Saturday, November 16, 2019

Better Served if...

The Impeachment Circus Is Keeping Congress 

From Doing Its Real Job

The American people would be better served if Democrats worked with the president rather than spending three years drumming up conspiracy theories.

Three years after President Donald Trump captured the White House, Democrats are aggressively pushing a partisan impeachment inquiry while several of their attempts to undo the 2016 election have already failed since Trump took office.

On election night, President Trump shocked the political establishment and won a big victory in the Electoral College with 304 votes to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 227. While Democrats keep noting Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million, her extra votes came entirely from within California, proving the worth of the constitutionally created Electoral College and serving as a critical reminder that the United States is indeed a republic, not a democracy.

Regardless, Democrats have repeatedly called Trump an illegitimate chief executive and have pursued radical conspiracy theories to oust the Republican president ever since inauguration. From arguing the president is mentally unfit to serve to alleging that Trump is a Russian agent — which, after a two-year special counsel investigation with unlimited resources found that not one person on the president’s campaign, let alone the president, colluded with the Russian government — Democrats have now honed in on an even weaker case to make their latest move on impeachment.

In August, details of an anonymous whistleblower complaint lodged against the president surfaced in media complicit in Democrats’ efforts to remove Trump from office. The complaint, which has since been made public, focuses on a July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where the president allegedly conspired with the Ukrainian government to investigate political opponents at home.

The unredacted transcript of the call was shortly declassified and released to the public following media reports of the anonymous whistleblower complaint, which was marked as “credible” and “urgent” by the intelligence community inspector general but not by the Department of National Intelligence.

The big reveal from its release? That Trump requested the Ukrainian government investigate corruption and the origins of the nation’s role in peddling the grand Russian conspiracy theory that did irreparable damage to the United States. That’s the alleged “high crime and misdemeanor” Democrats have based their latest impeachment efforts on.

Nevermind that releasing the transcript of a conversation with a foreign leader is unprecedented and hampers U.S. foreign relations with other countries, the constant efforts by Democrats to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election are hurting the nation.

The Mueller investigation dominated the news cycle for years, distracting politicians and the media from focusing on real issues the public cares and ought to care about. It also impeded administration efforts with lawmakers to pursue policy objectives critical to the public’s interest, forcing the White House to instead combat a cooked-up conspiracy theory asserting Trump to be a Russian agent.

While the Trump White House has certainly enjoyed some important successes in the past three years, from passing landmark tax reform, appointing a record number of federal judges to the bench, and achieving an impressive deregulatory agenda, the never-ending calls for impeachment from Democrats have derailed important policy goals, even those that are bipartisan.

Once House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California opened an impeachment inquiry in September, which wasn’t voted on by the full chamber for more than a month, all legislating came to a grinding halt. There were several important measures going through the process, too, including a bill to lower drug prices, a critical and bipartisan objective. Now, the “Lower Drug Costs Now Act” that was being shepherded through the House Ways and Means Committee has been dismissed by many as a dead effort.

Matt Weidinger, a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, writes that the bill’s demise is a direct result of Democratic impeachment efforts, where the forces pushing for impeachment have driven the policy debate to the left, prompting Democrats to take a partisan approach to crafting the bill. When the measure came up for consideration in committee, it passed along party lines and is expected to be rejected by the Republican-controlled Senate.

The failure to compromise on this important legislation is harming Americans desperately in need of lower drug costs, and it’s thanks to Democrats’ refusal to accept the results of an election three years ago that its future is now in peril.

A monumental trade deal now also hangs in the balance over impeachment. Since the executive branch finished negotiations for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) to replace the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) last November, it has been up to Pelosi to bring legislation ratifying the treaty up for a vote. Mexico has already ratified the agreement, but the United States and Canada have not.

Some have been more optimistic about getting the agreement passed through Congress and signed by the president, as Pelosi said Thursday that a deal with the administration on the final details could be “imminent.” The White House is hoping to get the agreement through the legislative process by the end of the year as the 2020 election approaches, whereas no agreement on the deal could lead to years of new rounds of negotiations to replace the outdated existing agreement under NAFTA.

The fact is, impeachment brings legislating to a grinding halt. The American public would be better served if Democrats followed the will of the people and came to the table to work with the constitutionally elected president rather than spending three years drumming up conspiracy theories to reverse the results of a free and fair election.

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

More No Firsthand Knowledge

Marie Yovanovitch Testifies 

She Has No Firsthand Knowledge of Trump's Ukraine Phone Call or Delay in Aid

Marie Yovanovitch Testifies She Has No Firsthand Knowledge of Trump's Ukraine Phone Call or Delay in Aid
Former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch confirmed in her opening statement on Friday she has no firsthand knowledge of President Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The phone call is at the center of the complaint filed by the whistleblower, which started the impeachment inquiry.

Yovanovitch added she does not have firsthand knowledge of the delay or the discussion surrounding the delay in military aid to Ukraine.

Yovanovitch was removed from her post before Trump's phone call with Zelensky. She said Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, had started a "smear campaign" against her that eventually led to her removal.

"I arrived in Ukraine on August 22nd, 2016, and left Ukraine permanently on May 20th, 2019. There are a number of events you are investigating to which I cannot bring any firsthand knowledge," Yovanovitch said.

"The events that predated my Ukraine service include, the release of the so-called black ledger and Mr. [Paul] Manafort’s subsequent resignation from President Trump’s campaign and the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. And several other events occurred after I returned from the Ukraine. These include President Trump’s July 25th, 2019 call with President Zelensky. The discussions surrounding that phone call and any discussions surrounding the delay of security assistance to Ukraine in the summer of 2019," she continued.

Just as the impeachment inquiry hearing started, the White House released the memo of Trump's first phone call with Zelensky in April. In the call, which took place after Zelensky's election victory, Trump invited him to visit the White House at some point.

Adam Schiff Does Not Like It When A Republican Woman Speaks Without His Permission



House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., prohibited Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., from asking questions to former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch when Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., attempted to yield time to the New York congresswoman.
How many times can Adam Schiff say “the Gentlewoman is NOT recognized”? He clearly has NO interest in letting Republicans have any say in the impeachment hearings. Watch him interrupt us multiple times and refuse to yield for our parliamentary questions👇👇 pic.twitter.com/DnudgOe5Ed
— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) November 15, 2019
Stefanik attempted to question the witness testifying before the committee multiple times as Schiff repeatedly shut her down.

“The gentlewoman is not recognized,” Schiff asserted again and again.

The House Intelligence Committee chairman’s conduct exposes a flagrant double-standard. If Stefanik were a Democrat, the liberals and media would be screaming with allegations of sexism.
He told an elected female member of Congress to be quiet and then allowed a male staffer to speak instead of her. https://t.co/sMrzweKOVe
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 15, 2019
On the Republican's time, Adam Schiff silences a female member of Congress who tries to question a female witness. So, when you hear the narrative that Republican men bullied a female witness, don't buy it.
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) November 15, 2019
Clearly @RepAdamSchiff is threatened by @EliseStefanik speaking at all.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 15, 2019
Schiff’s denial of Republican members’ rights to ask questions during impeachment hearings has been a recurring pattern throughout the process, from the closed-door testimonies to the public proceedings.
Nunes just yielded time to @RepStefanik, and Schiff just told her she's not allowed to speak. He's done that repeatedly today to her. Stefanik noted this was the 5th or 6th time today Schiff told Republicans they weren't allowed to ask questions.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 15, 2019
Schiff’s witnesses have also been dismissive of Republican members. Last week, Alexander Vindman’s attorney made a sexist remark toward Stefanik and declined he knew who she was in an attempt to avoid answering the congresswoman’s questions.
“First off, I don’t know who you are, if you could identify yourself for the record,” Michael Volkov, Vindman’s attorney, said during closed-door testimony. Steve Castor, the Republican attorney leading questions for the minority, reminded Volkov who Stefanik is.

The Albany Times Union’s managing editor touted that moment, provoking a response from Stefanik.

“Sad when the editor of the @timesunion spouts off about what everyone who was in the room knows was a sexist remark just because I was the only young woman at the table and it was wrongly assumed I was staff,” Stefanik wrote on Twitter, adding that multiple members of both parties approached her about how it was “disgusting to witness.”
Sad when the editor of the @timesunion spouts off about what everyone who was in the room knows was a sexist remark just because I was the only young woman at the table and it was wrongly assumed I was staff 👇 Multiple R and D Members told me how this was disgusting to witness. https://t.co/2LaH0W3lQn
— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) November 8, 2019
The partisan impeachment proceedings spearheaded by Schiff have been biased against Republicans from the start. The rules of impeachment, which Democrats claim are the fairest ever passed by the House, prohibit Republican lawmakers from subpoenaing witnesses or evidence without Democratic approval. These rights were granted to the minority party in both the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings.

Elise Stefanik: “The One Woman Impeachment Wrecking Crew”

Elise Stefanik has an uncanny ability to strip away the BS and get to the nub of the matter. No wonder Adam Schiff wants to shut her up.


If you’ve been following The Conservative Treehouse during this three-year-long effort to take out President Trump, you are well familiar with Elise Stefanik (R-NY).  She’s the young Representative on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who backed James Comey into a corner during his March 2017 testimony.

Thanks to Stefanik, we learned that Comey deliberately bypassed standard operating procedure and kept Congress in the dark on the so-called “investigation” of Donald Trump.

Elise Stefanik has an uncanny ability to strip away the BS and get to the nub of the matter.
Which may explain why during the non-witness testimony of disgruntled former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Adam Schiff continually shut Stefanik down.

Not that it did any good.

When Elise Stefanik finally had some time to ask questions, she once again stripped away the BS and exposed the non-witness as a liar.

In her opening statement, Yovanovitch made this claim:

”I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.”

Then when Stefanik finally had a chance to question the disgruntled former ambassador, she got Yovanovitch to admit the opposite.



I especially liked the way Stefanik indulged in the same flattery and praise the Democrats used when fawning all over this disgruntled former ambassador.  My guess is, given the lofty sense of self-importance Yovanovitch displayed throughout the hearing, this flattery completely disarmed her for what was coming next.

Without even realizing it, Stefanik got Yovanovitch to acknowledge that her opening statement was a lie.

The “previous Administration” absolutely “raised the issue” of Burisma and Hunter Biden with her.

Ironic, isn’t it? Elise Stefanik got Yovanovitch to contradict her own sworn testimony on the very same day Roger Stone was found guilty of lying to Congress.

Stefanik also hammered Adam Schiff as if she was the one wielding the gavel.  And it was absolutely Schadenfreuderrific.



Schiff’s arrogance and obsessive need for media fawning are his weakness – mostly because he is incredibly reckless and irresponsible with what he says when the cameras are rolling.  Elise Stefanik using that very weakness and jamming Schiff’s own words down his throat was masterful.

Just look at his face.  Deep in that lizard brain of his, Adam is already trying to figure out how to spin this during his next appearance on CNN and MSNBC.

It’s a wonder his eyes weren’t bugging out of his head.


Naturally the media is already working to destroy Elise Stefanik.  And that pretty much tells me all I need to know.

In fact, the very same media outlets that couldn’t get enough of Elizabeth Warren being “silenced” by Mitch McConnell are cheering over Schiff repeatedly shutting down Stefanik’s attempts to question the non-witness.  Because, of course they are.






But as they always say, “If you’re getting flak, you know you’re over the target.”

Elise Stefanik is tearing the impeachment narrative to shreds.  That’s bad for Adam Schiff.  But it is doubly bad for the corporate news media that is fully invested in taking out Donald Trump by banging the impeachment drums.

That’s why, despite Republicans like Stefanik exposing the sheer stupidity of having a disgruntled former ambassador who witnessed absolutely nothing being cast in the role of “star witness,” the media is acting as if Yovanovitch’s testimony was a game-changer.

And while the media blusters and cheers pretending that “this time we got him!” most people outside of the media bubble who aren’t dyed-in-the-wool ResistanceLOL know this sham impeachment isn’t going well for Adam Schiff and the Democrats.

Trump’s approval numbers continue to climb; and his campaign continues to haul in contributions from small-money donors.

Meanwhile, every day Republicans are given an opportunity to tell a national audience about the actual corruption vis-à-vis Ukraine: Joe Robinette Biden – something Julie Kelly pointed out in her column yesterday: Impeachment Inquiry is bad for Biden.

Every witness thus far has acknowledged the concerns the Obama State Department had over Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma.  And who was one of the Republicans getting that information from the witnesses?

Elise Stefanik.

As Sean Davis of the Federalist said yesterday on Twitter, Stefanik is “a one-woman impeachment wrecking crew.”

Is it any wonder Adam Schiff and his media handmaids want to shut her up?


Ruling Class, Here’s Your Warning

 Article by Eric Georgatos in "The American Thinker":

“Sundance” at the popular website “Conservative Treehouse” has posited that the ruling class plan that Americans are about to watch unfold inside the Beltway basically involves a three-step process:  (1) the House votes for impeachment, (2) the Senate holds a six toeight-week trial and votes to convict and remove the President, and (3) Vice President Pence becomes President, and Nikki Haley, fresh off a scripted book tour plan to increase her visibility and acceptability, gets the appointment to serve as vice president. 

The troublesome Trump will be done away with, order will be restored, and the Vindmans of D.C. can resume their rightful place as the determiners of American government policy, foreign and domestic.  Enough ‘Republicans’ will be bought off by Pence’s seeming conservatism and Haley’s professed loyalty to Trump (at least as compared to John Kelly and Rex Tillerson) to quell any resistance from the knuckle-dragging far right.

Sundance has a pretty good record of reading the political tea leaves in this coup era, so it’s pretty jolting to get his read in such explicit terms. 

If Sundance is right as to the plan, we’d like to interject right now a blunt warning to the ruling class elite from both parties who might lend their support, or withhold their resistance, to such a plan:  borrowing from the truly impactful words once uttered by Bush 41 – “this will not stand.”

The ruling class has swallowed the lies that the Beltway and its Pravda media and its Big Tech allies control the news cycle; that Lawfare sophists control the definition of fairness, due process, and justice; that a controlling majority of Americans think history began the day before yesterday, and accordingly will accept their plan with a shrug of the shoulders and go back to their meaningless, uninspired, disengaged lives.  Sure, a few might feel more than a shrug of the shoulders, and some may cling to their guns and Bibles and offer those silly ‘thoughts and prayers’, but in the end, they can be counted on to move on.

Ain’t gonna happen.

We’ve previously chronicled the accumulating resentments from the Obama regime that elected Donald Trump to the Presidency.  The fire stoked by those resentments has not subsided, and Coup #1, the Russia Collusion fraud, and Coup #2, the Ciaramella/Pajama Boy whistleblower fraud, have thrown the highest-octane gasoline imaginable on that fire.  The ruling class has no idea how hot and nationwide that fire is.

Adam Schiff apparently has enough Pravda sycophants around him to make him think his orchestrated show trial is winning hearts and minds across the country.  He is out of his mind. 

Secret testimony, selective leaking, manipulatively edited transcripts, posturing about the nonexistent sacredness of whistleblower anonymity (after an Obama administration that terrorized whistleblowers), and all the while whistling past the manifest corruption of the Biden family as if Americans can’t see it -- Schiff’s fraud has exceeded the capacity of the English language to convey its depravity and moral bankruptcy.  “Disgusting, disgraceful, egregious, unconscionable, abominable” -- these are level 2 or 3 words for a level 10 travesty.

So what will it mean to say “this will not stand”? 

There’s a spirit and power in American ideals that cannot long be mocked by men and women, no matter how credentialed or clever they might be. 

And here’s a word -- which seems to be to the ruling class like garlic to a vampire -- that explains the spirit and power of these ideals:  they are divine.  You may fight against them if you want, and your fight may cause catastrophe for a while, but you will not win.  Slavery couldn’t possibly be reconciled with American ideals, and America’s first Civil War stands as the example of what happens when the ruling classes try to deny or sidestep or outrun or overrule these divine ideals

We most often speak of these ideals in the vernacular of the Declaration of Independence -- all men (and women) created equal; all endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, including the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  But here’s a formulation of one of those divine ideals in different terms:  it is the right of we the people to ‘self-government under God.’ 

The individual, as Ayn Rand put it, is the smallest minority on earth, and in America, the individual is sovereign, free.  The government doesn’t exist to rule him; he governs himself, and the government’s job is to protect his right to do so.  He doesn’t stand for a tyrannical mob telling him what he can do with his life, how much of what he earns he can keep, what his carbon footprint can be, what his food and drink shall be, what temperature his thermostat can be set to, what and where and from whom he shall obtain healthcare.  He owes faithfulness and obedience to the God of the Bible, to live as best he can in accord with the ideal of loving his neighbor as himself, but he doesn’t need legislators to tell him how to do that.

And he sure as hell doesn’t stand still to have King George in the 1700s or the Deep State in the 2000s tell him who the President of the United States of America can or cannot be. 

Most Americans know the nation as they have understood it is fundamentally at risk in 2019.  They are smarter than the ruling class believes; they know no matter how loudly Pravda screams to the contrary, this war in 2019 is not about the icky personality of Donald Trump.  It’s about the future of a divinely inspired idea called America.  Taking down Trump is a proxy for taking down America; it’s about taking down the idea of individual freedom and self-government; ultimately, it’s about taking down the idea of God.

Ain’t gonna happen.

Ruling class, you’ve been warned.
 

William Barr: Democrats' investigations into Trump are political harassment meant to 'sabotage' his presidency

 Article by Kevin Johnson:

Attorney General William Barr said Friday that President Donald Trump's political opponents have pursued a "scorched earth, no-holds-barred resistance" meant to "sabotage" his presidency.

"The pursuit of scores of investigations and an avalanche of subpoenas is meant to incapacitate" the administration, Barr said in a biting address to the conservative Federalist Society. 

The attorney general, in a full-throated defense of the president, said the political "harassment" contravenes the intent of the Constitution's framers who, he said, meant to provide the chief executive with sweeping authority.

"I am convinced that the deck has been stacked against the executive," Barr said.

Barr's remarks came as Trump has been swept up in an impeachment inquiry over allegations he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations into political rival and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.

Before Friday, Barr had said little publicly about the impeachment proceedings, suggesting he might be attempting to distance himself from Trump. But his remarks left no doubt he stands with the president.

He lamented a "steady encroachment of executive authority" that he claimed had "substantially weakened the institution of the presidency." And he said Congress has "drowned" the administration with demands for testimony and documents.
Hours before Barr addressed the Federalist Society, Trump's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to review a lawsuit in which they are attempting to block a congressional subpoena for Trump's tax returns. 

Although Barr was applauded several times Friday by the friendly audience, he has drawn criticism from Democrats for his staunch defense of Trump.

A month after taking office in February, he concluded that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation had not gathered enough evidence to charge the president with obstruction of justice.





AG Bill Barr Speaks About The Damage to Our Nation From The “Resistance”

A rather lengthy speech by U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr to the Federalist Society is getting some increased attention today for the specific focus on how the executive branch has been weakened over the past several decades.

More specifically, AG Barr discusses how, in the Trump-era, the resistance movement has abdicated their legislative power and responsibility in favor of a politically motivated intent to harm the constitutional executive power.  

Does being a political opponent of an administration make you immune from investigation?

The allegation at the heart of the impeachment inquiry is that Trump used the power of the presidency in an attempt to force an investigation into a political opponent.  Let's be clear - it is not arguable that presidential power includes demanding investigations or using American influence to pressure other countries to do them.  Can we all agree on that?

One other point to get out of the way at the outset - the last 3 years establish that it is 100% ok for an administration to conduct an investigation of its political opponent.  The Obama administration did exactly that in its investigation of Trump as a co-conspirator in the Russian interference with the 2016 election.  So, presiding over an investigation into a political opponent is totally legit and beyond question.  The only distinction that can be drawn is that it's ok to preside over it, you just cannot request it.

All of that out of the way, the only remaining issue is whether using presidential power to demand an investigation, a totally legitimate exercise of power, does not extend to ordering investigations into political opponents - immunity.

How far would this immunity extend?  Is it just to people running against you?  Would it extend to someone who posts everyday about how horrible of a president you are?  Could a president order an investigation into that political opponent?  If he did would it be impeachable?

How about Michael Avenatti?  He was a personal and litigious opponent of the president and even floated the idea of running against him.  He is being investigated and prosecuted.  If Trump had ordered it, could he be impeached?

Is the distinction that Avenatti did it while Hunter Biden didn't?

None of this follows logically.  If everything about the facts alleged was precisely the same except instead of Burisma and Hunter, it was Bill Gates and Microsoft, would impeachment be on the table?

Lots of questions and no answers.  Do you have any?

1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . GO!


Whatever Happened to Teaching History?

Article by Cal Thomas in "mrcNewsbusters":

According to a report by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the teaching of U.S. history to American students lags behind all other subject matters.

The latest NAEP survey finds that proficiency levels for fourth-, eighth- and 12th-grade students are in the 20, 18 and 12th percentile, respectively.

Part of this, I suspect, is the way the subject is taught. History is boring to many students. It was boring to me in high school and college. Who wants to read about a bunch of dead white men one cannot view on video, or even in high-resolution photographs?

I asked David M. Rubenstein about this. Rubenstein has so many titles and accomplishments, including co-founder and co-executive chairman of the private equity firm, the Carlyle Group, and chairman of the Board of Trustees for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

His new book, The American Story: Conversations with Master Historians, is a series of interviews with contemporary writers, including Jon Meacham, Doris Kearns Goodwin, David McCullough, Robert Caro and Jay Winik. All have written highly readable biographies that metaphorically raise America's Founders and other important historical figures from the dead, making readers feel they are in the same room where they speak to us today.

Why does Rubenstein think U.S. history has taken a back seat to every other subject? He replied: “To some extent it started after Sputnik in 1957 when people were concerned that our science and technology were not as good as the Soviets ... then when China came along as an economic and technological threat ... the emphasis on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) became a bigger deal. Also, I think parents said to their children ‘make sure you study something that will get you a job when you graduate.’ All of this made history go down and therefore we don't teach it very much.”

Rubenstein tells me this is not in his book, but something he finds shocking: “Today you can graduate from any college in the United States without having to take an American history course and you can graduate as a history major in 80 percent of the colleges and not have to take an American history course.”

As if this were not stunning enough, he adds: “A recent survey revealed that if one is foreign born and wishes to become a citizen, you have to be a resident for five years. It used to be 14. After five years you take a test. Ninety-one percent of the people pass. The same test was given to native-born citizens in all 50 states by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. A majority failed in every state, except Vermont. This shows you how bad the situation has gotten.”

Rubenstein says when history is taught it is more about world civilizations than American history. While he says he doesn't think learning about other countries is a bad idea, “it's good to know your own history. I do find as I travel around the world that people know more about American history than people in the United States do.”

While he won't comment on the role political correctness has played in the spinning of American history, the stories one hears coming from public schools and universities seems to confirm that the facts of America's past are being revised to reflect a liberal and contemporary view. That is because some of the Founders owned slaves and explorers like Christopher Columbus are said to have wrecked a society of indigenous people and these “stains” can never be washed away, or at least seen in the context of their major achievements.

David Rubenstein's interviews are a thrilling trip to the past and ought to be required reading for anyone who cares about America's future because, as Shakespeare wrote, “What's past is prologue.”

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/cal-thomas/2019/11/14/whatever-happened-teaching-history

 Image result for cartoons about history

The Origins of the Thought Police

The Origins of the Thought Police—

and Why They Scare Us

In a sense, "1984" is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.

There are a lot of unpleasant things in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Spying screens. Torture and propaganda. Victory Gin and Victory Coffee always sounded particularly dreadful. And there is Winston Smith’s varicose ulcer, apparently a symbol of his humanity (or something), which always seems to be “throbbing.” Gross.

None of this sounds very enjoyable, but it’s not the worst thing in 1984. To me, the most terrifying part was that you couldn’t keep Big Brother out of your head.

Unlike other 20th-century totalitarians, the authoritarians in 1984 aren’t that interested in controlling behavior or speech. They do, of course, but it’s only as a means to an end. Their real goal is to control the gray matter between the ears.

“When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will,” O’Brien (the bad guy) tells the protagonist Winston Smith near the end of the book.
We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.

Big Brother’s tool for doing this is the Thought Police, aka the ThinkPol, who are assigned to root out and punish unapproved thoughts. We see how this works when Winston’s neighbor Parsons, an obnoxious Party sycophant, is reported to the Thought Police by his own child, who heard him commit a thought crime while talking in his sleep.

"It was my little daughter," Parsons tells Winston when asked who it was who denounced him. "She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?”
Awkward Science Fiction GIF by CBS All Access - Find & Share on GIPHY


Who Are These Thought Police?

We don’t know a lot about the Thought Police, and some of what we think we know may actually not be true since some of what Winston learns comes from the Inner Party, and they lie.

What we know is this: The Thought Police are secret police of Oceania—the fictional land of 1984 that probably consists of the UK, the Americas, and parts of Africa—who use surveillance and informants to monitor the thoughts of citizens. The Thought Police also use psychological warfare and false-flag operations to entrap free thinkers or nonconformists.

Those who stray from Party orthodoxy are punished but not killed. The Thought Police don’t want to kill nonconformists so much as break them. This happens in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love, where prisoners are re-educated through degradation and torture. (Funny sidebar: the name Room 101 apparently was inspired by a conference room at the BBC in which Orwell was forced to endure tediously long meetings.)
Matthew Broderick Jewish GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY


The Origins of the Thought Police

Orwell didn’t create the Thought Police out of thin air. They were inspired to at least some degree by his experiences in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), a complicated and confusing affair. What you really need to know is that there were no good guys, and it ended with left-leaning anarchists and Republicans in Spain crushed by their Communist overlords, which helped the fascists win.

Orwell, an idealistic 33-year-old socialist when the conflict started, supported the anarchists and loyalists fighting for the left-leaning Second Spanish Republic, which received most of its support from the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin. (That might sound bad, but keep in mind that the Nazis were on the other side.) Orwell described the atmosphere in Barcelona in December 1936 when everything seemed to be going well for his side.
The anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing ... It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle,

he wrote in Homage to Catalonia. 
[E]very wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle ... every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized.

That all changed pretty fast. Stalin, a rather paranoid fellow, was bent on making Republican Spain loyal to him. Factions and leaders perceived as loyal to his exiled Communist rival, Leon Trotsky, were liquidated. Loyal Communists found themselves denounced as fascists. Nonconformists and “uncontrollables” were disappeared.

Orwell never forgot the purges or the steady stream of lies and propaganda churned out from Communist papers during the conflict. (To be fair, their Nationalist opponents also used propaganda and lies.) Stalin’s NKVD was not exactly like the Thought Police—the NKVD showed less patience with its victims—but they certainly helped inspire Orwell’s secret police.

The Thought Police were not all propaganda and torture, though. They also stem from Orwell’s ideas on truth. During his time in Spain, he saw how power could corrupt truth, and he shared these reflections in his work George Orwell: My Country Right or Left, 1940-1943.
...I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

In short, Orwell’s brush with totalitarianism left him worried that “the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.”

This scared him. A lot. He actually wrote, “This kind of thing is frightening to me.”
Scared Jonah Hill GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY
Finally, the Thought Police were also inspired by the human struggle for self-honesty and the pressure to conform. “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe,” Rudyard Kipling once observed.

The struggle to remain true to one’s self was also felt by Orwell, who wrote about “the smelly little orthodoxies” that contend for the human soul. Orwell prided himself with a "power of facing unpleasant facts"—something of a rarity in humans—even though it often hurt him in British society.

In a sense, 1984 is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.

More Prophetic Than He Knew?

It might be tempting to dismiss Orwell’s book as a figment of dystopian literature. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. Modern history shows he was onto something.

When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police, had a full-time staff of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what’s frightening is that the organization had almost double that in informants, including children. And it wasn’t just children reporting on parents; sometimes it was the other way around.

Nor did the use of state spies to prosecute thoughtcrimes end with the fall of the Soviet Union. Believe it or not, it’s still happening today. The New York Times recently ran a report featuring one Peng Wei, a 21-year-old Chinese chemistry major. He is one of the thousands of “student information officers” China uses to root out professors who show signs of disloyalty to President Xi Jinping or the Communist Party.

The New Thought Police?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution, fortunately, largely protects Americans from the creepy authoritarian systems found in 1984, East Germany, and China; but the rise of “cancel culture” shows the pressure to conform to all sorts of orthodoxies (smelly or not) remains strong.

The new Thought Police may be less sinister than the ThinkPol in 1984, but the next generation will have to decide if seeking conformity of thought or language through public shaming is healthy or suffocating. FEE’s Dan Sanchez recently observed that many people today feel like they’re “walking on eggshells” and live in fear of making a verbal mistake that could draw condemnation.
Burn GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

That’s a lot of pressure, especially for people still learning the acceptable boundaries of a new moral code that is constantly evolving. Most people, if the pressure is sufficient, will eventually say “2+2=5” just to escape punishment. That’s exactly what Winston Smith does at the end of 1984, after all. Yet Orwell also leaves readers with a glimmer of hope.

“Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad,” Orwell wrote. “There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

In other words, the world may be mad, but that doesn’t mean you have to be.

Lying to Congress – Marie Yovanovitch Was Prepped by Obama Administration About Issues With Hunter Biden and Burisma

Representative Elise Stefanik brought to light interesting information today surrounding how the Obama administration was concerned about issues surrounding Vice-President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and his connection to a corrupt Ukraine company Burisma.  This revelation directly contradicted the Yovanovitch opening statement.
During questioning Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch admitted the Obama White House spent time briefing her on how to respond to congress if questions about Hunter Biden and Burisma were raised.  This testimony highlights the concerns by the Obama administration about a clear issue with the Biden family and corrupt Ukraine interests.



This admission by former Ambassador Yovanovitch directly contradicted her testimony that was made only minutes before the admission.  From her opening statement:
[Yovanovitch Opening Statement November 15th, Page #8]