names and respecting America’s institutions by carrying them with them across a continent. Usually, within two or three generations they were officially proud Americans, but, in reality, they had been Americans all along.

They were, in brief:

Emma Lazarus’ “tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, (some were) the wretched refuse of teeming foreign shores come homeless and tempest-tost” to America – legally, through Ellis Island in New York harbor. 

 They were indefatigable and endured the danger and the tenement filth and the backbreaking work of newly industrial America to create their American dream; pioneers who tamed and settled a continent;

The sainted Abolitionists who struggled to end slavery, braved violence and hatred to champion the cause of equality cited in the Constitution and achieved their dream, at least on paper — the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments — in the aftermath of the Civil War;

The Captains of Industry who invented the modern world that only they could see, with boundless energy, outrageous ideas and singular tenacity;

The common man from the ordinary town – Thornton Wilder’s “Our Town”, who voluntarily took on the evil in the world twice in the 20th Century, to make it safe for democracy, asking nothing in return;

 The patriotic generations of mothers and fathers who sacrificed against enormous odds to bear, educate and raise their children to be the succeeding generations of extraordinary citizens of this remarkable place. They were the “New Collosus”

(There will be much more about the People later when we look at “Colonists to   Constitutionalists”)

 Finally, there were the ‘defilers’ of the unique qualities of the American people and their institutions who were now finding their voice in government, the press, the courts, entertainment and academia. It was this last group, these outliers, who worried the great minds that I had the privilege to be exposed to at such an impressionable age. It was their ideological ancestors, the Progressives who, after the Civil War, had championed a strong central government and urged it to centrally regulate industrialism and continental expansion.

 Perhaps forgetting that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”, this was the newly popular central government that then coerced power from the People with the income tax and Prohibition, abused the People with state sponsored propaganda during the First World War and extra-constitutional power during the Great Depression and who came together in a loose confederation of intellectuals, academics, jurists, journalists and entertainers to compromise the truth that would be told to the People from their first day of school to their last testament.

But it was the courts, who would find hidden meanings in the words of the Constitution that would fundamentally change the character of America. By arguing that the Constitution is a “living document” they found that they could make the written words of the Founders mean anything they would want despite strict cautions from the Founders themselves.

Learned counsel in Gibbons v. Ogden,  9 Wheat. 1, 22 U.S. 187, having suggested that the Constitution should be strictly construed, this Court, speaking by (the great) Chief Justice (John) Marshall, said that when the original states:

“…converted their league into a government, when they converted their Congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change, the extent of which must be determined by a fair consideration of the instrument by which that change was effected… What do gentlemen mean,” the Court inquired, “by a strict construction?”

“If they contend only against that enlarged construction which would extend words beyond their natural and obvious import, one might question the application of the term, but should not controvert the principle. If they contend for that narrow construction which, in support of some theory to be found in the Constitution, would deny to the government those powers which the words of the grant, as usually understood, import, and which areconsistent with the general views and objects of the instrument; for that narrow construction, which would cripple the government and render it unequal to the objects for which it is declared to be instituted, and to which the powers given, as fairly understood, render it competent — then we cannot perceive the propriety of this strict construction, nor adopt it as the rule by which the Constitution is to be expounded.”

What Marshall has cautioned in this passage is that some – otherwise permissible – approaches to interpreting the Constitution, other than strict construction, does not  include the authority to change the original meaning, intention, interpretation, understanding and/or implementation of the words of the written Constitution.

Of course, in Roe v. Wade and NFIB v. Sebelius, to name just two of many cases, as we shall seeMarshall’s cautions about these critical elements of the written words of the Constitution – “…natural and obvious import”; “…usually and fairly understood”; “…consistent with the general views” – of the Constitutional language were utterly demolished, leading to tragic, though not unintended, consequences.

Somehow, equality before the law in 1865 and equality of opportunity in 1954 became equality in outcomes, specifically the People’s bank accounts, through an intentional policy of income redistribution, in January 2009.

 If these defilers were to lead America into the future, how had they come to challenge the purpose and direction of America’s founders and its “greatest generation” and what would become of all of us? “Auntie Ayn” worried also.

Next time: Abolitionist v. Progressivist



So, how did we get in this predicament? It’s a long story but I’ll provide you a short history. And, as they say, ‘if you don’t believe me, you can look it up” – just like I did during my graduate studies in various aspects of American history at two large, well respected universities – none in the intellectually compromised Ivy League – and through one of the National War Colleges.

 The historian’s dilemma is that there is no way to actually know the time, place and people you are writing about. A most accurate description of any history is; “You have NO idea!” Time and place always change but one constant remains – human nature. For the heirs of all of the generations who suffered through the ages to create Western Civilization, the people we met in the Bible are as familiar as those we meet in Chaucer, Shakespeare (Incidentally, some believe the real “Shakespeare” to be Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550–1604), an English peer and courtier of the Elizabethian era – but that’s another story), Fielding, Hawthorne, Irving, Dickens, Melville, Twain, O’Neil, Conrad, London, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Mitchell, Michener, Miller, Mailer, Greene, Amis, Updike, Warren, Roth, Faulkner, Hammett, Joyce, O’Conner, Vonnegut, Styron, le Carré, Tolstoy, Terkel, McMurtry, Wolfe, Geisel, etc.

 History is the story of man in turmoil – conflict and consequence; tyranny and tolerance; cruelty and compassion. As a particular species of primate first gained the capacity to wonder WHY, so began the Epoch of Man. The species advanced in mental capacity to the point where curiosity led to the contemplation of its own existence (in a rational universe created by one Supreme Entity) and who then, first as families, then troops, then tribes, then communities, then societies, then civilizations – one of which was called Western Civilization – competed for scarce resources with other “human” groups.

 Organizing for competition or conflict is who we humans are – it is our legacy. That will not change but, this organizing principle led eventually to manifest an intellectual, scientific and technological level that enabled a group of learned English colonists on the Eastern coast of North America to create (a word recalling and an homage to, the Creator) an operating manual for the most enlightened society imaginable. Our Founders tried to constrain this legacy as much as possible consistent with the other great legacy of evolution – free will and the liberty which animates it. Their efforts come to us as the Constitution of the United States.

 The Drafters understood that a representative democracy, where the legislators must  truthfully reflect the values of their constituents – especially faith-based values (either they surely will not get elected to office or, if elected, will be betrayed eventually by their dishonesty); values which, in America’s case, are the Judeo-Christian values of Western Civilization – literally thousands of years in the making.

 They understood that nations cannot separate faith-based values and secular values and only allow secular values to enter the public square. That results in separate nations or one unstable nation. Neither can “democratic” nations separate faith-based values and secular values and only allow faith-based values to enter the public square. That results in Radical Islamic Terrorism – for example.

 Jefferson was wrong. The Judeo-Christian values of Western Civilization inform and enlighten our legislators. So important was this consideration that the people demanded that the absolute, unrestricted freedom of religion receive the place of primacy as first among the rights guaranteed in their “Bill of Rights”. And, it is why there is no mention of the “separation of church and state” in the Constitution.

 The Constitution did have one monumental flaw (fortunately the system was designed to eventually allow for its own correction) and during the last 100 years, a cabal of dispirit individuals has sought to manipulate this operating manual to suit their own nefarious purposes – perpetual power – not by changing the words of the manual but by changing the popular meanings and usage of the words through political control of academia, public education, the courts, the press and the information/entertainment industry.

 By hiding their real motives to gain and wield power behind “new” words and “new” truths, the People would remain blissfully unaware of the actual state of affairs and can now be easily manipulated into support for a false reality.

 But, a healthy republic calls for passionate discussion and debate, no matter the issue – and debate is predicated upon the availability of the truth to all participants in the process. Only now, a new conflict has arisen – truth v. power – in that this power – perpetual power – cannot coexist with the truth. Either the power must be diluted or the truth must be destroyed.

 But, historical truth can be a cruel taskmaster. Some history is memorialized that should be overlooked and some history is forgotten when it should be memorialized. A non-political case in point: The race against time and the elements to deliver life-saving emergency medical supplies to Nome, Alaska in the winter of 1925.

 Eleven teams of Alaskan sled-dogs headed west and covered 675 miles in 127 hours in temperatures sometimes -50 degrees Fahrenheit in the worst winter in 20 years, with ten teams covering about 60 miles each. Every school child in America knows the name Balto, the dependable lead dog that brought the serum into Nome, where the press reports of the arrival of the saving medicine were broadcast to a anxious world but, it was the tenth team that made the successful end possible.

 Led by the incomparable Togo, the indomitable lead dog of Alaskan Leonhard Seppala who, after leaving Nome and heading east to meet a team heading west, turned around and, in order to save time, fearlessly led his team onto the treacherous pack ice of the Bering Sea for a desperate eight-hour northerly dash back toward Nome in truly evil conditions of wind and snow.

 As they fought their way into the 100mph gale they hit slick patches of glare ice. They slipped and fell, rose again and again on frostbitten feet and, following the unconquerable Togo, struggled on. For mile after grueling mile, bruised and battered and with no landmarks to guide him, Togo somehow kept his course through a veritable wall of wind – across 84 miles of open water!

 The gale-blown snow blasted the dogs’ faces like buckshot and some of the dogs began to stiffen up. Seppala had to stop and massage freezing muscles on Togo and others. Finally, spurred on by the barking of their relieving dog-team, they arrived at the site to turn over the serum to the next team. In the end, Togo’s team had covered a monumental 260 miles in a blinding blizzard on trackless sea ice since they left Nome!

 It was Togo who was the real hero among heroes of the “Great Serum Run of 1925” yet almost nobody outside Alaska has ever heard of him. Now you have. He was a great lead dog for 16 years and, like all great leaders, what made him happiest was to get up each morning and lead his team again. In the pantheon of American heroes, Togo surely belongs and, even though the Iditarod Dog Sled Race allows us to remember him each year, history is still a cruel taskmaster.

 This example provides us a cautionary tale (pun intended). It reminds us that the press gets the first draft of history and if the press is not up to the task or lacks the standards of curiosity, objectivity and accuracy, the truth suffers. When truth suffers in the press, distant history becomes distorted and when the peoples’ history becomes distorted, the society begins to fracture under the weight of dissonance and hypocrisy. We will see many examples in this treatise.

 In this survey we meet, not grand conspirators with a grand plan, but an extraordinary and accidental confluence of a diverse yet strangely similar people, determined to deconstruct, in every sense of that word, American history – at its very zenith – when it was capable of leading the world into a second “Golden Age” – and to rebuild it to suit their micro-megalomaniacal sense of importance in order to satisfy their singular quests for relevance in a revolutionary post-war world that had passed them by.

 Revolutionary is not an inadvertent adjective in this instance. It is used to evoke an appreciation of the spirit of the nation at its creation in 1789, when, in the immortal words of Baseball Hall of Famer Vin Scully; “… in the season where we have seen the improbable, the impossible has just happened” – that all things were considered possible, and the spirit of our nation in 1945 – when, again, all things were considered possible because we had again, accomplished the improbable.

 These people incrementally, subversively, insidiously, nefariously and reprehensively, worked individually and collectively to undermine and fundamentally change the very children we were raising and the structure of many vital and venerable American institutions from birth – if you made it that far – to end-of-life care and everything in between – the very institutions that enabled America to literally save the world from another Dark Age – so that the Constitutional Republic created and bequeathed to us by the Founders – would now be unrecognizable.

 I guarantee that you will not know most of what you will read here. Why not? Because elements within our society don’t want you to know what you need to know. Why? Because their victory depends upon your ignorance. Their success is reflected in the truth of the statement above. The information is readily accessible. All of the research and writing has been done. It’s just that nobody has read it because they have never been given the opportunity – in school, in the news, in literature or in entertainment. These elements prefer that their ideal of an “equal opportunity for equal outcomes” does not extend to the truth.

 What is needed is a clear and cogent presentation of the evidence. Like an intelligence agency strives to connect-the-dots from varied sources to complete a picture of the enemy’s disposition, its intents, strengths and weaknesses, we must analyze the evidence of a domestic enemy called “organized ignorance” to determine how to defeat it and preserve the Constitution and our republic.

 In order to accomplish these goals, beginning in the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and perfected to an art form in the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, these poseurs

  – persons who copy the attitude, speech, and/or mannerisms of a group or subculture, generally for attaining acceptability within the group or for popularity among various other groups – in this case political operatives, press, academics, judges, entertainers seeking status among social elites in order to be politically relevant.

 have wormed their way into positions of influence, by happenstance, accident and opportunism, to affect an uncoordinated, though sustained and comprehensive effort resulting in a compromised political system, judicial system, educational system, free and responsible press, entertainment industry and academia.

 The ultimate result has been the “dumbing down” of America through selective and biased academic histories created by elite academics; overseen by the thoroughly compromised National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers; activist judges who hide behind the skirts of Lady Justice; of deceptive reporting (or non-reporting) of current events by self-appointed guardians of the elitist agenda; film and television fare marketed as true but based upon demonstrably false premises; and the virtual exclusion of non-elitist academics and intellectuals (call them conservatives) from college campuses across the country – resulting in a thoroughly compromised peer-review system and a collapse of academic standards.

 Controlling the dissemination of factual truth and the ability of the People to obtain it, process it and use it – specifically at the ballot box – where all political power in a democracy ultimately resides – eventually leads to the collapse of the system itself because then, the most consummate liar wins. We are close to that point – if we have not already reached it. We have faced the consummate liar and only a political miracle saved us.

 Remember the “Obamaphone”? That’s not even the worst of it. Have you ever seen the “man-on-the-street” interviews on the late-night talk shows and on FoxNews? The lack of knowledge about history and current events is beyond appalling, yet the talk-shows portray it as comedy. It is tragedy in that it demonstrates the almost complete ignorance of the real world and the impossibility of these people ever casting an informed vote. Getting almost all of their information from social media, they are most knowledgeable about popular music, pop culture and marijuana – not exactly useful when it comes to civic responsibility. Just Google “Eyewitless News” and “Watters’ World”.

 This prolonged ad hoc (for a particular purpose) campaign, propagandizing adherents from each succeeding generation (mostly from the nation’s elite universities where legacy admissions, rather than passionate curiosity, are a dubious tradition), has constituted an attack on the Constitution and the governing system it created – where power flows from the Creator to the People and then, selectively, to the various governments. This system depends upon the informed votes of its citizens – not the ignorant votes of a citizenry cynically manipulated through targeting of the most innocent among us, and disinformation campaigns to sustain the resulting ignorance – all perpetrated by the nation’s leading institutions of information – all for the benefit of self-appointed elites.

 So, who is leading this attack on the perceived power structure dominated by old, European, white, male, Christian, heterosexual Americans. It is largely the old, rich, white, male, not especially Christian, not entirely straight, European-inspired PLDC who have presided over the politically correct indoctrination in the liberal arts institutions for the nation’s elite and the children of today’s politically favored groups (read mostly Northeastern, uber-expensive) – where academic masters are the gatekeepers to success in modern America.

 Also involved: African-American professional race-baiters, extortionists and organizations which demand reparations for slavery; non-Cuban Hispanic groups, like La Raza, who claim the American Southwest for Mexico as Aztlán and feminist women’s groups who work tirelessly for abortion and “gay-marriage” while 75% of black babies and 35% of the rest of American babies are born into dysfunctional families. If I were a baby, I’d take my chances with a non-PLDC family.

 Oh, do you think I exaggerate – that no group of randomly inspired, “informal” confederates of common cause, most of whom are Americans themselves, could possibly infiltrate into American society, unseen, intimidated by or ignored by the nation’s alleged watchdogs in the press/media, and carry out continual, isolated and nefarious plans over decades, whose combined effect is to undermine America’s social fabric with the intent to inflict such damage on the People that they become unable to function as the bastion of strength of Western Civilization and become ripe for an authoritarian takeover?

 Oh, wait. That’s already happening – in New York City, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ft. Hood, TX, Chattanooga, TN, Oregon, San Bernardino, CA, Boston, MA  and in virtually half of the United States over the past 13 years by a totally separate group of conspirators – Radical Islamic terrorists, not the PLDC to be sure but, see how easy it is!

 Fortunately, this survey progresses from distant history to the present day, where we have a profound idea of time, place and people – where hidden motives and goals are discoverable – not new motives and aims but familiar, age-old ones that have followed us through the centuries – wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice and politics without principle. Sound familiar? These are, of course, Mahatma Gandhi’s “Seven Blunders of the World” that lead to chaos. Our purpose will then become – what can and should we do about it? So, let’s begin to answer that question.

 “Auntie Ayn” met my mother while doing early research for her most famous novel. My mother was a descendent of one of the first railroad magnates in America and the two of them hit it off immediately and became lifelong friends. My father grew up in Menlo Park, New Jersey, across the street from Thomas Edison’s famous lab. He even wintered in Florida with the great man and his band of “Vagabonds”. Eventually, he worked on Edison’s electric-train project at his Menlo Park facility. It was while he was working on this project that he met my mother.

 I was born just after “the war” near New York City where my parents had settled when their wartime commitments had ended. Before that, just as recounted in the novel, they had lived for a time in an “invisible” city tucked away in a hidden valley, although this one was in Tennessee and it’s still there and I visit occasionally. You can too. Just as also recounted in the novel, they built unimaginable machines there.

 Many times growing up we had a house full of people from that earlier era like Teller and Oppenheimer, Einstein, Kaiser, Eisenhower and Stevenson, Marshall, Baruch, Knudsen, Hemingway and others who would regale us with stories of the brilliant and famous people that they had met and worked with in the first half of the century – people like Morgan, Rockefeller, Firestone, both Carnegies, Ford, Vanderbilt, Frick, Mellon, Bell, Edison, Clemmons and Vail – before they all got together to “save the world”. By war’s end, of course, they had built the “arsenal of democracy” that changed the world forever. I developed my world view at their feet.

 In the early ‘50s, as in the ‘30s, they were again being relegated to the back of the bus (a good analogy for the times) and the discussions often turned to their thoughts about who we “the People” were, how had we gotten to this point and what America was becoming with the Cold War beginning, with Korea, Senator Joe McCarthy, the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Henry Wallace, the Iron Curtain, the HUAC, women clamoring for a larger presence outside the home, the new middle class, the explosion of technology, etc.

 When my mother and I went to see the Broadway musical “Annie” in the late 1970s, I can still remember her laughing out loud when President Roosevelt asked “Daddy Warbucks” to get his industrialist friends behind the recovery effort in the Great Depression. “It wasn’t Daddy Warbucks that Roosevelt called, it was Bernard Baruch and he called your father”, I remember her saying.

 If my father did that, I am confident we can “save the world” again. We have won a revolution (1776-81), survived a rebellion (1861-65), overcome a reformation (1933-40) and it is now time to begin the restoration of our basic principles beginning with the truth.

 Lincoln famously said of the Union in 1858 that “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. It took great armies, determined leaders and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in our bloodiest war to put our house back together under the Constitution. We are again divided, now philosophically rather than geographically, but the solution to the problem we face can and must still be found again in the Constitutional understanding  of the Founders.

 In fact, our third civil war is already in motion. I can hear the pipes faintly through the mist. The whispers are beginning up and down the line. The progressive/liberal/ Democrat intelligentsia is already belittling their “enemy” with the predictable propaganda of “personal destruction” – people of faith, especially Christians; believers in the inviobility of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights and those who are beginning to rally the People to the cause.

 The coming battle can result in one of only two outcomes – a civilized resetting of the immutable principles of our constitutional republic or another kind of civil war, as tens of millions of Americans take back their country in a remarkably bloodless, Constitutional manner – where those who believe passionately in principle overcome those who believe only in the wonder of the Wizard. Passion v. hot air – I’ll take my chances. (With apologies to L. Frank Baum). This entire survey will reflect the malignancy of this effort in the public square and the fatal prognosis that it requires unless it is excised from the body politic by a painful and difficult course of treatment.

The America that believes in the absolute centrality, uncertainty and inviolability of human life and liberty will never surrender their inalienable rights and immutable principles. The spirit of Patrick Henry is in the bones of America. “Give me liberty…” is not just a quote – it is at the core of what America is about. Victory will go to the passionate and so I have chosen to take up the call my “Auntie Ayn” sounded all those years ago and fight passionately for the country that I love.

Many Americans lament that they are merely the “little people”. Folks, we are “The People”. All worldly power resides in us. Stand up. Be counted. Don’t try and shout down or vote out the scalawags – throw them out. So, heeding the words of legendary songwriter Kris Kristofferson, from his song Living Legend; “Tell the truth, my friend. Don’t it matter anymore?”, it is time, at the risk of being labeled sexist, to “man up” for the fight of our lives against an entrenched internal enemy. Are you ready to do your part to ensure the survival, success and supremacy of Ronald Reagan’s “shining city” on the hill?

With this as prologue, I begin my study of We, the People and how we arrived at this sorry point in our great history – a point that fully three out of four adult Americans believe we have indeed reached – an astounding percentage! But first, an explanation of the subtitle.

 *Deconstruction is a favorite weapon of the progressive/liberal segment of American political society and has been used to justify the use of selective, random definitions for words used in (ultimately) political discourse. Is this cause for alarm? You bet it is!

 Want proof? A classic example is the testimony of Democrat President Bill Clinton during the inquiry into his sexual relationship with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky in the mid-1990s. In response to one question, Mr. Clinton said his answer would “depend upon what the definition of ‘is’ is.”

 Prominent deconstructionist Niall Lucy points to the impossibility of defining the term at all (!!!???), stating:

“While in a sense it ‘is’ impossibly difficult to define, the impossibility has less to do with the adoption of a position or the assertion of a choice on deconstruction’s part than with the impossibility of every ‘is’ as such. Deconstruction begins, as it were, from a refusal of the authority or determining power of every ‘is’, or simply from a refusal of authority in general. While such refusal may indeed count as a position, it is not the case that deconstruction holds this as a sort of ‘preference'”. Try saying that three times!

Another classic example is the term “pro-choice” in the debate about abortion in America. Pro-choice advocates are exclusively pro-abortion advocates, violently oppose counseling centers for expectant mothers in any proximity to their abortion centers and will go to extraordinary lengths to protect the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood for example. Planned Parenthood’s primary function is providing abortions and selling human baby body parts to the highest bidder.

 Fortunately, the Founders – the drafters of our Constitution – and the Ratifiers – did something never before done. They wrote a constitution. The English constitution was not a written document. What passed for their constitution was the body of Common Law, customs and traditions that had been developing since the time of the Magna Carta, signed by King John of England in 1215. The Americans had paid a high price for believing in that constitution. They would fix the problem.

 What was singularly and uniquely important to both the Founders who, over the course of the summer months of 1787 in the stifling heat of Philadelphia, drafted the Constitution and the citizens who, after intense and raucous debate throughout the colonies, ratified it was that the words in it, describing in precise terms the federal government’s duties and responsibilities and the relationship between the federal and State governments and, most importantly, what was prohibited to the federal government. The fundamental and immutable characteristic of the entire document is not merely the perennially hotly debated topic of “original intent” – it was the precise definition, accepted meaning, general understanding, author’s intention and government implementation during the lifetimes of the founding generations – of the words that were drafted.

 Subjecting the People’s words – their drafted definitions, meanings, understandings, intentions and implementations – to a process that allows simply for random meaning – without the historical context that extended for decades after the document was written –  destroys the document and with it – America, as we know it.

*Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary texts based on French philosopher Jacques Derrida’s 1967 work Of Grammatology. In the 1980s it was thrust upon a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities and social sciences, including  law, anthropology, historiography, socio-linguistics, psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies – not so coincidently, all of the popular topics of today’s progressive/ liberal social engineers.

Deconstruction has had a major influence in academia, particularly in debates around epistemology (what distinguishes justified belief from opinion), ethics and the philosophy of language, among others. Derrida started by stating that “from the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs.” Also, following Ferdinand de Saussure, he considered language, as a system of signs where words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words. 

The contention is that “words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words…no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell argued – by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)”. 

If this is so, Derrida contends, it means that any given concept is constituted in terms of its reciprocal de-limitation, e.g. being/nothing, one/multiple, true/false, fair/unfair, beauty/ugly, essence/existence, receptivity/spontaneity, autonomous/ heteronomous, transcendental/empirical, transcendent/imminent, mind/body, normal/abnormal, sovereign/beast, speech/writing, nature/culture, bachelor/married, man/woman, etc. Make sense???

Derrida argues that to be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference  and eternal interplay. Deconstruction denotes the pursuing of the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the supposed contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is founded – supposedly showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. Sam Adams would have loved this!

Deconstruction generally tries to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point. He insists that meaning is made possible by the relations of a word to other words within the network of structures that language is.

Between the late 1960s and the early 1980s many thinkers were influenced by deconstruction, including Paul de Man, Geoffrey Hartman and J. Hillis Miller. This group came to be known as the Yale School  and was especially influential in literary criticism. Several of these theorists were subsequently affiliated with the University of California Irvine Miller has described deconstruction this way: “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently solid ground is no rock, but thin air.”

Simply put, to deconstructionists, words have no set meaning – they can mean virtually anything one wants them to mean.

Next time: Word crazy.


Atlas Speaks


The Ultimate Solution

“This scandal [Obama’s “Deep State”] did not occur in a vacuum any more than did the weaponizing of the IRS to target the Tea Party and other conservative groups before Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign occurred in a vacuum. The agencies under Obama’s control have been politicized before and used to intimidate and destroy his political opponents

Last September [2016, it began to be] argued that Comey had the fix in for Hillary and we now know that he began writing his exoneration memo significantly before interviewing Hillary and other key witnesses. The exoneration memo underwent key edits in which Strzok, who interviewed Hillary and those witnesses, some of whom were granted immunity, was involved. But now, as the layers of this rotting onion are peeled away, it has become clearer that Comey did not act on his own initiative. This fish is also rotting from the head.

Back in April, 2016, President Obama gave an interview in which he seemed to have foreknowledge  that Hillary Clinton would be exonerated for her “carelessness” and did not “intentionally” mishandle classified emails, [the very same] words that Comey would use just a few months later:

“President Obama said Sunday that Hillary Clinton showed “carelessness” by using a private email server, but he also strongly defended his former secretary of state, saying she did not endanger national security, while also vowing that an ongoing FBI investigation into the matter will not be tainted by politics.

 In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Mr. Obama seemed to prejudge the outcome of the ongoing inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal, and he disputed the notion that any of the emails contained classified information of true importance [whatever that means. Classified information of any category is important because its disclosure may fill in a hole in the strategic analysis that our enemies are constantly updating. Obama’s statement shows a profound ignorance of the classification system and the importance of its integrity. For a President, that is a fatal flaw].

 “She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy,” he said. “What I also know is that there’s classified and then there’s classified. There’s stuff that is really top secret, and then there’s stuff that is being presented to the president, the secretary of state, you may not want going out over the wire.”

 “I continue to believe she has not jeopardized America’s national security,” the president said. “There’s a carelessness in terms of managing emails that she has owned and she recognizes. But I also think it is important to keep this in perspective.”

Carelessness and lack of intent were key parts of Comey’s shape-shifting memo. And we now see how Obama’s pledge that politics would not taint the investigation was a bald-faced lie [he had been briefed on it]. This confidence in her exoneration was shared by Mrs. Clinton, who also seemed to have foreknowledge that the fix was in.

She maintains that no emails in the account were classified at the time they were sent or received –  though she was initially much more emphatic, flatly saying she had never handled classified information. [That assertion has since been demonstrably proven false.] She reiterated la[ter] that, in her view, the federal investigation ultimately will clear her. “That is not going to happen,” she told NBC News when asked if she would be indicted. “There is not even the remotest chance that it’s going to happen.”

National Review Contributing Editor Andrew McCarthy has long argued that Obama was the ringleader in obstructing justice in the Hillary email investigation:

“From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton-emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call – not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s… The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account and had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.”

Why would Obama use a fake email account to communicate with Hillary Clinton? Granted, classified communications between a President and a Secretary of State are normal, but not via a fake email account [because these communications belong to the American people and should be eventually stored in the National Archives]. Were they discussing the fix that was in during her email investigation?  McCarthy suggests just such a reason:

“If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton-Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mis-handling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.”

McCarthy notes that among the edits  to the draft of Comey’s memo was one omitting a reference to President Obama:

“This past weekend, in a letter to the FBI, regarding the missing texts, Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) addressed some of these revisions. According to Senator Johnson, a draft dated June 30, 2016 (i.e., five days before Comey delivered the final version), contained a passage expressly referring to a troublesome email exchange between Clinton and Obama. (I note that the FBI’s report of its eventual interview of Clinton contains a cryptic reference to a July 1, 2012, email that Clinton sent from Russia to Obama’s email address. See report, page 2.) The passage in the June 30 draft stated: We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.

She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries. That use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account. On the same day, according to a Strzok–Page text, a revised draft of Comey’s remarks was circulated by his chief of staff, Jim Rybicki. It replaced “the President” with “another senior government official.”

So not only were edits made to Comey’s draft memo to hide Hillary’s guilt but also Obama’s involvement. It is worth noting that Attorney General Loretta Lynch also used a fake email account under the name “Elizabeth Carlisle” to conduct official business.

Lynch’s pseudonym was confirmed in e report by the Daily Caller, which shows Lynch sometimes preferred to use another name while doing work, just as her predecessor Eric Holder did. The finding came after several batches of emails were released last week from conservative watchdog groups who had requested documents from the Justice Department using the Freedom of Information Act.

 Judicial Watch and the American Center for Law and Justice sought documents related to former President Bill Clinton’s meeting with then-Attorney General Lynch in his airplane on the runway tarmac in Phoenix. The meeting was scarcely noticed at first, but eventually created a controversy over possible conflicts of interest about the ongoing investigation by the FBI into Hillary Clinton’s email server.

From the Strzok-Page text messages we know that Loretta Lynch knew Hillary would not be prosecuted. That meeting on the tarmac was to tell Bill Clinton the fix was in, a fix whose impetus came from the White House and an occupant concerned with both his legacy being erased by a President Trump but also by his involvement in covering up Hillary’s crimes. [Lynch’s reward, or so it is rumored she was told by president Bill, would be a seat on the Supreme Court.]

As some have suggested, this is Watergate on steroids. Not only do we have one party colluding with government agencies to keep its candidate from being prosecuted for her crimes and preventing the election of the other party’s candidate, but we also have a sitting and corrupt President using the powers of his office to subvert an election and hand-pick his successor [the corrupt wife of a corrupt former President].” And then, of course, there is the “unmasking scandal”.

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee accused top political aides of President Obama of making hundreds of requests during the 2016 presidential race to unmask (publicly reveal) the names of Americans in intelligence reports, including Trump transition officials. Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), in a letter to Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Dan Coats, said the requests were made without specific justifications on why the information was needed.

“We have found evidence that current and former government officials had easy access to U.S. person information and that it is possible that they used this information to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of such information,” Nunes wrote in the letter to Coats.

The letter was provided to The Hill from a source in the intelligence community.

In March, Nunes disclosed that he had seen data suggesting Trump campaign and transition officials were having their names unmasked by departing officials in the Obama White House. National Security Adviser Susan Rice and CIA Director John Brennan have acknowledged making such requests though they insisted the requests were for legitimate work reasons.

The chairman had reviewed intelligence reports on the White House grounds that he said showed unmasking of Trump officials by Obama aides. Democrats accused him of working with the White House to make the disclosures.

In his letter, Nunes said the total requests for Americans’ names by Obama political aides numbered in the hundreds during Obama’s last year in office and often lacked a specific intelligence community justification. He called the lack of proper justifications a “serious deficiency.” His letter noted requests from senior government officials, unlike career intelligence analysts, “made remarkably few individualized justifications for access” to the U.S. names.

“The committee has learned that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama administration,” Nunes wrote. “Of those requests, only one offered a justification that was not boilerplate.” Sources familiar with the Nunes letter identified the official as then-U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power [who denied any impropriety by claiming that someone else used her name].

Nunes also wrote that “Obama-era officials sought the identities of Trump transition officials within intelligence reports.” Nunes said he intends to introduce legislation to address concerns about the unmasking process impacting Americans’ privacy.

Ordinarily, Americans whose email or phone data or conversations are intercepted by the National Security Agency (NSA) overseas, without a warrant, are legally required to have their names redacted or masked with descriptions like “U.S. person 1” to protect their identities in intelligence reports.

But beginning in 2011, Obama loosened the rules to make it easier for intelligence officials and his own political aides to request that the names be unmasked so they could better understand raw intelligence being gathered overseas. The change has been criticized by liberal groups like the ACLU and conservatives like Nunes because of the privacy implications.

Subsequently, “The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., identified four individuals: Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser; former CIA Director John Brennan; former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power; and Ben Rhodes, former President Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, the No. 2 ranking official on the National Security Council, all top Obama national security officials who are accused of improperly requesting the identities of Trump officials whose phone calls were intercepted by the NSA per the faulty FISA warrants. Those names were later leaked to the media.

Unmasking or identifying U.S. citizens who are communicating with foreign governments or foreign principals for genuine intelligence purposes is legal but, obtaining the identity of U.S. citizens for partisan political purposes is not permitted under any circumstances. The leaking of “unmasked” U.S. citizens to the news media is unlawful.

“It is obvious that Obama, Brennan, Rice, Power, and Rhodes were involved in massive—underscore massive—unmasking of Trump people, friends and associates after [President Donald] Trump’s nomination and after the election,” former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova said.

Nunes also asked Daniel Coats, Trump’s director of national intelligence, to look into the unmasking charges and accused the Obama administration of improperly seeking information on “hundreds” of Trump campaign and transition officials.

In the letter released by The Hill, Nunes said the committee “found evidence that current and former government officials had easy access to U.S. citizens’ personal information and that it is possible that they used this information to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of such information.”

“The U.S. government records “incidental” conversations with American and foreign principals but keeps their identity anonymous unless a specific intelligence official requests their identification for genuine national security reasons. But Nunes says the unmasking was conducted to spy on Trump officials.

“When you’re dealing with the political use of intelligence methods and capabilities with regards to unmasking, you have suspected criminal activity,” said retired Air Force Col. James Waurishuk, a 30-year senior intelligence officer who served on the National Security Council and later served as deputy director for intelligence at U.S. Central Command.

“To be using it or suspecting it’s been used for political purposes, that automatically transfers that whole effort into a criminal act. So that has to be investigated,” he said. Waurishuk also is vice president of the OPSEC foundation, a nonprofit that represents retired intelligence and military officials.

Retired Col. James Williamson, who served in the Army Special Forces for 32 years in the intelligence field, agreed. “It’s clear to any layman that these requests were made for political reasons, not for national security reasons. It’s very unusual that there would be a request to unmask a U.S. citizen. If we are truly going to exercise the rule of law, then bring it on,” he told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Williamson said the investigation should be extended to James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence (DNI). “I think Clapper from Day One has been complicit and probably should be investigated as a co-conspirator himself,” Williamson said. “He knew what the constraints were. These hundreds of unmasking requests came after the election.”

In the last days of the Obama administration, Clapper permitted all 17 intelligence agencies to share raw intelligence that the NSA once exclusively held, including unmasking information, for the first time. This may have permitted many previously unauthorized officials, including other Obama political appointees, to access NSA telephone intercepts of Trump officials with foreign leaders.

DiGenova also points to Clapper’s culpability. He said there was a massive expansion in unmasking after the election. “There was a gigantic uptick in unmasking after the election. The combination of that with Clapper’s loosening of the number of people who could ask for unmasking requires, demands a federal criminal investigation with a grand jury and subpoenas,” he said.

Before joining the number No. 2 at the National Security Council, Rhodes had no military or foreign policy experience. “I put a special note on Ben Rhodes,” says Waurishuk. “Here’s a man who was brought on board with zero experience in the national security arena. Zero.”

Thomas Ricks, a former Pulitzer Prize military affairs reporter for the Washington Post, wrote a scathing March 6, 2016, article on Rhodes in Foreign Policy Magazine, where he now serves as contributing editor. Foreign Policy titled Ricks’ article “A stunning profile of Ben Rhodes, the a——- who is the president’s foreign policy guru.” Ricks opened his article on Rhodes by quoting from a devastating  New York Times Magazine profile that appeared the day before.

“Perhaps the key sentence is this,” Ricks wrote. “His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations—like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing—is still startling.”

Rhodes once saw himself as a literary writer and in 2001 was in his second year of the Master of Fine Arts program at New York University, writing short stories, when the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurred. He was majoring in creative writing.

Ricks was not impressed with the young man. “Rhodes comes off like a real a——-. This is not a matter of politics—I have voted for Obama twice,” he wrote. Rhodes also came under attack after he boasted in the same New York Times Magazine article he duped all the White House reporters on the Iran nuclear deal.

“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing,” Rhodes said [in a real-world “pot calling the kettle” …moment].

Williamson says the appointment of Rhodes to the National Security Council was “beyond comprehension.”

“Rhodes was a failed fiction writer,” he told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “But how he got the job in the Obama administration—it is beyond [the] comprehension of somebody with the lack of national security background and the appointment to the NSC staff in any capacity.”

So, why would these Administration officials do this [unmasking]? Because they could then weaponize any intelligence gained through the faulty FISA warrants to go after virtually any Trump administration officials after Obama had left office in support of the “Deep State” he was then creating. Their objective was to bring down the Trump administration, hopefully the President himself or, at the very least, to prevent the will of the American People to get the country moving in a different direction – the pledge by the new President to “Make America Great Again”.

So, that is what nearly seventy-five years of creeping corruption of most of America’s essential institutions by an amorphous but dedicated cadre of progressive, liberal Democrat Party operatives – whose detailed genesis I have chronicled in these two volumes – has wrought?

We have witnessed a willing and willful political subversion of  the Constitution of the United States by the sitting Democrat administration of Barack Obama – including the President himself as well as his staff and the senior leadership of the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency – including the DCI himself, plus the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the federal appellate judiciary, the American academy, the entire Democrat Party apparatus, the entire Democrat caucus in the Congress of the United States, a sitting Republican Senator (an apparent member of the Republican Auxiliary of the PLDC), a former Democrat President, a substantial portion of the entertainment community and the entire major American press and media except for FoxNews, the Wall Street Journal and several city newspapers.

The scope of this subversion is breathtaking in its range and penetration into our institutions and in its corruption of individuals in positions of power, influence and trust – something I call Establishment Derangement Syndrome (EDS). No democracy can survive such complete and utter corruption of its institutions.

The clearest example of this syndrome is Republican Senator John McCain. After campaigning in his home State of Arizona on a position that he absolutely would vote to repeal the so-called Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, “McCain – with a simple, yet dramatic, thumbs-down on the Senate floor in the wee hours of a Friday morning – signaled to the Senate, his colleagues and the rest of the United States that he was not prepared to go along with the … Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.” His “No!” vote killed the repeal bill.

 “After the vote, the 80-year-old senator, who earlier was diagnosed with brain cancer, was seen laughing with Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, the two other Republicans who voted against the health care bill” in the 52-49 Republican majority in the Senate.

 What can be done, at this discouraging point, to right the ship of state? Let us see how the Subversive Activity Surveillance Act (SASA), described above, would handle a political crisis.

 As discussed above in association with the Subversives Activity Surveillance Act (SASA), the governors of the several States have the power to establish policies and procedures for implementing the provisions of the Act. By acknowledging that any effort to confront domestic enemies has many similar challenges as efforts to eradicate foreign enemies on American soil had previously, the use of judicial oversight and interaction with the process is certainly an option to be considered.

 A State or regional Subversive Activity Surveillance Court (SASC) – similar in principle to the federal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), established in 1978 – may be the most appropriate vehicle. As with the efforts to eradicate the violent unauthorized-combatants on American soil with United States Armed Forces subsidiary forces, the State militias, the SASC must also fall within the purview of the American military establishment.

Fortunately, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps has a long and distinguished history of honorable national military jurisprudence that could provide oversight of the SASCs by recommending and certifying former members of the JAG Corps – or detail active duty JAG officers – to the governors for appointment to the SASA courts.

County sheriffs and governors would bring concerns about violations of State subversive statutes to the appropriate SASC for guidance and for the appropriate warrants in accordance with the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Any civil or criminal referrals resulting from investigations of subversive activity under the State Subversives Activity Surveillance Acts would be brought before the appropriate SASC for resolution.

In the situation involving the eradication of violent gangs and other organizations in Los Angeles suggested above, temporary control of the press/media was a necessary prerequisite in order to prevent interference and unnecessary violence with militia operations by anarchists and politically motivated government opposition groups encouraged and supported with operational intelligence by a press/media sympathetic to the aims of the PLDC.

This temporary control would have to be approved by the appropriate SASC based on information provided by militia commanders, the Governor and local sheriffs about the necessity to keep militia operations secret in order to prevent unauthorized-combatant targets from ambushing militia forces whose movements they were provided by a sympathetic press/media. Control of the press/media would be relinquished when militia operations were complete.

The captured unauthorized-combatants would be removed to detention facilities where their fates would be determined by military tribunals consisting of JAG officials.

Violations of federal Subversive Activity Surveillance Act statutes must be handled at the federal level under the supervision of a federal SASC designated by the Judge Advocate General of the United States (JAGUS). The JAGUS would have the statutory authority to federally deputize members of various State militias, in support of military police, for the purpose of bringing violators to justice under the Act.

Similar fates would await government officials at all levels found in violation of the Subversive Activity Surveillance Act as well as members of corrupted institutions like the press/media, the American academy, the court system and celebrities using their high visibility to give credibility to the false narrative of the PLDC.

The President, Vice-President and members of Congress would have to be impeached or, in some other manner, leave office prior to being subject to any federal Subversive Activity Surveillance Act prosecution.

The existence of the Subversive Activity Surveillance Act (SASA) would be especially important during the current Constitutional crisis where one of the two major political parties has attempted to steal a legitimate presidential election from the People and, having failed in that attempt, are currently attempting to bring down a legitimate administration through subversive activity at the highest levels of government – the Department of Justice, including the FBI and the FISA court, and the nation’s primary intelligence agency, the CIA.

During the course of this crisis, referrals have been made for a “special council” to investigate an alleged “Russia – Trump” collusion during the election campaign and for the Justice Department to investigate elements of the exploitation of the FISA system for political advantage.

If the SASA were in effect, both of those referrals would have gone to the Judge Advocate General of the United States (JAGUS) at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Centerlocated in Charlottesville, Virginia for investigation and resolution, free of political pressure from either political party, any other branch of government or the press/media.

The matter would be investigated by elements of the service’s investigative arms (NCIS anyone?), warrants would be issued by the Subversive Activity Surveillance Court (SASC) and the cases would be resolved before military tribunal in accordance with JAG rules and procedures. Sentences would be served a federal detention centers both within and outside the United States depending upon whether a defendant’s citizenship is revoked due to the nature of their conviction.

Problem solved! What’s good enough for our Armed Forces, who protect us from people trying to destroy or way of life from without, is plenty good enough for people trying to destroy our republic from within.

It is a blessing that the imminent threat to America posed by the PLDC has finally come to light and this treatise has documented its history and pointed the way to its resolution. If the citizens of the United States cannot rise again in its defense, as they have so many times before, then our nation as we know it is dead and the only thing that remains is the formality of dying. I pray that none of us must attend the funeral, for it will be for the eternal demise of human freedom.

So, now I have finished my story. It is no longer the cautionary tale of my “Auntie”, or even the factual history of the past century and a half in America. It now sounds a warning that if my words, or similar words of others much wiser than I, are not heeded, it will become a tragedy greater than any Greek tragedy like the one that befell Athens in about 350BC when she was conquered by Phillip II of Macedonia, which ended the Greek “Golden Age”, or of Rome in 453AD when it was sacked by the Mongol hordes, leading to the Dark Ages and the near extinction of Western Civilization.

I have presented my case and provided a Constitutional solution. Support it and America, as the Founders conceived it, and as you know it, survives and thrives. Ignore it and the world as you know it disappears – never to return. Some have already stood tall: Judicial Watch; the American Center for Law and Justice; Rep. Devin Nunes; Rep. Trey Gowdy and Fox News have all been dogged in their pursuit of the TRUTH and have discovered secrets that the PLDC had hoped would be buried forever.

It’s your choice. Stand up or remain seated. How important are the freedoms promised by the Constitution to you? I guess we’ll see.

Meanwhile, I will be content to sit and read de Tocqueville and continue to comment upon the fall and (hopefully) rise of America and to hope that my children, independent thinkers all, will survive the ride.

Next time: Major, major news. Don’t miss it!


The Duplicitous Dossier

“Informed sources [an oxymoron?] in Washington have been whispering for months that Britain’s intelligence service, the Government Communications Headquarters, the U.K.’s version of America’s National Security Agency, was intercepting the emails and phone calls of Trump officials. “It’s not impossible,” a former high-ranking U.S. intelligence officer told me, “that the information came from the Brits. Under certain circumstances, we can search their database, and they can search ours. Our intelligence-sharing relationship with the U.K. is much closer than it is with anyone else, by far the closest we have. But something like that wouldn’t be routine in our relationship.”

Luke Harding of the Guardian, apparently one of the few journalists with access to Trump-Russia dossier creator Christopher Steele, first reported April 13, 2016 that the GCHQ had played a central part in uncovering Trump’s possible ties to Russia, and forwarding the information they had directly on to CIA Director John Brennan. The next day CNN published a similar report.

Citing U.S. and U.K. intelligence sources, Harding wrote, “GCHQ played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016.” According to one account, reported Harding, “GCHQ’s then-head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at ‘director level.’ After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.”

Brennan has himself previously taken credit for initiating the inquiry. While on Meet the Press, Brennan suggested that the British sent their intelligence on to the FBI, in his May testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he indicated it came from him directly.

“I was aware,” Brennan said in May, “of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion—cooperation occurred.”

The former CIA Director has some questions to answer, then. What precisely was his role in initiating the FBI probe into the Trump team’s possible ties to Russia? Will he disclose where the intelligence actually came from? Was it volunteered by one of America’s closest allies, or did U.S. officials request to search allies’ databases for the communications of American citizens? If so, under what authority were American allies being used to help an American intelligence agency spy on a domestic political campaign?

However, no matter the source, “the DOJ and FBI [using the mysterious and unverified dossier] asked for and received approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to spy on Carter Page, the fringe volunteer-adviser to the Trump campaign on energy and foreign policy. The dossier’s contents were used multiple times as grounds for surveilling Page, with then-FBI Director James Comey signing his name to three, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signing off on one. It was a group effort: Then-acting Deputy Attorney Generals Sally Yates and Dana Boente, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, all signed off on one or more of the requests [with, of course, the approval of Attorney General Loretta Lynch – with visions of black robes dancing in her head].

Steele was paid $160,000 to create the Trump dossier for Fusion GPS. The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic National Committee financed the work. So, the FBI and Justice Department [knowingly] used opposition research from a presidential campaign to launch an investigation into that campaign’s political opponent — a likely illegal use of federal government surveillance for political purposes.

The FBI also agreed to pay Steele for his dossier and other research, but rescinded the offer in October of 2016, shortly before the presidential election, after discovering that Steele had shared the dossier’s contents with journalists in a number of briefings, a violation of FBI rules. But neither the FBI nor Justice informed the FISC that the information had in fact been paid for by the Democrats, which would have immediately raised doubts about the surveillance request’s legitimacy.

Steele, the memo claims, continued to talk to the Justice Department even after he was cut loose by the FBI through then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr. Ohr is key, since he worked closely with both Yates and Rosenstein and was a potential conduit into then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s office. More importantly, perhaps, Ohr’s wife, Nellie, is a former CIA researcher who was hired by Fusion GPS to collect anti-Trump material [and may have worked on writing the dossier with Steel].

According to the memo, Steele relayed to Ohr that he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” None of that, apparently, was told to the FISC when Justice and the FBI made their requests to spy on the Trump campaign.

[Amazingly,] the supposed justification for the application to the FISC was a September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article by journalist Michael Isikoff purportedly detailing ties between Trump campaign representatives and Russian officials. The only problem is, Isikoff got all of his information from Steele’s so-called Trump Dossier!!!

A page-one headline The New York Times ran on April 20, 2017, above its breathless report that “a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia and President Trump’s campaign” was a June 2016 visit to Moscow by Carter Page [the long-forgotten advisor]. It was due to the Moscow trip by Page, dubbed a “foreign policy adviser” to the campaign, that “the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court” in September — i.e., during the stretch run of the presidential campaign.”

Many months after throwing Carter Page as fuel on the collusion fire lit by then-FBI director James Comey’s stunning public disclosure that the Bureau was investigating possible Trump campaign “coordination” in Russia’s election meddling, the Gray Lady [then said]: Never mind. We’re onto Collusion 2.0, in which it is George Papadopoulos — then a 28-year-old whose idea of résumé enhancement was to feign participation in the Model U.N. — who triggered the FBI’s massive probe by… wait for it… a night of boozy blather in London.

With the Page foundation of the collusion narrative collapsing, and with the heat on over the Obama administration’s use of the dossier, it is apparently Papadopoulos to the rescue. In the Times’ new version of events, it was not the dossier that “so alarmed American officials to provoke the F.B.I. to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign months before the presidential election.”

That, according to the Times, is a false claim that “Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged.” Somehow, the paper omits the inconvenient details that it was the Times that led the charge in claiming that it was Page’s trip to Moscow that provoked the investigation, and that it was the dossier that so alarmed the FBI about that trip. In what we might think of as the latest “Russian Reset,” the Times now says the investigation was instigated by “firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies” — Australia.

Turns out Papadopoulos was out drinking in London with Alexander Downer, “Australia’s top diplomat in Britain.” Tongue loosened, the “young [so-called] foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign” made a “startling revelation” to Downer: He had learned that “Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.”

Because of the “Statement of the Offense” that Special Counsel Mueller filed with the court when Papadopoulos pled guilty [months later to some dubious charges], the Times and the rest of us now know that a few weeks earlier (on April 26), Papadopoulos was told by a Maltese academic who purported to have Kremlin ties that Russia had “thousands of emails” that could damage Hillary Clinton. We also know that in July, hacked Democratic-party emails began being published. With that established, we’re now told that when the emails were leaked, Australian officials put two and two together, figuring these emails might be what Papadopoulos was talking about “that night at the Kensington Wine Room.”

The Aussies thus tipped off their American counterparts to the barroom conversation between Papadopoulos and Downer. That, not the dossier explicitly alleging a Trump-Russia conspiracy, is what provoked the investigation. You can take it to the bank. After all, the Times has gotten this revisionist history from “four American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role” — i.e., from the same sort of unidentified, unaccountable sources that brought you the Page-centric version of events that [was] discarded.

To say this story has holes in it does not do justice to the craters on display. To begin with, the Times admits that “exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said” to Downer “is unclear.” What we are dealing with here is sheer supposition. And, it appears, flawed supposition. As I pointed out after Papadopoulos pled guilty, he was told that the Russians had “emails of Clinton.” But the hacked emails that were published were not Clinton’s emails; they were those of the DNC and John Podesta — exceedingly few of which Clinton was even included on, much less participated in.

Given the amount of misinformation the credulous Papadopoulos was given (one of his interlocutors falsely posed as Putin’s niece), the likelihood is that he was being toyed with: Remember, there was much speculation at the time, including by Trump himself, that the Russians (and other foreign intelligence services) might have hacked former secretary Clinton’s unsecure private server and obtained the 30,000-plus emails that she refused to surrender to the State Department; it is probable [they thought] that these were those emails Papadopoulos’s dubious Russian connections purported to be dangling.

There is no evidence that Papadopoulos or the Trump campaign was ever shown or given any of the emails the Kremlin purportedly had. The evidence, in fact, undermines the collusion narrative: If the Trump campaign had to learn, through Papadopoulos, that Russia supposedly had thousands of emails damaging to Clinton, that would necessarily mean the Trump campaign had nothing to do with Russia’s acquisition of the emails. This, no doubt, is why Mueller permitted Papadopoulos to plead guilty to a mere process crime — lying in an FBI interview.

If there were evidence of an actual collusion conspiracy, Papadopoulos would have been pressured to admit guilt to it. He wasn’t. Even a cursory FBI investigation of Papadopoulos would have illustrated how implausible it was that he could have been integral to a Trump-Russia plot. Anonymous intelligence and law-enforcement officials have been leaking collusion information to the Times and other media outlets since before Trump won the November 2016 election — that’s why we’ve spent the last year-plus hearing all about Page, Manafort, Flynn, et al. If Papadopoulos had really been the impetus for the investigation way back in July 2016, what are the chances that we would never have heard his name mentioned until after his guilty plea was announced 15 months later?

What are the chances that we’d only later be learning that he was the real stimulus for the investigation? I’d put it at less than none. There’s another interesting word that does not appear in the Times’ extensive Papadopoulos report: surveillance. Despite being “so alarmed” by young Papadopoulos’s barroom braggadocio with the Australian diplomat, and his claimed Russia connections, there is no indication that the Obama Justice Department and FBI ever sought a FISA-court warrant to spy on him. No, the FISA warrant was sought for Carter Page, after his trip to Moscow. The trip the Times used to say incited the Trump-Russia probe.

Former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant [for Carter Page] nine months earlier, in September 2016. Then in October, it emerged that the Clinton campaign paid for the dossier.

More recently, [the world] learned that anti-Trump bias ran rampant in the upper ranks of the Bureau and the Justice Department — to the point that a top FBI counter-intelligence agent spoke in the Deputy Director’s [Andrew McCabe] office of the Bureau’s need for an “insurance policy” against the risk of a Trump presidency.

Right before Christmas 2016, reporting from Fox News strongly suggested that the FBI, though apparently aware that the dossier was a partisan campaign project, had verified none of its sensational claims. Finally, in a Fox News interview, Senator Lindsey Graham (R – SC), who has inspected relevant classified documents, indicated that the Justice Department used the dossier in its application without disclosing its partisan political genesis to the FISA court and then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified to the committee that the infamous, unverified Democrat-funded “dossier” was essential to obtaining a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.

The investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election turned from a counter-intelligence investigation into a criminal investigation after Comey leaked to media his memo regarding his conversations with President Trump. Comey, who charged in the memo that Trump encouraged him to drop the FBI’s Flynn investigation, later admitted he was hoping the memo would create the need for a special counsel [which has exposed how devious and untrustworthy he really was].

The existence of a coordinated effort by Hillary Clinton allies and the Obama administration to purvey damaging information about the Trump campaign is confirmed in another memo regarding the FISA abuse.

Released in mid-February 2018 by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., it references a previously undisclosed second dossier written by the former British agent Christopher Steele.

Steele’s second dossier, according to the Grassley memo, included dirt on Trump that originated with a foreign source who fed information to an ally of Hillary and Bill Clinton, who then gave it to the Obama State Department. Steele obtained the information from the State Department source. The State Department official is not identified in the Grassley report, but it was widely speculated to be Jonathan Winer, a former special envoy to Libya, reported the Daily Caller. The unnamed Clinton associates are believed to be Cody Shearer and Sidney Blumenthal, who are known for carrying out dirty-tricks campaigns for the Clintons.

Winer is a former member of the Obama State Department, has admitted to exchanging information with Trump dossier compiler Christopher Steele. Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary for international law enforcement, met with Steele in 2016 to talk about the dossier. Winer said he was allowed to view but not keep a copy of the text but said he shared information given to him by longtime Clinton ally Sid Blumenthal that was compiled by another adviser, Cody Shearer. The Daily Caller noted that since leaving the State Department last year, Winer has spoken out about the Russia investigation and alleged Trump collusion, providing quotes for news stories that appear to be an effort to distance himself from the scandal.

The Guardian of London reported Shearer wrote a memo that Steele provided to the FBI in October 2016, which included some of the “salacious and unverified” reports, in the words of Comey, in the original dossier, including alleged Trump activity in a Moscow hotel room in 2013 at a time when Trump was not even in the country.

Former Department of Justice lawyer Andrew McCarthy has written that former President Obama would have been implicated, too. “Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account,” writes McCarthy. “If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent.”

For John Brennan, Clinton’s emails were a problem not only for the woman he thought he may serve, but also for the president he was already serving. Even after the July 5 press conference – [to discuss the Clinton investigation conclusions that Comey had written before the investigation was concluded and even before Clinton had been interviewed] in which Comey cleared Clinton of any charges—she was “extremely careless in the matter,” said Comey [in strict obedience to the orders from Attorney General Loretta  Lynch] but there was no evidence that she had willfully mishandled classified information – the Obama White House was watching Comey carefully.

Newly released texts between clandestine-lover FBI lawyer Lisa Page and bureau counterintelligence chief – and her paramour – Peter Strzok dated Sept. 2, 2016 show that Obama himself was watching. Page texted Strzok that she was briefing Comey because “potus [President of the United States] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

The problem was that just as the FBI put the email story to rest, Russian hackers [or perhaps, ethical DNC staffers] re-animated Clinton’s email problem with the June and July [WikiLeaks release] of hacked emails from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Most of the voting public did not distinguish between the classified emails on Hillary’s private server, and emails hacked from her party and her campaign. They heard “emails” and figured Clinton was [again] in the news for the wrong reasons.

Russiagate simplified and re-contextualized the email issue by identifying a villain, or two villains—Russia and Trump. Both Trump-Russia [dubious and unsubstantiated, but good enough for the mainstream press/media] origin stories—the dossier and the Papadopoulos meeting—[allegedly] tied Trump advisers to the leaked emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign. Among other purposes it was put to, the collusion story was a very elegant piece of political judo [a PLDC staple] that turned Clinton’s email problems against Trump.

On Oct. 28, eleven days before the election, the FBI re-opened the Clinton email  investigation [based upon new emails discovered on the laptop of former Representative [and convicted  sexting pervert] Anthony Wiener, husband of top Clinton aid, Huma Abedin]. Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson was “shocked” and “angry,” as he explained  in his Nov. 14 testimony to the House intelligence committee.

“At that point I felt like the rules had just been thrown out and that Comey had violated the sort of one of the more sacrosanct policies, which is not announcing law enforcement activity in the closing days of an election,” he said. “And so, we began talking to the press again about …we decided that if James Comey wasn’t going to tell people about this [Trump – Russia] investigation that, you know, he had violated the rules, and we would only be fair if the world knew that both candidates were under FBI investigation.”

 Simpson was upset because he was hired, in part, to disseminate a [phony], Clinton-funded Trump-Russia collusion theory to the press for the purpose of turning the email narrative away from Clinton and toward Trump. Then the email story came back. Christopher Steele was mad, too, said Simpson. Then the former British spy who was hired in order to credential the smear campaign as an authentic intelligence report that would have credibility inside the bureau left the country after the FBI found out he was briefing the press on his findings.

The institutional reputation of the FBI is rightly taking a hit over its handling of the Russiagate affair, especially for its interactions with the FISA court. But the FBI itself was not the problem. Rather, it was James Comey. It’s hard not to feel some sympathy for Comey, or at least for the circumstances he found himself in. But because he would not stand up to John Brennan, the former FBI Director did terrible damage to his institution, and to the country as a whole.

By signing a FISA warrant based on paid political opposition-research to intercept Carter Page’s communications, he [James Comey] had violated the privacy of an American citizen in order to advance a conspiracy theory that would benefit one presidential candidate at the expense of another. By enabling a political campaign to use the FBI as a vehicle to abuse the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Comey endangered U.S. national security, and turned both the bureau and the FISA Court into partisan instruments and brought their activities into disrepute.

Meanwhile, the founders of he controversial opposition-research firm Fusion GPS admitted that they helped the researcher hired to compile the infamous, [completely discredited 35-page dossier on President Donald Trump to share the document with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

The goal of providing the dossier to McCain, the Fusion GPS founders explained, was to pass the information contained in the questionable document to the U.S. intelligence community under the Obama administration.

The disclosure raises questions about whether McCain knew that the information he delivered to the intelligence community was actually an opposition document reportedly funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Writing in a New York Times op-ed, Fusion GPS founders Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritch relate that they helped McCain share their anti-Trump dossier with the intelligence community via an “emissary.” “After the election, Mr. Steele decided to share his intelligence with Senator John McCain via an emissary,” the Fusion GPS founders related. “We helped him do that. The goal was to alert the United States national security community to a [fictitious] attack on our country by a hostile foreign power.” It was not clear from their statement whether McCain knew Fusion GPS was behind the dossier.

Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow, said McCain first consulted him about the claims inside the dossier at a security conference in Canada shortly after the November 2016 presidential election. Wood stated that McCain had obtained the documents from the senator’s own sources. “I told him I was aware of what was in the report but I had not read it myself, that it might be true, it might be untrue. I had no means of judging really,” Wood further told BBC Radio 4 in January 2017 that he served as a “go-between” to inform McCain about the dossier contents. Wood told Fox News, “My mission was essentially to be a go-between and a messenger, to tell the senator and assistants that such a dossier existed.”

In March, Vanity Fair raised questions about the alleged involvement of David J. Kramer, a former State Department official, in helping to obtain the dossier directly from Steele. House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes issued a subpoena to David Kramer in late November 2016, because he traveled to London to receive a briefing and a copy of the Trump dossier from its author, former British spy Christopher Steele. Kramer then returned to the U.S. to give the document to Sen. John McCain.” By the way, Kramer is a senior fellow at the McCain Institute for International Leadership at Arizona State University.

The result of all of these illegal and illicit machinations has resulted in the near theft from the People of a legitimate presidential election, followed by a conspiracy by the outgoing President and his administration during the transition period between November 9, 2016 – January 20, 2017 to establish what has come to be called the “Dark State” or the “Deep State”, to lay the groundwork for a widespread and coordinated effort by all members of the PLDC to disrupt and destroy the administration of Donald Trump. In short, we have witnessed the first hostile turnover of power in the history of the United States.

“Let us recall “shadow government” and “Deep State” — two terms that riveted political observers and journalists in 2017. Remember? Both terms — along with variants such as “shadow White House” and “shadow presidency” — were bandied about in the media with relish. Dramatic coverage suggested that former members of the Obama administration or entrenched federal employees were still in place, ready to wield power from within the bureaucracy.

A potential hazard to the Trump administration lurked, amplified by “fake” news, skewed polls and negative press narratives. Even before President Trump took the presidential oath on Jan. 20, veteran [liberal] political commentator Bill Moyers suggested newly defeated Hillary Clinton give her own inaugural address, advising Democrats to “prepare by joining together as a movement and creating the constituency of what will be, in effect, a shadow government.” On Inauguration Day itself, GQ magazine advised,” Barack Obama is preparing for his third term.”

Some continue to fret about a shadow presence. Still attuned to the Deep State and the existence of a shadow government, Judicial Watch issued a 64-page report on the phenomenon, which includes Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] requests, case studies and other research.

“We face a crisis of the Deep State — ‘Alt-government,’ I sometimes call it. The actions of the Deep State constitute a direct challenge to our republican form of government. Working primarily through the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, the Deep State is actively engaged in subversive measures designed to delegitimize Donald Trump,” Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group, noted in a statement.

‘This shadow government is not monolithic. But, it does not have to be. Its operatives share a common mindset and worldview. They travel in the same social circles. And, they walk the same corridors of power’, the study said.” Does any of this sound familiar? Can we all say “PLDC”?

Conservative writer Daniel John Sobieski asks: “In any criminal investigation where the suspect is not immediately known, the first question usually asked is who would have the most to gain? As we follow the bread crumbs of the text messages of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and await release of the all of the House Intelligence Committee’s memos regarding the collusion between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Obama administration, the DOJ, and FBI to interfere with the 2016, ensure the election of Hillary, and the defeat or impeachment of Donald Trump, the answer to that question is clear – one Barack Hussein Obama.

Can it be believed that as key players in the Obama administration like Strzok and Page, as well as FBI Director James Comey,  Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, number 2 at Justice Rob Rosenstein, number 4 at Justice Bruce Ohr and his FBI employee wife, Nellie, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, CIA Director John Brennan, DCI James Clapper, Special Counsel and Comey buddy Robert Mueller and many others were linked in a vast criminal conspiracy to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House, that Barack Obama was blissfully unaware of all this? Rather, it can be plausibly argued that he was orchestrating it.

Perhaps not directly or by explicit orders, but rather by discussing with his progressive minions, the threat to his legacy that Trump represented and then simply saying, as crime bosses throughout history have done, “You know what needs to be done. Do it.”

And, apparently, they did.

Next time: Setting up the “deep state”.


More Keystone Cops

“Understanding the origins of the “Steele dossier” is especially important because of what it tells us about the nature and the workings of what its supporters would [secretly] describe as an ongoing campaign to remove the elected President of the United States. Yet the involvement of sitting intelligence officials—and a sitting [now former] President—in such a campaign should be a frightening thought even to people who despise Trump and oppose every single one of his policies, especially in an age where the possibilities for such abuses have been multiplied by the power of secret courts, wide-spectrum surveillance, and the centralized creation and control of story-lines that [are birthed by the MSM, live on social media while being fed from inside protected nodes of the federal bureaucracy.

“The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats,” Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein [trump haters all] wrote. (As Howard Blum recently reported for Vanity Fair, the funding for the research originally came from a “Never Trump” Republican but not specifically from the war chest of one of Trump’s rivals in the G.O.P. primary, according to a friend of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson.) A conservative website with strong ties to the Republican establishment triggered the investigation into Donald Trump’s past that ultimately produced the dossier that alleged a compromised relationship between the president and the Kremlin.

The Washington Free Beacon confirmed it originally retained the political research firm Fusion GPS to scour then-candidate Trump’s background for negative information, a common practice known as “opposition research” in politics [a product of the “politics of personal destruction” pioneered by the PLDC]. Leaders from the Free Beacon, which is funded largely by Republican billionaire Paul Singer, insisted none of the early material it collected appeared in the dossier released later in the year detailing explosive allegations, [all] uncorroborated, about Trump compiled by a former British spy.

“During the 2016 election cycle we retained Fusion GPS to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary, just as we retained other firms to assist in our research into Hillary Clinton,” wrote the site’s editor-in-chief, Matthew Continetti, and chairman Michael Goldfarb. They continued: “The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele.”

Earlier reports revealed that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee continued funding Fusion’s work after the original GOP source lost interest. The Free Beacon first retained Fusion to investigate Trump in the fall of 2015 and ended its relationship after Trump secured the Republican presidential nomination in late spring of 2016, according to a person close to Goldfarb, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share private discussions.

The website and its leaders have strong ties throughout the Republican establishment. Goldfarb was deputy communications director on [Trump hater] John McCain’s presidential campaign. Singer was backing Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s presidential bid at the time of the Free Beacon’s involvement. And one of Singer’s closest associates, Republican operative Dan Senor, served as Speaker Paul Ryan’s chief adviser during the 2012 president campaign [when he was Mitt Romney’s VP selection].

“A Tablet investigation using public sources to trace the evolution of the now-famous [“Russia-Trump Collusion”] dossier suggests that central elements of the “Russiagate” scandal emerged not from the British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s [so-called] top-secret “sources” in the Russian government—which are unlikely to exist separate from Russian government control—but from a series of stories that Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and his wife Mary Jacoby co-wrote for The Wall Street Journal well before Fusion GPS existed, and Donald Trump was simply another loud-mouthed Manhattan real estate millionaire.

In a Facebook post from June 24, 2017, that Tablet has seen in screenshots, Jacoby claimed that her husband deserves the lion’s share of credit for Russiagate. (She has not replied to repeated requests for comment.)

“It’s come to my attention that some people still don’t realize what Glenn’s role was in exposing Putin’s control of Donald Trump,” Jacoby wrote. “Let’s be clear. Glenn conducted the investigation. Glenn hired Chris Steele. Chris Steele worked for Glenn.”

This assertion is hardly a simple assertion of family pride; it [potentially] goes directly to the nature of what became known as the “Steele dossier,” on which the Russiagate narrative is founded. The fact that Jacoby is a reporter who often shared bylines with her husband at The Wall Street Journal is another reason to take her Facebook post seriously.

Last week’s revelation that Simpson hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of ranking Justice Department official [and Trump hater] Bruce Ohr, to work on the dossier certainly supports Jacoby’s implicit contention that Steele’s role in compiling the dossier has been exaggerated. Ohr is a Stanford Ph.D. whose expertise is Russia, and she appears to be fluent in the language. Perhaps she conducted interviews, along with—or even instead of—the British ex-spy whose byline helped credential the now-famous oppo research file as an “intelligence product.” Maybe she wrote up parts of the dossier or even the whole thing.

In any case, the history of the “Steele dossier” doesn’t begin with Christopher Steele or Nellie Ohr in the summer of 2016; it begins with a story that Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby co-wrote for The Wall Street Journal dated April 17, 2007. “How Lobbyists Help Ex-Soviets Woo Washington” details how prominent Republicans, including the 1996 Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole, opened doors in the American capital for Kremlin-affiliated oligarchs and other friends of Vladimir Putin.

Among those friends of Putin was Viktor Yanukovich, who would become president of Ukraine in 2010. According to the article, one of Yanukovich’s wealthy patrons paid a political fixer named Paul Manafort to introduce Yanukovich to powerful Washington, D.C., figures, including former Vice President Dick Cheney. Manafort figures prominently throughout the piece.”

 “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office [during the 2016 presidential campaign]. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research [fabricated] damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

 A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

 The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged [but unproven] hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.”

 “A year later, when Simpson and Jacoby discovered that a consultant to [Trump hater] John McCain’s 2008 presidential run was working with Yanukovich, they could hardly have been surprised to find Paul Manafort in the middle of a new scandal. As they reported in another Wall Street Journal article dated May 14, 2008, Davis- Manafort, Manafort’s lobbying firm, was escorting Yanukovich around Washington. For instance, in 2006, Manafort accompanied him at a breakfast for journalists at the Willard Hotel.

 Simpson and Jacoby had [identified] Manafort as a world-class sleaze ball and they were right. A slick Georgetown Law grad running in GOP circles since the Reagan campaign, Manafort used his talents and connections to get paid by some very bad people.

So when the Trump campaign [inexplicably] named Paul Manafort as its campaign-convention manager on March 28, 2016, you can bet that Simpson and Jacoby’s eyes lit up. And as it happened, at the exact same time that Trump hired Manafort, Fusion GPS was in negotiations with Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, to see if there was interest in the firm continuing the opposition research on the Trump campaign they had started for the Washington Free Beacon.

In addition to whatever sales pitch Simpson might have offered about Manafort, the Clinton campaign had independent reason to believe that research into Manafort’s connections might pay some real political dividends: A Democratic consultant and Ukrainian-American activist named Alexandra Chalupa, told the Clinton campaign about Manafort’s work for Yanukovich. “I flagged for the DNC the significance of his hire,” Chalupa told CNN in July 2017.

Perhaps it was this alignment of the stars that clinched the deal. According to an Oct. 24, 2017, letter from Perkins Coie, the firm hired Fusion GPS to continue its research in April, shortly after Manafort was hired by Trump.

Once you understand that Simpson knew exactly who Paul Manafort was, it’s impossible not to spot the former journalist’s creative wit sprinkled throughout the dossier, which uses the tantalizing figure of “PUTIN” to draw attention to corruption that Glenn Simpson knew was entirely real from his own reporting. “Ex-Ukrainian President YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorised (sic) kick-back payments to MANAFORT, as alleged in western media,” the dossier relates “Assures Russian President however there is no documentary evidence/trail.”

It’s as if Simpson has hung a “Kick Me” sign on Manafort to encourage some prosecutor to find the “documentary evidence/trail” that did in fact exist. Sure enough, Special Counselor for the Russia investigations Robert Mueller found it. The October indictment charges Manafort with laundering millions that came from Yanukovich [although it had absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump].

Manafort’s relationship with Yanukovich was widely known inside Ukrainian political circles, as well as to Clinton campaign head John Podesta’s brother Tony Podesta, who worked directly for Manafort while he represented Yanukovich.

Another charge in Mueller’s indictment against Manafort is that in lobbying U.S. officials on behalf of Ukraine he failed to register as a foreign agent. The fact that he failed to do so even after Simpson and Jacoby pinged him publicly nearly a decade ago, twice, for his work with Yanukovich, is an important detail because it suggests Manafort wasn’t just corrupt and deceitful but displayed an arrogance bordering on sociopathic—which is the kind of personal characteristic that no attentive journalist is likely to miss, and which should certainly disqualify someone from a role in American public life. [It would be interesting to know who recommended Manafort to the Trump campaign.]

So maybe that’s how Simpson first envisioned what became known as the “Steele dossier”—a way to nail Paul Manafort, who was clearly and openly a very bad guy. But if the dirt Simpson had on Manafort gave the opposition research a clear target—Trump’s possible connections to Russia, through his apparently dirty and sociopathic campaign manager—the problem it seems was none of Fusion GPS’s principals, former reporters with plenty of experience covering stories around the world, knew very much about Russia, the country that was the ostensible subject of their research. Otherwise, it is inconceivable that Fusion GPS would have taken on a project from pro-Kremlin elements to undermine an American law, the Magnitsky Act, at the same time it was being paid by the Clinton campaign and DNC to tie the Trump campaign to pro-Kremlin elements. Perhaps Christopher Steele was hired to disguise that apparent contradiction.

In June, three months after being hired by the lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC, Simpson brought on Steele—but Steele hadn’t lived or worked in Russia in nearly 25 years. Since he was identified as a British spy in 1999 and was head of the Russia desk when Russian assassins killed FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko in a sushi restaurant in the British capital, Steele was hardly in a position to make discreet inquiries. Still, Simpson must have thought Steele’s name at a minimum would be useful in marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Reportedly, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI, and journalists love spies who spill secrets.

Nellie Ohr, Fusion’s next hire, spoke Russian and wrote well enough to publish in academic journals. But she hadn’t lived in Russia for decades either, and she was not a spy, or even a journalist. In this world, she was definitely an amateur. Presumably, as a result of all the above, much of the reporting in the dossier is recognizably the kind of patter that locals in closed or semi-closed societies engage in to impress expats—the kind of thing you hear in a bar, or on the cab ride from the airport to the hotel. So you’re telling me this guy Carter Page, who almost no one in Moscow has heard of , was offered a 19 percent stake in Rosneft—worth around $10 billion—if Trump relieved sanctions on Russia? Da—some say even 21 percent. [Yadda, yadda, yadda …]

That Fusion GPS had apparently little on Russia, never mind on Trump’s dealings in Russia, is partly a reflection of the sorry state of U.S. government expertise and insight into a country that two decades ago was derided as a scrap-heap, and which President Obama appeared to dismiss during the 2012 campaign as largely a figment of the outdated Cold War imagination of his opponent. Intelligence resources were badly needed elsewhere—to track terrorists, or spy on America’s putative allies, or summon up a contest for power in Teheran between hard-liners and moderates. Obama believed that a reset with Russia was a foreign-policy priority [remember Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presenting the big, red reset button to Putin in Moscow], and he needed Vladimir Putin’s support on Iran sanctions. Later he needed Putin on his side to make sure the Iran deal went through. Mucking around too aggressively in Putin’s inner circle was likely to cause more problems than it solved. As a result, even America’s top spies knew very little about what went on inside Russia.

There were some well-placed observers who saw this vacuum as a potential threat. The [Republican] chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence said so, right around the time the Clinton campaign and the DNC brought on Fusion GPS to investigate Manafort and Trump’s Russia ties.

As HPSCI chair, Devin Nunes is part of the gang of eight, the four congressmen and four senators who have oversight of the entire intelligence community and know what secrets we know and what we don’t. Nunes told CNN  on April 12, 2016, many months before the Russiagate narrative went public, that when it comes to Russia, the United States was flying blind.

It would be hard to take issue with Nunes’ assessment. The U.S. intelligence community was surprised by Putin’s takeover of Crimea. When Russia escalated its military presence in Syria in the late summer of 2015, U.S. intelligence was again caught off-guard—even though Moscow was sending troops and arms through the Bosporus, a waterway controlled by a NATO member. “The biggest intelligence failure we’ve had since 9/11,” Nunes told Jake Tapper, “has been the inability to predict the leadership plans and intentions of the Putin regime in Russia.”

It’s hardly surprising, then, that the intelligence community did not immediately identify Russia as responsible for the hack of DNC emails, either. Instead, it was the DNC itself and the Clinton campaign that pointed  the finger at the Russians [perhaps to cover their own failings]. After discovering some unusual network activity in late April 2016, a DNC executive called a committee lawyer at Perkins Coie, who put them in touch with CrowdStrike. It was CrowdStrike that first said Russian state actors were behind the hack and leaked them to Wikileaks. After the emails were released July 22, Clinton campaign chief Robby Mook told ABC News that “some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.” [He could not however, provide a coherent rationale for that belief.]

The truth may not be that simple. In an unsolved murder case that happened in the midst of the campaign, more questions than answers appear.

“[In the early morning hours of] July 8, 2016, 27-year-old Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered [on a deserted Washington DC street. The killer or killers took nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone.

Shortly after the killing, social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.

Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters, “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.”

The Metropolitan DC police posted a reward for information on Rich’s murder.

A private investigator looking into the July 2016, murder of Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich claims the staffer was in contact with WikiLeaks. A federal investigator told Fox News that Rich had emailed 44,053 DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

 The investigator, former D.C. police homicide detective Rod Wheeler, claimed the FBI and Washington, D.C., Metro Police are covering up that information, contained on Rich’s laptop, which is [still] in their possession [and has not been forensically evaluated].

 Twelve days after Rich was killed, WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails that indicated party officials conspired to make sure Hillary Clinton won the party’s presidential nomination over rival Sen. Bernie Sanders.

 WikiLeaks has denied Russia was the source of the DNC emails it published and has offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of Rich, while not confirming he was their source.

WikiLeaks founder  Julian Assange has suggested that Seth Rich was a Wikileaks informant. Julian Assange seemed to suggest on the Dutch television program  Nieuwsuur that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered.

“Julian Assange: Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.

Reporter: That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it?

Assange: No. There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.”

There are many questions raised by the latest revelations, but one of the persistent oddities has been the classification of Rich’s murder by Washington police as a botched robbery [on a deserted street with no witnesses] when nothing was stolen, not his wallet, watch or phone.

“[So, what about these] experts? The tech experts at CrowdStrike might be able to tell you who did something but not why. Mook doesn’t name the “experts” who had clued him in to Russia’s intentions—but the DNC and Clinton campaign did have an oppo-research firm [Fusion GPS] under contract that was in the middle of putting together a file that would claim that the Russians were trying to get Trump elected. Since Steele authored the dossier’s first memo a month before Mook’s comment, on June 20, it seems fair to assume that Mook understood the thrust of the dossier, which the campaign had paid for, and that his claim regarding Russia’s intentions is the first public reference to the dossier.

An FBI spokesperson said the bureau was looking at the breach [at the DNC] but did not comment on whether the bureau was looking into the possible political motivation behind the hack. And yet right around that time, late July, the FBI [conveniently] opened an investigation into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives.

According to  The New York Times, “only a dozen or so people at the FBI knew about the investigation,” including director James Comey and Peter Strzok, who was chosen to supervise the investigation itself.

Later, in her June 24 Facebook post, Mary Jacoby would accuse the FBI of ineptitude. In her Facebook post, she calls the Oct. 31, 2016, New York Times story, “Investigating Russia, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Trump,” which cleared Trump of connections to the Putin government, “ignominious.” “That bogus story had a profound effect just before the election,” Jacoby writes. “… ‘Move on, nothing to see here…’”

In contrast to the FBI, according to Jacoby, the CIA “hopped-to and immediately worked to verify it. By August 2016 the CIA had “verified” the key finding of the dossier to the point that, as The Washington Post revealed, it was “having ‘eyes only’ top secret meetings with Obama about it.”

What? Former CIA Director John Brennan testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee in May 2017 that the dossier “wasn’t part of the corpus of intel information we had … it was not used in any way as a basis.” But Jacoby says he brought it to President Obama? It seems that Glenn Simpson’s wife may be correct again. Ignominious indeed!

“In April 2017, The New York Times reported that last summer Brennan was so concerned about Russian efforts to help Trump that he briefed top lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. “In the August briefing for Mr. Reid,” the Times  related, “Mr. Brennan indicated that the CIA, focused on foreign intelligence, was limited in its legal ability to investigate possible connections to Mr. Trump.”

That briefing prompted Reid to write a public letter to the agency responsible for collecting domestic intelligence. On Aug. 29, Reid wrote to FBI Director James Comey that the threat of Russian interference “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results.” Recent classified briefings from senior intelligence officials, Reid told The New York Times in an interview, have left him fearful that President Vladimir V. Putin’s “goal is tampering with this election.” Was the dossier the source of that explosive information?

In October, shortly after Comey reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails [after the Anthony Weiner/Huma Abedin laptop was forensically evaluated], Reid wrote another public letter to the FBI chief. This one is even more heated—Reid was angry that Comey seemed to be turning the heat up on Clinton while letting Trump slide. “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community,” writes Reid, “it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government—a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity,” he said. “I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public … and yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.”

What “information” was Reid referring to? According to columnist David Corn’s Oct. 31, 2016, article in Mother Jones, the Nevada lawmaker was referencing the findings of “a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence.” Corn now explains that the “former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a U.S. firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients” is Christopher Steele. According to Corn, Steele said that “in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump.” It appears that Brennan was briefing Reid on the Steele dossier.

It’s hard not to feel some sympathy for Comey in this situation. He’s trying to keep a whole bunch of balls in the air at the same time. He’s got an open investigation on Clinton – the emails, and Trump – the possible ties to Russia, while he’s trying to keep the FBI flying straight. On top of that, he’s now got the Senate minority leader haranguing him publicly for not releasing material that the FBI chief later calls “salacious and unverified.”

Comey surely assumed that Brennan has put Reid up to writing the letter—and even worse, he knew that his counterpart at Langley was talking about it with their boss. [In] August, the White House began convening high-level meetings to discuss Russian interference in the 2016 elections. It began, according to a June 23, 2017, Washington Post article, when “an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides.”

This is the Post article that Mary Jacoby was writing the day after it appeared. So, was the Steele dossier in the envelope? “Inside was an intelligence bombshell,” write Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Adam Entous, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.

But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives—defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.

Of course, these authors didn’t even approach a rationale for why Putin would prefer Trump over Clinton – a person he knew personally to be a diplomatic flyweight from her “reset” days, the inexplicable “Uranium One” deal to sell 20% of America’s uranium reserves to Russia and her bungling of the Benghazi affair. He had never even met Donald Trump but could easily see that he would not be a pushover due to his bombastic utterances about “Making American Great again”. Their “facts” made no logical or intellectual sense.

It sure sounds like the dossier—but it may well be a different file, one Brennan couldn’t share even with Reid, another member of the gang of eight, whom it seems [from above] he had already briefed on the dossier. Indeed, the article explains that the “material was so sensitive that CIA Director John O. Brennan kept it out of the president’s daily brief, concerned that even that restricted report’s distribution was too broad.”

But if the material was so sensitive that it had to be kept out of the PDB and withheld from the Senate minority leader, why was someone telling The Washington Post about it?

Sources and methods are the crown jewels of the American intelligence community. And yet someone has just told a major American newspaper about a “report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government … that captured Putin’s specific instructions.” If the CIA had a human intelligence source that close to Putin, publication of the Post article could have exposed that source—doing incalculable damage to American national security. He and many of his loved ones would then have presumably died horrible deaths. Or, as Mary Jacoby surmised, it was her husband’s handiwork that landed on the president’s desk.” Or, maybe …

Next time: The attempted coup.


The Keystone Cops of Washington, DC

It is because of the absolute political nature of the PLDC that the treatment of this institutional disease must be controlled by entities outside and beyond the control of the progressive/liberal/Democrat cadre. Control must reside in the single, incorruptible institution in the United States – an institution that has continuously put its individuals’ lives on the line, to fight and die to preserve the Union and its Constitution, whose devotion to the political survival of the United States has never been questioned – the United States military establishment.

 Intellectual and moral argument against subversion and in favor of militia.

 Subversion is an act of war against the Constitution and the People who hold the ultimate power delegated provisionally to the government – State or federal. The aim of subversion is to take, through secret and insidious means, the ultimate power of the People and deliver it, unconditionally, to a political elite – war being a campaign of hostile intent waged against an opponent who possesses things that the belligerent forces desire to take for their own, through actions that will cause the victim to abandon the field of battle against their will through the loss of their power and ability to resist.

In the case of subversion in America, the belligerents desire absolute political power over the People and have been waging a campaign, for decades, against the People’s right to the truth about issues in the public square and their capacity to analyze and process political argument. The campaign consists of compromising the agents of the truth in a free society – the press/media, the appellate courts, the information and entertainment industries, the Democrat Party, academia and the public education system – through intimidation, prosecution, discrimination and segregation of those with opposing points of view about the sanctity of the truth in a constitutional republic. The forces behind this subversion are a cabal of progressive/ liberal/Democrat practitioners labeled the PLDC.

As a domestic act of war, it is not a matter under the purview of the police powers of the state, but rather, a matter for domestic military powers as provided for in the Constitution under Article I, Section 8, to wit, the Congress shall have the power to call: “… forth the Militia to … suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions … in the service of the United States.”

“Insurrection”, as used and understood by the Drafters and Ratifiers, included characteristics of a group enterprise using elements of resistance, opposition, repugnancy, retaliation, turning the tables upon, settling scores, disobedience, insubordination, mutiny, defiance, sedition, treason, secession and taking the law into one’s own hands – based upon reference material from the Federal period.

 “Invasion”, as used and understood by the Drafters and Ratifiers, meant essentially the same thing as it does today: an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force, an occupation, seizure, annexation, takeover; an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity; an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain.

 Both of these events have occurred, and continue to occur, in the United States, as argued at length in the second volume of the Atlas Trilogy – Atlas Speaks.

 Why doesn’t a militia constitute a police-state? Militia aren’t involved w/policing, they are involved with hostile actions against the Constitution and the rights of all American citizens. Militias have traditionally been used when events and situations occur that are beyond the capacity of police forces to contain or control. Recent history proves that the issues related to the subversion of the American electorate, drug and human trafficking, urban street gangs and terrorist activity are beyond the effective scope of law enforcement agencies.

 Since the active duty American military is prohibited from operating within the United States, it must fall to the State militias, under the command and control of the nation’s duly elected governors and county sheriffs, subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and in support of the United States military establishment as the National Guard Reserve Component, to affect the actions that are required to remove all subversive elements from the body politic and the public square.

 Its use to confront and eradicate the violent elements that exist because of the policies of the PLDC is self-evident. Its use in the removal from power and influence of the political elite, true believers in the PLDC, is no less evident when evaluated with political clarity.

The PLDC has its claws in every facet of every institution of power in the United States save one – the U.S. military. As such, any attempt to disrupt this illicit power grid will meet with pathological opposition. We have seen a demonstration of it in operation since November 8, 2016, the day Donald Trump was elected President of the United States instead of the PLDC’s anointed candidate, Hillary Clinton.

As of this writing, we know the following about the major scandals of the 2016 presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Donald Trump (R-NY) – emailgate, collusion and unmasking:

“Prior to her appointment as Secretary of State in 2009, Clinton and her circle of friends and colleagues communicated via Blackberry phones. State Department security personnel suggested this would pose a security risk during her tenure. The email account used on Clinton’s BlackBerry was then hosted on a private server in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, New York, but that information was not disclosed to State Department security personnel or senior State Department personnel. It proved impractical to find a solution, even after consulting the National Security Agency (NSA), which would not have allowed Clinton to use her BlackBerry, or a similarly unsecured device, linked to a private server in her home.

 Setting up a secure desktop computer in her office was suggested, but Clinton was unfamiliar with their use and opted for the convenience of her BlackBerry, not the State Department, government protocol of a secured desktop computer. Efforts to find a secure solution were abandoned by Clinton, and she was warned by State Department security personnel about the vulnerability of an unsecured BlackBerry to hacking. She affirmed her knowledge of the danger, and was reportedly told that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security had obtained intelligence about her vulnerability while she was on a trip to Asia, but continued to use the hand-held device.

At the time of Senate confirmation hearings on Hillary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State, the domain names, and  were registered to an Eric Hoteham [the name is similar to that of Eric Hothem, who worked as a staff assistant for Clinton during her time as First Lady.

Hothem was involved in multiple personal matters during his service to Clinton and played a role in the controversy surrounding the pardon given to former President Bill Clinton’s half-brother Roger Clinton.], with the home of Clinton and her husband in Chappaqua, New York, as the contact address which she used for all work and personal emails during her four years in office.

The domains were pointed to a private email server that Clinton (who never had a email account, which would have been hosted on servers owned and managed by the US government. She said it was for convenience. But critics said it gave her control over what information entered the public domain.

As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.

In December 2012, near the end of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: “no records responsive to your request were located.” Emails sent to Clinton’s private Clinton address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named “Guccifier” widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal’s email account. The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her address.

Blumenthal did not have a security clearance when he received material from Clinton that has since been characterized as classified by the State Department.

In the summer of 2014, lawyers from the State Department noticed a number of emails from Clinton’s personal account, while reviewing documents requested by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. A request by the State Department for additional emails led to negotiations with her lawyers and advisors. In October, the State Department sent letters to Clinton and all previous Secretaries of State back to Madeline Albright requesting emails and documents related to their work while in office. On December 5, 2014, Clinton lawyers delivered 12 file boxes filled with printed paper containing more than 30,000 emails. Clinton withheld almost 32,000 emails deemed to be of a personal nature. Datto, Inc., which provided data backup service for Clinton’s email, agreed to give the FBI the hardware that stored the backups.

As of May 2016, no answer had been provided to the public as to whether 31,000 emails deleted by Hillary Clinton as personal have been or could be recovered.

A March 2, 2015 New York Times article broke the story that the Benghazi panel had discovered that Clinton exclusively used her own private email server rather than a government-issued one throughout her time as Secretary of State, and that her aides took no action to preserve emails sent or received from her personal accounts as required by law. At that point, Clinton announced that she had asked the State Department to release her emails. Some in the media labeled the controversy “emailgate”.

In March 2015, it became publicly known that Hillary Clinton during her tenure as United States Secretary of State, had used her family’s private email server for official communications, rather than official State Department email accounts maintained on secure federal servers. Those official communications included over 100 emails which contained classified information at the time they were sent, as well as nearly 2,100 emails which were not marked classified but would retroactively be ranked as classified by the State Department.

The controversy unfolded against the backdrop of Clinton’s 2016 presidential election campaign and hearings held by the United StatesHouse Select Committee on Benghazi Some experts, officials, and members of Congress have contended that her use of private messaging system software and a private server violated State Department protocols and procedures, as well as federal laws and regulations governing record keeping. In response, Clinton has said [disingenuously] that her use of personal email was in compliance with federal laws and State Department regulations, and that former secretaries of state had also maintained personal email accounts, though not their own private email servers.

After allegations were raised that some of the emails in question contained classified information, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) initiated an investigation regarding the origin and handling of classified emails on Clinton’s server. The FBI report found that some of the emails originated in five other intelligence agencies. The FBI found that all classified emails on Clinton’s server were stored and sent from “unclassified systems”, violating the same policies as those on Clinton’s personal server.

Then FBI Director James Comey identified 110 emails as containing information that was classified at the time it was sent, including 65 emails deemed “Secret” and 22 deemed “Top Secret”. None of these had classification markings. However, as noted in Clinton’s non-disclosure agreement, unmarked classified information should be treated the same as marked classified information. An additional three email chains contained “portion markings”, simply a “(C)” indicating “Confidential” in front of one or more paragraphs. These were not included in Comey’s list of 110 because the State Department failed to confirm they were classified at the time they were sent. [Remarkably,] Clinton told the FBI she did not know the meaning of “(C)”. Nearly 2,100 emails on the server were retroactively marked as classified by the State Department.

In May 2016, the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General released an 83-page report about the State Department’s email practices, including Clinton’s. On July 5, 2016, Comey announced that the FBI’s investigation had concluded that Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling her email system but recommended that no charges be filed against her. On July 6, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that no charges would be filed. US presidential candidate Donald Trump used the nickname  “Crooked Hillary to criticize Clinton primarily in relation to the email controversy.

The meeting between Lynch and former President Bill Clinton took place in June 2016, while the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Bill Clinton boarded Lynch’s plane while it was on the tarmac at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport. The following month, then-FBI Director James Comey announced the bureau would not recommend that the Department of Justice pursue charges in the email probe. Comey has testified before Congress that Lynch asked him to refer to the probe as a “matter,” a request that made him feel “queasy.”

The internal emails show that on June 29, 2016, a senior spokeswoman for the Justice Department emailed her counterparts at the FBI to flag articles that were starting to appear about the meeting. In the email, the spokeswoman, Melanie Newman, described the encounter as “a casual, unscheduled meeting.” She provided talking points, which are redacted in the released version.

That same day, multiple FBI officials sent links about the story to Comey, who responded to one email, “Got it, thanks sir.” Also on those email chains were FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whom President Donald Trump and others have accused of a pro-Clinton bias because his wife received money for a political campaign from entities associated with Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally; and Peter Strzok, who was removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team because of text messages critical of Trump. Strzok oversaw the Clinton email investigation.

But after Observer published an article containing additional details about the encounter, citing an anonymous “security source” who had been present, the FBI and Justice Department moved from damage control to discussions about identifying the source and punishing that person, the emails show. At the time, the publisher of Observer was Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and one of his senior advisers.”

The real reason for the almost clandestine meeting? To promise Loretta Lynch a (newly vacant because of the mysterious death of Antonin Scalia – his body was cremated without proper authority ad within hours of his isolated death in Texas) seat on the United States Supreme Court if she would sabotage the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation by the FBI – which she did through the orders to FBI Director, James Comey discussed above.

“On July 7, 2016, the State Department reopened its probe into the email controversy. On October 28, 2016, Comey notified Congress that the FBI had started looking into newly discovered emails that may be pertinent to the case. Law enforcement officials stated the emails were found on a laptop belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s husband, Amnthony Weiner, during an investigation of his sexting scandal. On November 6, Comey notified Congress that the FBI had not changed its conclusion, reached in July, regarding Clinton’s emails. Post-election analyses of media coverage during the 2016 presidential campaign show that the Clinton email controversy received the most extensive coverage of any topic. On January 4, 2018 it was reported that the Department of Justice had re-opened the Clinton email investigation

As if the emails of the former Secretary of State were not under investigation, on September 2015 the FBI contacts the Democratic National Committee’s help desk, cautioning the IT department that at least one of its computers has been compromised by Russian hackers. A technician scans the system and does not find anything suspicious.

The following chronology evolves around Russiagate – referring to the ongoing political scandal surrounding a series of allegations regarding President Donald Trump’s ties to the Russian government, including speculation of collusion between the Trump Presidential campaign and the Russian hack of the DNC email server:

November 2015 – The FBI reaches out to the DNC again, warning them that one of their computers is transmitting information back to Russia. DNC management later says that IT technicians failed to pass along the message that the system had been breached.

 March 19, 2016 – Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta receives a phishing email masked as an alert from Google that another user had tried to access his account. It contains a link to a page where Podesta can change his password. He shares the email with a staffer from the campaign’s help desk. The staffer replies with a typo – instead of typing “This is an illegitimate email,” the staffer types “This is a legitimate email.” Podesta follows the instructions and types a new password, allowing hackers to access his emails.

 April 2016  The Washington Post reported that attorney Marc E. Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained Fusion GPS to conduct the questionable anti-Trump work on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Through Perkins Coie, Clinton’s campaign and the DNC continued to fund Fusion GPS until October 2016, days before Election Day.

 May 2016   the Department’s Office of the Inspector General, Steve Linick released an 83-page report about the State Department’s email practices. The Inspector General was unable to find evidence that Clinton had ever sought approval from the State Department staff for her use of a private email server, determining that if Clinton had sought approval, Department staff would have declined her setup because of the “security risks in doing so”. Aside from security risks, the report stated that “she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” Each of these findings contradicted what Clinton and her aides had been saying up to that point. The report also stated that Clinton and her senior aides declined to speak with the investigators, while the previous four Secretaries of State did so.

 June 12, 2016 – During an interview on British television, WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange says that the website has obtained and will publish a batch of Clinton emails.

 June 14, 2016 – The Washington Post reports hackers working for the Russian government accessed the DNC’s computer system, stealing oppositional research on Donald Trump and viewing staffers’ emails and chat exchanges. The Kremlin, however, denies that the government was linked to the hack, and a US official tells CNN that investigators have not yet concluded that the cyberattack was directed by the Russian government.

 June 15, 2016 – A cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC posts a public notice on its website describing an attack on the political committee’s computer network by two groups associated with Russian intelligence. According to the post, two Russian-backed groups called “Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear” tunneled into the committee’s computer system. In response, a blogger called Guccifer 2.0 claims that he alone conducted the hack, not the Russians. As proof, he posts internal DNC memos and opposition research on Trump. Furthermore, Guccifer 2.0 claims to have passed along thousands of files to WikiLeaks . Trump offers his own theory on the origins of the attack: suggesting in a statement that the DNC hacked itself to distract from Clinton’s email scandal – perhaps closer to the truth than we know.

 July 22, 2016 – Days before the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks publishes nearly 20,000 emails hacked from the DNC server. The documents include notes in which DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz insults staffers from the Bernie Sanders campaign and messages that suggest the organization was favoring Clinton rather than remaining neutral. Wasserman Schultz resigns in the aftermath of the leak.

 July 25, 2016 – The FBI announces it has launched an investigation into the DNC hack. Although the statement doesn’t indicate that the agency has a particular suspect or suspects in mind, US officials tell CNN they think the cyberattack is linked to Russia.

 July 27, 2016 – During a press conference, Trump talks about Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state and calls on hackers to find deleted emails. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” says Trump. Newt Gingrich, a Trump surrogate, defends Trump in a Tweet, dismissing the comment as a “joke.”

 August 12, 2016 – Hackers publish cell phone numbers and personal email addresses for Nancy Pelosi and other members of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Pelosi says she has received “obscene and sick calls” from strangers. She advises targeted colleagues not to allow children or family members to answer the phone or read text messages.

 September 1, 2016 – During an interview with Bloomberg News, President Vladimir Putin says that he and the Russian government have no ties to the hackers. He says that the identity of the culprit or culprits is not as important as the content of the leaks, and ultimately the hackers revealed important information for voters.

 September 22, 2016 – Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Adam Schiff [son-in-law of notorious Democrat financier, George Soros], ranking members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, issue a joint statement declaring that based on information they received during congressional briefings, they believe that Russian intelligence agencies are carrying out a plan to interfere with the election. They call on Putin to order a halt to the activities.

 September 26, 2016 – During a presidential debate with Clinton, Trump questions whether the DNC cyberattack was carried out by a state-sponsored group or a lone hacker. “It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.”

October-November 2016 – Over the course of a month, WikiLeaks publishes more than 58,000 messages hacked from the account of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman.

 October 6, 2016 – DCLeaks, a self-described collective of “hacktivists” seeking to expose the influence of special interests on elected officials, publishes a batch of documents stolen from Clinton ally Capricia Marshall. DCLeaks is later identified as a front for Russian military intelligence.

 October 7, 2016 – The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of National Intelligence on Election Security issues a statement declaring that the intelligence community is “confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions.” According to the statement, document releases on websites WikiLeaks and DCLeaks mirror the methods and motivations of past Russian-directed cyberattacks.

 November 29, 2016 – A group of Democratic senators sends a letter to President Barack Obama calling on intelligence agencies to declassify information about “the Russian Government and the US election.” Sources later tell CNN that new intelligence has been shared with lawmakers suggesting that Russia’s purpose for meddling in the election was to sway voters towards Trump, rather than broadly undermining confidence in the system.

 December 9, 2016 – The Washington Post reports the CIA has determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. [No justification for such an incendiary conclusion is ever provided!] The Trump transition team dismisses the CIA’s findings, releasing a statement, “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” 

 President Obama asks intelligence agencies to review the hacking incidents in 2016 and other cyberattacks on political campaigns dating back to 2008. The agencies are asked to deliver their findings before Obama leaves office on January 20, 2017. A Russian foreign ministry spokesman expresses skepticism about the review and asks US investigators to share their evidence of government-sponsored cyber espionage. Meanwhile, media critics question the Post‘s reliance on anonymous sources for the CIA report and advise readers to be wary of claims in the article due to the lack of publicly available evidence to support the spy agency’s conclusions.

 December 10, 2016 – John McCain, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham and Jack Reed issue a joint statement calling on Congressional Republicans and Democrats to work cooperatively on securing future elections and stopping cyber-attacks.

 December 11, 2016 – Sources tell CNN that although US intelligence agencies share the belief that Russia played a role in the computer hacks, there is disagreement between the CIA and the FBI about the intent of the meddling. 

While the CIA assessment shows that the Russians may have sought to damage Clinton and help Trump, the FBI has yet to find proof that the attacks were orchestrated to elect the Republican candidate, according to unnamed officials.

 December 29, 2016  the day the Obama administration announced punitive measures against Russia for the hacking, former National Security Advisor and Trump-campaign adviser Michael Flynn spoke with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak earlier in December – after Trump was elected President and during the transition period]. On February 9th, despite Flynn’s denial, officials said that Flynn discussed the sanctions against Russia with Kremlin officials before Trump took office [later revealed to be a false report]. Flynn resigned as National Security Advisor shortly after, claiming he had misled Vice President Mike Pence as to the nature of his talks with Kislyak.

 January 10, 2017  CNN reported that both President Barack Obama and President-Elect Donald Trump received a classified debriefing of allegations from a credible [but unidentified] source that the Russian government has been covertly gathering compromisable personal and financial information about Trump, all the while regularly exchanging information with his campaign team through indirect channels.

About an hour after CNN broke the story, BuzzFeed News published the full-length version of the document, a 25-page long dossier compiled by a former British MI6 agent with ties to the U.S. spy agencies and prepared as opposition research for a bipartisan group of anti-Trump Republicans and Democrats.

February 2017  the Justice Department claimed that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had also met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on two occasions while Sessions was an adviser for the Trump campaign. This revelation [apparently] contradicted Session’s testimony during his Senate confirmation hearing, in which he stated that he no contact with Russian officials [although in later testimony he stated that he may have talked inconsequentially with him at a diplomatic reception]. On March 2nd, Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation into the Russian hacking.

 March 2, 2017  Carter Page, a former Foreign Policy adviser for the Trump campaign, made an appearance on All In w/ Chris Hayes, during which he said that he “did not deny” meeting with Sergey Kislyak while he was an adviser for the campaign. [This admission was then used as a reason to ask the FISA court to issue a warrant to intercept all of his communications. A year later, nothing further has been heard about Carter Page!]

If your head is now spinning, don’t worry. There will be a short, simple synopsis at the end. Next time: More Keystone Cops.