Populism - Right, Left and Trump

Populism - Right, Left and Trump

You’d have to be living on Mars not to be aware of the continuing political polarization of the country.  Many people blame Trump’s election in 2016 as being responsible for this rift, and our cultural and political wars have taken on anti-Trump and “pro-Trump” characteristics.  Truth be told, left and right were in strong opposition long before Trump, and what Trump did was exacerbated the division by applying his own brand of populism, narcissism and crass NY real estate stamp on it.

Forgetting Trump, (hard to do because of our media), the two hard bound positions in politics and culture are, and have been, as follows:

Hard right – Unrelenting socially and fiscally conservative – lower taxes – smaller federal government - individual responsibility - America first – strongly patriotic/nationalistic  - strong borders with restricted immigration – evangelical Christian – religious, not secular - inerrancy of the bible on homosexuality and other ethical/moral issues - remnant undertones of racism, homophobia, misogyny – rural and generally less educated/sophisticated – opposed by preponderance of mainstream media and coastal elites.

Hard left – Democratic socialism bordering on communism – increased taxes and social amenities – social justice – identity politics – diversity – secular, non-religious – pro “black live matter” – pro “antifa” - open borders – illegal alien voting rights – minor voting rights - sanctuary cities – government responsibility for citizens’ welfare – government support for most societal and cultural activities – university speech restrictions – cry rooms – urban”elitist” - backed by preponderance of the mainstream media, Hollywood, comedic voices.

These are some of the extremes.  But these extremes are the starting points for more moderate views on both sides.  Gallup in 2017 estimates that American voters are 36% conservative, 25% liberal and 34% moderate.  http://news.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx.

So political hegemony in this mix in any election cycle depends on how many of the “moderates” or “independents” or “uncommitted” voters (in the swing states) a party can bring to their side.  Obama swung these voters left with his mellifluous rhetoric and ostensibly clean-cut message of peace and hope.  Trump swung them to the right with his showmanship, bluster, vulgarity and America first message.  Generally speaking there is only a relatively thin margin one way or the other in any given election cycle.

This brings us to Trump and his unremitting populism and nationalism.  Trump has become the symbolic conservative piñata for the liberal left and their mainstream media and Hollywood cohorts.  Opposition and “resistance” by the liberal left take the form of ad hominem attacks on Trump and his family and backers, rather than on the substance of executive and legislative efforts.  Trump’s response is straight from his megalomania and narcissism, but limited by the constitution – “I know what’s best, and will apply it”.  He is undoing Obama’s executive orders that never went to congress, both foreign and domestic.  He is applying his business acumen and “art of the deal” to international trade, Korea denuclearization and a raft of other issues, many times seemingly without the trappings of detailed government work, and with his Queens construction background bluster.

All to the howls of the liberal left and MSM, who consider Trump a dangerous, vulgar buffoon, and to the cheers of “middle America”, who considers this billionaire New York real estate mogul and media star, the champion of their economic, patriotic and religious values.  The right-left rift was acerbic enough without Trump, but it has become downright strident and sometimes violent.  Again, the roughly one third of uncommitted voters watch and wait and evaluate and draw their own conclusions at election time.

And we are becoming more tribal.  From identity politics on the left, which elevates societal groups to special privilege, to populism on the right, which fosters forms of exclusivity, our march toward tribalism continues. It mirrors Europe’s and the developed world’s similar political movement, such as Brexit, and right and left wing populism in many countries.  It seems that the honeymoon of the “new world order” is over, and humanity is once again looking inward toward nativism rather than accommodating and accepting unlimited outsiders in the form of immigrants. “Peace and love” seem subrogated to populism, nationalism and tribalism.

It does not take too close an examination of the past to analogize the deleterious nature of unrestrained populism.  The “our tribe first” mentality has resulted in the “isms” of the 19th and 20^th centuries encompassing totalitarian communism, fascism and nazism. One can only hope that the current populist phenomenon serves as a reset and reminder, once again, that humanity will not accept the professed theoretical altruism of the liberal/progressive movement. Some scope must be left for the innate self-sufficiency of human nature.

Ray Gruszecki

June 12, 2018

My Experiences with Shooting and the AR-15

My Experiences with Shooting and the AR-15

I bought an AR-15 HBar (Armalite-16 heavy barrel) in 1986 for use as a high accuracy rifle for high power long range rifle sports shooting.  I had been doing this shooting sport for several years and already owned several military rifles, a bolt action Springfield 03-A3 chambered for 30-03, an M1 Garrand, also in 30-03, and my main high power civilian bolt action rifle, a Winchester Model 70 chambered for .308, with a Hart stainless steel barrel and equipped with competition stock and sights.

As with many high power accuracy shooters, I made my own target rounds by combining specially weighed  brass and bullets with my own powder loads.  Part of the science in accurizing a rifle is choosing several appropriate combinations of bullet weights and powder weights, creating the completed rounds, then testing on a firing range for accuracy.  My AR-15 shot accurately up to 300 yards with 52 grain bullets, but they would “keyhole” at 600 yards, so I developed a load for 69 grain Sierra HPBT bullets, which shot well at 600 yards.

As a refresher, the national match high power rifle course (all iron sights) consists of 1.) 10 shots standing at 200 yards within 10 minutes, 2.) 10 shots standing to sitting at 200 yards within 60 seconds, 3.) 10 shots standing to prone at 300 yards within 70 seconds, 4.) 20 shots prone at 600 yards within 20 minutes.  Total 50 shots.  Regional course increases all four stages to 20 shots each.

For about ten years in the 1980-90’s, I was a member of the Fort Worth Rifle and Pistol club, now defunct.  We shot high power matches every month during that time.  I also participated in State championship high power rifle matches in Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico, and in the national competitions in Camp Perry Ohio each year.  The reigning national high power rifle champion for many of those years was David Tubb from Canadien, Texas.  Many of my other contemporaries were also very good shooters.  I however, was only able to attain sharpshooter ranking, one of the lower categories.  The full range of categories are marksman, sharpshooter, expert, master, high master.  I nearly reached “expert” several times, but did not quite make it.

As I got older, I drifted back to golf, shooting larger projectiles normally shorter distances.

As can be seen, high power rifle shooting has all to do with accuracy at fairly long distances and the physics and ballistics involved.  It has nothing to do with hunting animals or with home security, or such.  While the AR-15 HBar was not my target gun of choice, (it was the Winchester Model 70), the AR was a very fine accurate high power rifle.  Shooting this rifle in high power matches, I never would have believed that it would evolve in the uninformed millennial mind as some horrendous weapon of mass destruction, as it recently has.

Ray Gruszecki

February 28, 2018

Why I am Not a Liberal

Why I am Not a Liberal

I understand most liberal/progressive principles, and sometimes times wish that I could adopt some of these values for myself.  Several friends and family have liberal/progressive views and back the democrat party.  They are upstanding, well-adjusted citizens, strong in their beliefs, who feel that their political orientation is what is best for the country.  In discussions with these friends it emerges that they feel that their approach to government helps the poor and under-privileged at the expense of the wealthy, who can afford to do so.  They also feel that specific groups in society should be identified and granted privileges out of proportion to the rest of society, since they were marginalized in the past.  They strongly espouse compassion for those less fortunate, and are quite prepared to initiate programs to help them. 

They feel that the constitution is a “living” document, to be interpreted and modified to fit the mores of a changing society.  They also feel that it is the responsibility of government to provide care and succor for all people.

It would be personally gratifying to be able to feel empathy with those less fortunate and propose measures for their betterment.  It would be intellectually stimulating to eschew all of those archaic trappings of religion and ethics and morals that are such a drag on human progress and enlightenment.  It would edifying to be able to assign labels like “racist”, “misogynist”, “homophobe” to those that oppose these highly altruistic views, all in the spirit of “political correctness”.  It would be self-satisfying to characterize people less intellectual than me as subject to my and my peer’s superior programs and leadership, particularly as regards increased socialization of resources and redistribution of wealth.

It would also be great to identify with those college professors, preponderance of media pundits and Hollywood entertainers that also have progressive and elitist views.  Surely this prevalance of opinion among such a distinguished grouping of high caliber folks justifies opinions and political views advocated by them.  Such exalted company would certainly justify and welcome my participation and membership.  Higher taxes and bigger and better central government will surely result in better lives for everybody in society.  Just look at the superior intellectual nature of the people that would be running the show.  The “nanny state” with us running it would work just fine.

But alas, I am too American exceptionalist, too patriotic, too self-resilient, too self-reliant, too proud of our country and ALL of the people in our country, and not only concerned with special privileges to certain sub-groups.  I also refuse to identify with a secular elitism and political correctness that divides the country according to identity groups, and fosters guilt rather than pride in our country.  I am more laissez-faire than Keynesian in my economic views, to the extent that is possible in our complex world economy.  I am decidedly averse to the “nanny state.””

But alas again, I find myself as affiliated with a RINO congress that can’t seem to accomplish anything, and a trainee president that’s still feeling his way on many issues, but this is a separate issue.

I found an interesting article on liberalism which I paraphrase and excerpt below.

“The whole point of liberal compassion is for empathizers to feel better when awareness of another’s suffering provokes unease. But this ultimate purpose does not guarantee that empathizees will fare better.  The pathology of pathological altruism is not the failure to salve every wound.  It is, rather, the indifference—blithe, heedless, smug, or solipsistic—to the fact and consequences of those failures, just as long as the empathizer is accruing compassion points that he and others will admire.

It follows, then, that the answer to the question of how liberals who profess to be anguished about other people’s suffering can be so weirdly complacent regarding wasteful, misdirected, and above all ineffective government programs created to relieve that suffering—is that liberals care about helping much less than they care about caring. Because compassion gives me a self-regarding reason to care about your suffering, it’s more important for me to do something than to accomplish something. Once I’ve voted for, marched for or against, given a speech about, written an editorial endorsing, or held forth at a dinner party on the salutary generosity of some program to “address” your problem, my work is done, and I can feel the rush of my own pious reaction. There’s no need to stick around for the complex, frustrating, mundane work of making sure the program that made me feel better, just by being established and praised, has actually alleviated your suffering.”

So I will continue in my conservatism/libertarianism, not because it makes me feel good, but because I think it’s right for the country.

Just to be clear on a couple of major points, I am against abortion because like it or not, science has determined that this is taking human life.  While not entirely happy with the trend toward secularism, I am not specifically opposed to same sex marriage, nor to legalization of marijuana, since these are not directly harmful to society.  I call a halt at polygamy, euthanasia and other possible libertarian practices toward which we could follow the same line of reasoning.

I know more about firearms and their safety and accuracy than most people because I was engaged in high power accuracy target shooting and its technical aspects as sport for a number of years.  I believe that increased security, proper education, identification of potentially disturbed persons, increased attention to mental health and common sense control of who can buy a gun, all will help in preventing mass shootings.

Ray Gruszecki

February 23, 2018

Memo on "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation"

White House release of the memo:

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

February 2, 2018

The Honorable Devin Nunes

Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

United States Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On January 29, 2018, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter “the Committee”) voted to disclose publicly a memorandum containing classified information provided to the Committee in connection with its oversight activities (the “Memorandum,” which is attached to this letter). As provided by clause 11(g) of Rule X of the House of Representatives, the Committee has forwarded this Memorandum to the President based on its determination that the release of the Memorandum would serve the public interest.

The Constitution vests the President with the authority to protect national security secrets from disclosure. As the Supreme Court has recognized, it is the President’s responsibility to classify, declassify, and control access to information bearing on our intelligence sources and methods and national defense. See, e.g., Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988). In order to facilitate appropriate congressional oversight, the Executive Branch may entrust classified information to the appropriate committees of Congress, as it has done in connection with the Committee’s oversight activities here. The Executive Branch does so on the assumption that the Committee will responsibly protect such classified information, consistent with the laws of the United States.

The Committee has now determined that the release of the Memorandum would be appropriate. The Executive Branch, across Administrations of both parties, has worked to accommodate congressional requests to declassify specific materials in the public interest. However, public release of classified information by unilateral action of the Legislative Branch is extremely rare and raises significant separation of powers concerns. Accordingly, the Committee’s request to release the Memorandum is interpreted as a request for declassification pursuant to the President’s authority.

The President understands that the protection of our national security represents his highest obligation. Accordingly, he has directed lawyers and national security staff to assess the declassification request, consistent with established standards governing the handling of classified information, including those under Section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526. Those standards permit declassification when the public interest in disclosure outweighs any need to protect the information. The White House review process also included input from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. Consistent with this review and these standards, the President has determined that declassification of the Memorandum is Appropriate.

Based on this assessment and in light of the significant public interest in the memorandum, the President has authorized the declassification of the Memorandum. To be clear, the Memorandum reflects the judgments of its congressional authors. The President understands that oversight concerning matters related to the Memorandum may be continuing. Though the circumstances leading to the declassification through this process are extraordinary, the Executive Branch stands ready to work with Congress to accommodate oversight requests consistent with applicable standards and processes, including the need to protect intelligence sources and methods.

Sincerely,

Donald F. McGahn II

Counsel to the President

cc: The Honorable Paul Ryan

Speaker of the House of Representatives

The memo itself:

The Honorable Adam Schiff

Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

UNCLASSIFIED

Declassified by order of the President — February 2, 2018

January 18, 2018

To: HPSCI Majority Members

From: HPSCI Majority Staff

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Purpose

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.

Investigation Update

On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. §1805(d)(1)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.

1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.

a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September—before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October—but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.

b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

4) According to the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—“salacious and unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.

UNCLASSIFIED

PROPERTY OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The Steele Dossier: From Buzzfeed, Jan 10, 2017

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html