Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

Last weekend’s attack on the Saudi Aramco facility is an odd duck when it comes to events of this kind. There are several basic questions that have yet to be answered.

–1.) What has the attack have to do with the United States? No Americans or American property were lost, or even injured. It seems, based on media reporting, that Saudi Arabia was attacked by Iran, though the White House and the Pentagon have not confirmed that this media reporting is correct. Again, whether it was Iran, another country, or a terrorist group, the attack was not an attack, let alone an act of war, against the United States. At this point in time, the correct action for the United States to take is none. That may change, but right now the republic has no genuine national security interest at risk, thanks in large measure to the Trump administration and the energy  independence it promoted and helped to secured.

–2.) Each branch of U.S. military has a widespread presence in Saudi Arabia, the Arabian Peninsula’s other Arab tyrannies, as well as afloat in the Persian Gulf and the northwest Indian Ocean. Surely, parts of all of these forces – as well as multiple U.S. military satellites — are bore-sighted on Iranian military activity and the threat it poses to the Arab Peninsula, as well as the U.S. personnel and interests based there. How is it, then, that U.S. (or Saudi) land-based, sea-based, and space-based early warning radars and other detection systems completely missed what media have described as a small-cloud of drones and cruise missiles at any point along the trail from their deployment and preparation, to their launch and flight, to their impact? Are Iranian weapon systems so much more sophisticated than the U.S. military’s attack-detection technology and anti-missile/anti-aircraft weaponry that the Iranian missiles and drones were never seen and not a shot was gotten off against them? Or did someone order a very blind eye be turned toward Iran for a few hours?

–3. Is it really plausible to believe that the purported Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia just happened to occur on the eve of Israel’s national election, a contest in which war-hawk and Iran-hater Netanyahu and his party were on the political ropes. Is it really a stretch to believe that an offensive Iranian air-attack on Saudi Arabia on the eve of the election would cause some of the Israeli voters who were intending not to vote for Netanyahu and the Likud Party, to be moved by the Iranian attack to think again and then snug back up to the anti-Iran crusader Netanyahu? Coincidences are rare in the lives of individuals and nations, and this a coincidence of such enormous proportions that it is quite hard to believe.

Let me conclude by saying that I do not know if Iran attacked the Saudis’ oil facility or not. But what I do know, at this point, is (a) that the United States government has no reason to attack Iran whether or not it attacked Aramco; that is the Saudis job is they choose to do it; (b) that it is more important to find out why the U.S. military seems to have absolutely failed in its early warning mission on the Arab Peninsula and the seas around it, and if such an utter failure also is likely to occur here in the United States; and (c) that Israel always is out only for itself, and that it and its U.S. citizen allies (paid agents?) will cooperate to do whatever it is they decide is required to service Israel’s and Netanyahu’s interests, even if it means pushing the United States into an unnecessary war.

Mr. President: For those of your supporters who genuinely believe in the non-interventionist segment of an America First policy, there could be no better news than your sacking of John Bolton. He and his like – Crystal, Boot, Romney, and the rest of the Neocons and disloyal Israel-Firsters – are hip-deep in the blood and limbs of U.S. military personnel who became casualties in multiple unnecessary wars, none of which had anything to do with protecting American liberties and freedom. Indeed, the presidents who orchestrated and prolonged the wars constricted both, and also waged war against the Bill of Rights. On booting Bolton, Mr. President, well done.

Now for Afghanistan. Sir, for a guy like me, from Buffalo, New York, it is an odd but true fact that I have spent most of the past four decades working, from one angle or another, on wars in Afghanistan. I cannot say that I loved this work all the time – the best of times were when we helped drive the Red Army out of Afghanistan – but it has been pretty consistently fascinating. Moreover, it is the easiest to understand and solve foreign-policy problem that has ever confronted the United States.

Mr. President you must accept that, on the Afghan issue, you are surrounded by civilian advisors who are morons, liars, money-grubbers, mineral-chasers, war-lovers, and democracy crusaders, as well as generals who cannot tell the difference between winning and losing. The latter, I suppose, is to be expected as no U.S. general has participated in a winning war since September, 1945. Fortunately, none of the unnecessary wars they have lost even remotely put American freedom or liberty at risk, except from domestic enemies. Taking advice from any of this lot, is like taking advice on particle physics from Ilhan Omar.

Now, Sir, when you were elected you were presented with a lost war. Obama, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld had presided over – and even directed — numerous half-ass military campaigns that were shrugged off by the Afghan Taleban and its allies, no matter what their casualties. The Afghan leaders knew that the U.S. military was not there to win. They do have ears, you know, and they heard all U.S. generals publicly proclaim, ad nauseam, something like “There is no military solution to the Afghan conflict.” These be-starred knuckleheads might as well have said publicly that the Taleban had won, game, set, and match.

The Taleban’s leaders also knew the U.S. did not intend to win in Afghanistan because they had watched Bill Clinton refuse to even attempt one of the ten chances CIA gave him to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. Always recall, Mr. President, there would have been no Afghan War or Iraq War if Clinton had removed bin Laden from the scene in 1998 or 1999.

You are fighting, Mr. President, an enemy in the Taleban, as well as the other Islamist Afghan insurgent groups, a foe that is far tougher, much more patient, more zero-sum minded, stupendously less casualty-adverse, and more religiously devout than any of your advisors, civil or military. The current crop of Afghan Islamist insurgents and their predecessors, taken together, have chalked up nearly 40 continuous years on the battlefield since the Soviet invasion occurred in December 1979. The score after four decades shows the Afghans have knocked off two superpowers – the USSR and the hodge-podge of U.S.-NATO forces. This, after having knocked off the British superpower in the 19^th century. Can you, Sir, name another country that has defeated three superpowers?

What you need to know about Afghanistan, namely, the determinative role its history plays in the Afghans’ thinking and actions, and what that means for the United States, is limited, easy to understand, and is encompassed in the three points that follow. They were clear, true, and utterly reliable long  before the CIA deployed to country in the fall 2001 to wait for the eventual arrival of the U.S. military. Though I tend to believe it is true about most countries, Afghanistan is truly the land where the outcome of all events in which foreigners are involved are readily predictable – that is, history repeats itself, Afghans win, foreigners lose — and there are none of the “unintended consequences” that the Bush and Obama teams that gave you this lost war loved to prate about. And so, the points:

–-First, the Afghans will wage war against any Afghan or foreigner who tries to install and maintain a strong and effective central government in Kabul. This thoroughly tribalized country is preeminently one of regions and peace is maintained by letting those regions look inward and rule themselves. An Afghan central government is durable as long as it is quiescent and content ruling Kabul. Our attempt to build a strong central government was and is promoting armed resistance to it. This was known, and ignored, by those who sent the U.S. military there to create a central government that would govern all of Afghanistan.

–Second, the Afghans – meaning many more people than just Taleban members and other militant Afghan Islamists – do not like foreigners. While they deal politely with foreigners who are visiting the country, especially if they have money to spend or are bringing financial aid, the Afghans, historically, have zero tolerance for foreigners who invade and occupy their country. Alexander the Great and his army, the military might and resolve of the 19^th century British Empire, the modern and merciless Soviet Red Army, and now the rudderless activities – is it war-fighting, democracy building, or feminism? – of the U.S.-NATO force all have been greeted by a non-ending defensive war fought by the Afghans with religious zeal and the single-minded goal of evicting the foreign invaders. The Afghans endured and eventually succeeded in forcing foreigners to evacuate on all previous occasions, and, in those cases, they did so against enemies who were far more ruthless and bloody minded than the current effeminate and diddling occupiers.

–Third, there is no point worrying about what will happen to the Afghans who worked for the U.S.-NATO civil and military organizations, nor about those Afghans who have filled government posts during the occupation. Most of them already have stuffed their pockets with stolen U.S. taxpayer money and will leave the country to save their lives. Those who cannot leave probably will be killed, as an Afghan who supports foreigners against Afghan Muslims is not only defined as traitor, but also as a heretic for helping non-Muslim foreigners to kill Afghan Muslims. The truth about the recent breakdown of “peace talks” with the Taleban is that they were a hoax from start to finish. The Taleban eventually would have made some kind of deal if the U.S. agreed to completely withdraw. If that occurred, they would have abided by its provisions until the last U.S. Marine left the country, and then would have turned mercilessly on those who supported the occupation or fought alongside the foreign occupiers. If your advisers had been worth their salt, they would have told you that the peace talks were a charade that, at best, would have let U.S. civilian and military personnel depart Afghanistan in a manner somewhat more dignified than the manner in which they fled Hanoi (It was Saigon, of course. Like my Dad said “too soon old, too late smart).

Move on Afghanistan quickly, Mr. President, the entire country – except for generals, gun-makers, and disloyal U.S. citizens – will warmly welcome fulfillment of part of the campaign promise in which you pledged to bring our soldier-children home. Then, Iraq next.

And one final point, Sir. I have suggested previously in this space that you might benefit from reviewing the history of General George Marshall’s forced retirement of many dozens of U.S. general officers just before the start of World War II. He knew many of these officers, and knew they were not up to the challenge posed by what appeared to be an approaching world war. Mr. President, the ranks of your general officers are filled with losers; indeed, you have no serving general officer who has ever been on a winning side in a war. But you are also blessed with even more junior officers who have substantial combat experience and who, almost certainly, are disgusted by generals who have no intention of winning the wars into which they send men and women to die or be maimed. Perhaps General Marshall’s action deserves a second performance, soon.

Having lived a life that has featured about as many failures as successes, I have come to believe that coincidences are few, and success and failure are largely of your own making. This is not to say that there are no coincidences, but most seem to be in the mundane category, such as befriending a person who has the same birthday as you, or deciding to pick up the phone to call someone just as the person you intended to call rings your number. In the bigger, more important affairs in the life of a person or the nation, however, coincidences are pretty rare. Those in positions of power and influence who commonly claim that important events are only coincidences must be doubted and held suspect.

With this point made, I was wondering how many people could possibly believe that the following juxtaposition of events are examples of common coincidences?

—Hong Kong: Do the Chinese merit the media’s 24-hour hour damnation for opposing the Hong Kong demonstrations, while, at the same time, Macron’s thug-like treatment of France’s “Yellow Vest” protesters are ignored by the media. For 18 weeks, FOX said last Friday, the Chinese demonstrators have marched for “freedom” and suffered at the hands of the “brutal” Hong Kong government and their Chinese masters. But what about France? Well, neither FOX nor any other major U.S. media organization that I am aware of has fully covered the 43 weeks of Yellow Vest protests against Macron’s globalist and climate-change-crazed government. The brutality of the French treatment of the Yellow Vests has only been followed and documented by Russian Television (RT). Is this a coincidence? The answer is no. Why does this matter?

—First, because the deliberately incendiary media coverage of Hong Kong events has given the Neocons and their mainstream and cable media allies another chance to seek war, this time with China.

—Second, because the fate of Hong Kong’s population was decided in 1997 when the British government consigned it to the horrors of eventual rule by the Chinese communists. President Clinton’s administration and most other of the so-called “western democracies” supported the UK’s decision to “hand over” Hong Kong to the Beijing butchers. Neither the British nor Clinton nor any of the other Western leaders who supported the handover had any plausible reason to believe the Chinese regime would honor the 50-year period before full Chinese control became effective. It is too bad for people in Hong Kong, but their future was decided for them by the UK, the U.S., and the West, all of whom knew that their future would be reeducation camps, executions by the tens of thousands, and ultimately service as the obedient automatons of the Chinese communists. The real enslavers of Hong Kong’s residents reside in London, Washington, Paris, and elsewhere in the West. Any Western attempt to rescue Hong Kong’s population would be madly Quixotic, potentially war-causing, and utterly insincere, as Britain and the West long ago consigned the city and its people to Chinese savagery and a communist hell.

Third, and most important, the taxpayers of the United States are on the hook to pay for – and potentially see their kids die for – the defense of Europe. Why? Because U.S. elitists want to be able to identify the republic as the “leader of the Free World” and trumpet the greatness of Western democracies. Well, French police are regularly beating the Yellow Vesters, and RT has film of the French police picking random targets and then striking them from behind with a kind of club. (1) Now, as far as I am concerned, these French-vs-French battles are neither here nor there. They are internal governing matters for the French to decide for themselves. The issue at hand is that NATO is no longer “a defender of democracy” nor of the rule of law or equality before the law. Indeed, NATO member governments currently are the crucifier of what once were called “Western values”. Macron’s police beat demonstrating citizens: British politicians refuse to execute the electorate’s majority decision to leave the EU; German and Scandinavian leaders construe their countries’ laws to allow Muslim males to rape women and molest children without penalty; and Italian globalists and the EU cooperate to overthrow Salvini’s legitimate nationalist regime and restart the admission of unwanted, criminal, and diseased migrants. In addition, nearly all of the NATO governments are engaged, individually or through the EU, in restricting free speech, attacking Christianity, limiting the right to assembly, and generally making destabilizing migrant groups legally privileged and entitled to priority over native citizens for housing, employment, and public assistance. It is time for the U.S. government to recognize that democracy in Europe exists in name only, that the substance of it is long gone, and that there is no credible reason for the republic to remain in NATO, waste more money, and risk automatic war in the name of defending European democracies that are now rotting corpses.

—Shootings: Can anyone with a bit of commonsense really believe that the series of shootings during and now, with Odessa, on the eve of the House and Senate coming back into session after a luxurious 5-week paid vacation are just run-of-the-mill coincidences? Once again in Odessa, the shooter called the FBI and local authorities before he attacked, and, as in most cases since 2017, little or nothing was done to preempt the attacks. How can it possibly be that the FBI and/or the local police do not act on information that is given to them and for which they did not even have to break a sweat to ferret out? From the pro-Democrat, Saudi princeling’s Las Vegas ambush of concert-goers to the attack in Odessa, warnings were ignored, and dead, wounded, and traumatized resulted.

–None of this can be attributed to guns, let alone the 2^nd Amendment. It has to do with three things: (a) No one benefits from these killings except the Democratic Party, and it benefits greatly. Seizing guns from Americans is a central part of the party’s platform, and its sad-excuse for leaders use every shooting – except if it occurs in Chicago, where 8 were shot dead last weekend — to fuel their goal of disarming Americans; (b) Mental illness is the dominant characteristic of the Democratic Party and those who vote for it, just listen to their presidential candidates, view the newspapers and media outlets that are arms of the party; and look and listen to the apparently barely human creatures who are in Antifa. A quick review of these things offer a clear photo of where madness resides, thrives, and is propagated in America; (c) Democrats control the educational system from pre-K through Ph.D. levels. They teach kids about a world that has not, does not, and will never exist. They thusly produce graduates who enter a world in which nothing is familiar to them, and so are disoriented, frightened, unable to make a decent living, and useless to themselves and the republic. All of these threats to Americans can be neutered if the Democratic Party is eradicated, and perhaps there is a slim chance that might be done the polls.

–Climate: Is it possible that the best meteorological minds in the world have not been able to tell what a hurricane is going to do, even though it is a single weather event, there is no obstacle to knowing where it is, and there are multiple nations steadily flying civil and military planes and sophisticated instruments into the storm? Apparently so, and for more than a week these experts consistently have been forced to reassess and change their predictions because they simply did not know what the storm is going to do. To their unending credit, these fine meteorological minds never tired of reminding viewers that they were doing the best they could with weather models that, while plentiful, were seldom unanimous in laying out what to expect from hurricanes.

–Now, these hard-working experts, faced with a clear, tangible, dangerous, and immediate weather event, and armed with cutting-edge technology and models, had to carefully explain that they are partly guessing and mostly depending on the history of what hurricanes have done for several centuries in the Atlantic. Is it merely a coincidence that the host of well-educated, climate-change wankers can be so cock sure they can tell precisely what will happen to the earth’s climate 20, 30, or 40 years in the future, especially because the data they pick to use – more likely invent – is such a small part of the many centuries of data available to study? No coincidence here, the truth is that Climateers cannot forecast with even minimal precision. The words, studies, and screeching, chicken-little warnings of the Climate Changers — scientists and their equally deceitful media propagandists alike — are replete with deliberate lies; laughably false statistics; melting glaciers that not only stubbornly fail to melt but are growing; inundated cities that still stand high and dry a decade or two after the  climate scientists had designated their certain submersion dates (2); and action plans that would do nothing but make Americans the tax-slaves of Democrats, globalists, and the lying climate scientists and media commentators who are on their payroll.

Each time I hear any Democrat leader, Democratic loyalist, Democrat media shill, or Mitt Romney speak, I think that no men ever have been so astoundingly prescient as were America’s Founders. Those men left the 2^nd Amendment as part of their legacy and that action assures contemporary Americans have in their own hands a reliable capability to ensure that their republic and liberties will endure for themselves, their children, and future generations. How hopeless things would be for Americans if we were – like Britons, Frenchmen, and Italians – unarmed, and so utterly unable to defend our homeland, kith, and kin from globalists tyrants and their gangster, communist, and pedophile followers.

–Endnotes:

–1.) The compelling video coverage of the random violence that Macron’s police have applied against the Yellow Vesters can be seen – for now — by searching YouTube for “RT” and “Yellow Vests”.

–2.) I have found the YouTube videos by a man named “Tony Heller” to be extraordinary in their clear, concise, and irrefutable presentation of evidence showing how the quack Climate-Change scientists fabricate, distort, or simply hide/delete scientific data that would destroy their arguments and reveal them as grubby, do-anything-for-money schills who happen to be in the leading rank – with most Western governments — of the world’s greediest hucksters and most destructive liars.

The combination of the freakish Cory Booker’s call for a federal agency to fight White Nationalism, and the NY Times Magazine’s call for recasting U.S. history to focus exclusively on slavery and “American racism”, are the final straws. Enough is enough, and the Democratic Party’s relentless efforts to destroy the republic will, when the time is right, cost it everything.

For now, facts will suffice to refute and warn Booker, the NY Times, and all Democrats:

–The most important founders and expanders of Black slavery in the Western Hemisphere were Black African tribal leaders. No Black slave hunters in Africa, no Black slaves in the Western hemisphere. The story of the process of securing the raw human material needed to install slavery in the Western Hemisphere would not have been accomplished without the work and avarice of those Black-African slave hunters, herders, and sellers.

–The next most important founder was the British Crown, which could only turn their sugar crops in Britain’s southern North American and Caribbean colonies into gold with the importation of the Black slaves who were captured and sold by Black Africans to slave traders who then transported them to the New World to be resold at higher prices.

–The most lethal lie imaginable is that slaves were wholeheartedly welcomed into British North America. Many Americans – including many of the Founders — opposed Black slavery from 1619 forward, tried to end it at the time of the Declaration of Independence, when writing the Constitution, and then again, very vigorously, from 1787 until 1861. Most of the Americans who opposed slavery knew that the republic could not have been founded or nurtured to maturity if priority had been given to abolition or emancipation. Any attempt to do so would have driven the southern states out of the young Union, and rightly so because slavery was protected by the Constitution. The decision to keep fighting for abolition – John Quincy Adams died on the floor of the Congress demanding it — and not try to end slavery by force was the right one. The Union’s survival is always the republic’s top priority.

–From the Constitution’s ratification until Appomattox in1865, slavery was maintained in the United States by the Constitution, but was entrenched more deeply into society by the Democratic Party’s passionate allegiance to Black enslavement, its maintenance, and its geographical expansion across the continent. Such Democratic paragons as Jefferson, Madison, Andrew Jackson, Stephen A. Douglas, John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Roger B. Tawney, and many other party leaders and their journalistic acolytes ensured that slavery was not even put on the road to its end. Indeed, in the half-century before the Civil War, Democratic leaders turned their pro-slavery justification from claiming that slavery was a “regrettable but necessary evil” to the declaring and preaching that slavery was “positive good” for Blacks. This, of course, has been the Democratic position ever since.

–When the Civil War came, it was fought to preserve the Union and ended with the Union intact, slavery abolished. By 1870, Black freeman were protected by a blanket of strong amendments to the Bill of Rights. It’s worth noting, that 625,000 men — all Americans — died to decide whether the pro-slavery Confederacy would survive. The Union’s armies prevailed and, as a result, emancipation had its best chance to succeed since America was founded.

–But this his pro-freedom moment for Black Americans ended almost before it began. After Lincoln’s death, the Democrats re-established their sway in southern state governments and ignored or side-stepped the Civil War amendments. For all intents and purposes, the state Democratic regimes reestablished Black slavery under different names and processes, including segregation laws, sharecropping, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, separate-but equal policies, etc.  To enforce this new and highly effective variety of slavery the South’s Democratic State governments help to build anti-black sentiment and police forces at the local, county, and state levels. The Democrats also created their own private paramilitary force — known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) — to terrify, beat, burn, lynch, shoot, and kill Blacks as directed by Democratic political leaders. It is worth noting here, that one of Hillary Clinton’s political heroes and prized mentors was a former KKK Grand Wizard.

–From 1865 until 1963, Democratic politicians in the federal, state, county and local governments, as well as in the U.S. Supreme Court, did all they could to keep Blacks enslaved in this sturdy de facto manner. During Democratic President Woodrow Wilson’s two terms (1913-1919), the deeply racist Georgian and his colleagues undid most of modest advances Blacks had achieved under presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft in terms of gaining employment in the national government. From the end of Wilson’s terms in 1919 until the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, Democratic politicians at all levels of government fought a tooth-and-nail rearguard action fight againts the civil-rights movement and maintain the de facto slavery of America’s Black citizens. Democratic President Johnson came to the rescue and revived the spirit of these Democratic dead-enders. After starting his Great Society program and savagely pushing his party to support passage of the1964 Voting Rights Act, Johnson reportedly said “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” [1]

Well, like Hitler’s judgment of the Third Reich’s longevity, Johnson’s prediction of how long his party would control those he called “niggers” was an exaggeration. After Ronald Reagan restored to the minds of all Americans the eternal truth that the government always is their potential enemy, the Democrats’ hold on those they saw as Black slaves began to ever so slowly crumble. Both Bushes, both Clinton’s, and — by his own words – ol’ foreign-born Hussein hung on as long as they could and kept Blacks shackled on the plantation that the Democrats and Black con-men like Jackson and Sharpton had created for them. But change was in the air, and it finally was voiced by Donald D. Trump.

Who could have imagined that a simple six-word question — “What have you got to lose?” — would begin to dull the razor-wire surrounding the Democratic Party’s slave plantation and permit a steady flow of escapees. Though far from being wise, the power-desperate Democratic leaders and their rank-and-file knew how quickly their long-held power over Blacks would slip away once those Blacks realized how their allegiance to the party was taken for granted, as well as how despised they were by Democrats, who laughed at what they saw as their gullible, childlike belief that the party meant to aid them, rather than simply keeping them impoverished and raping them for their votes. Trump, at a minimum, put an idea that long merited being spoken into the minds of millions of Democrat-abused-for-centuries Black American citizens, and now departures from the plantation are increasing.

Faced with this reality, the Democrats again have turned to the only tool that has ever kept them in political power; namely, slavery. Democratic leaders, of course, cannot use the word “slavery” to describe the goal of their policies, but that reality is clear enough. The Democrats simply use the term “human trafficking”, which has nowhere the sting and attention-focusing potential as the more precisely accurate term “slave trade.” (2)

The purpose of the Democratic Party’s militant lust for maintaining open borders is to facilitate a re-accretion of enduring and dominating political power by replacing its now awakening Black slaves, with illegal, criminal, diseased, and anti-American migrants who will restock the plantation and reliably vote — after being payed subsidies from the U.S. Treasury — for the Democratic Party and, so, their continued enslavement.

Indeed, the Democrats have artfully recreated the 17th century-origins of slavery in America. Just as Black Africans seized other Black Africans and profitably sold them into slavery, the Democrats are now exploiting the willingness of Latin Americans to criminally move or sell many millions of other Latin Americans into slavery, all under the auspices of the Democratic Party. Some of these illegals are being allocated to the poverty-stricken plantation to serve as voters. Others are used as money-making assets like narcotics mules, criminals, female and male prostitutes, or — in honor of Democratic Party saint, Jeffrey Epstein — children to be used to sate the perversions of either the party’s abundant company of pedophiles, or its senior members who are said to find a religious sort of ecstasy in the ritual murder – and even consumption — of the infants and children they purchase from the party’s Hispanic slave-trading associates.

The foregoing surely is one of the most tragic stories in American history, but it must be told because it is irrefutably true. It really ought to be told in much greater detail, and certainly with more expertise than I possess. But there is no amount of pulling down Civil War statues, heaping abuse on the American South and its people, painting over murals of General Washington, or, per the NY Times Magazine, writing new race-based versions of the country’s history that can disguise the Democrat’s enormous crimes against the republic. The latter can never hide the three-centuries of bloody abomination inflicted on the nation by the Democrat Party and by their ideological, slave-driving ancestors. Democrats are simply at the very bottom of a disgustingly filthy barrel where the other torturers of mankind are found, convivial folks like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and those powerful Black Africans and now Hispanics who sold their fellow Black and Hispanic men, women, and children into slavery, misery, and unspeakable abuse.

Without the Democrats, Black slavery and its poisonous repercussions within the American Union would have disappeared almost entirely in the years since 1865. Both remain at recognizable levels only because the Democrats have kept them alive, and in the last 30 years have reinvigorated them. As a consequence, they ultimately will have to pay for their crimes against the republic and its citizenry.

As a law-abiding citizen, I can honestly say that if the Democrats ever again take power and come calling on Americans to help pay for, say, open borders, reparations, amnesty or health insurance for illegal aliens, more quotas for schools and jobs, government-funded abortions, or unnecessary wars to spread democracy, I will pay. In fact, I will meet with them and pay my share with enthusiasm with what is now that most precious of metals, lead that can be formed into easily handled and stored containers.

–Endnotes:

–1.) https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/15769.Lyndon_B_Johnson?page=2

–2.) The identical nature of the “slave trade” and “human trafficking” was suggested to me by my sage and greatly valued friend, Colonel Mike.

When the UK government returned its Hong Kong colony to China on 1 July 1997, it did so with the full knowledge that they were turning the colony’s population over to a Chinese communist tyranny that had killed more innocent people than either Stalin or the American Medical Association. Beijing has never given up its prized status as leader in the field of annihilating the innocent, and, indeed, is perfecting its murderous skills against the Chinese Muslim population residing in the country’s western Xinjiang Province, a place now reported to be an enormous concentration camp.

The British gave up the colony because they could not afford its cost, because they feared China would use its military to annex the colony, because it was being shamed by the Western media as an anachronistic “colonial power”, and because they knew that the UK military had been cut to the bone after the fall of the USSR and so Britain’s only effective military response to a surprise Chinese annexation would be a decidedly counterproductive nuclear response.

The bottom line here is that British government leaders knew that once Hong Kong was awarded to the butchers of Beijing, there was nothing the UK could do to stop China if it reneged on its pledge to leave Hong Kong more or less alone for 50 years. Despite the protective-language that Britain’s political grandees used as they dumped the people of Hong King into China’s murderous maw, the Brits knew that their words were lies exactly the same as those they used to pledge to come to Poland’s aid in the late-summer of 1939. The truth is simply that Britain knew that it could not fulfill its 1939 pledge to help the Poles stop the Nazis from invading Poland and slaughtering Poles, and it knew that its implicit 1997 pledge of protection would not stop the Chinese communists from invading and occupying Hong Kong and thereafter tormenting its people in the name “reeducating” them.

Despite their comfort with betraying the people of Hong Kong in 1997, British leaders knew the UK would be savagely attacked by the media and world political leaders if China reneged on the 1997 deal and annexed Hong Kong — before the 50-year interim period expired –and Britain failed to try to save the Honk Kong population. British leaders knew, however, that the UK government still had a winning card to play. That card, of course, was and is the conceited and hubristic bipartisan American governing elite and its utter and unshakeable devotion to its ability to flatter itself by describing the United States and its president as “the leaders of the free world.” Think not? Recall how many tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel have been killed, wounded, and maimed since 1945 in unnecessary wars for no other reason than to allow these elitists to proudly bray that America would always – no matter the human and monetary costs — be the paladin of the free world.

Mr. Trump, this stage has been set for two-plus decades, and it now appears that the long-prepared tragedy is about to be performed on your watch. On this issue, Mr. President, America must come first. Your administration had nothing to do with stringing along the Hong Kong population as it walked toward catastrophe. Neither did your administration urge the genius leaders of the U.S. business community to create their offices, factories, and other investments in Hong Kong and mainland China.

If China moves into Hong Kong, Mr. President, let the cards fall where they may; that is, there must be no American money or blood expended to save a population the perfidious British consigned to the hell of the Chinese communists, and no U.S. cavalry to save the assets of U.S. companies who greedily sought riches overseas at the cost of kowtowing to and bribing the Beijing gangsters and exporting millions of America’s blue-collar jobs. Both made their own beds, let them now crawl on their bellies into them.

It seems fair, Mr. President, to use a few of Samuel Adams’s words to give some familial advice to those who are often referred to as our “British cousins”, as well as those American businessmen who have sold out middle-class Americans for foreign profits and communist masters. You should inform them, Sir, that no help will be coming their way from the republic to try to stop or reverse the course of events in Hong Kong. Tell them, Mr. President, that America comes first, and devils like them can take the hindmost.

On 1 August 1776,  Samuel Adams told the Congress in Philadelphia that,

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” (1)

Enough said.

Endnote:

–1.) http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/quote/547

–“In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it — for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.” John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson, 6 July 1775 (1)

–“… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (2)

–“Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight …” (3)

I have previously written on this issue in this space. I do so again now because of the steady stream of cant coming from FOX News citing the need for immediate “unity” between the two parties, and the need for the both parties to cooperate in Congress and “work for the good of the American people” has gone on for far too long. Whatever the hopes of FOX News and its leaders, the truth should, once in a while, be inserted into the network’s broadcasts. In this case, the truth is that, as of this writing, there appears to be no possible ground for compromise between any Democrat and middle-class and blue-collar citizens.

—Why? A half-century of Democratic programs and wars – often supported by part of the Republican party and much of the media. From the clear unconstitutionality of hate-speech laws, Obama’s numerous unconstitutional diktats, and all wars that are entered into without a formal declaration of war by Congress, to the priority that now is given to awarding college admission on the basis of race, gender, geographical location, and – unbelievably – sexual deviance, the illegality and lack of fairness in the land is stunning and is most damaging to middle-class and blue-collar families because they do not have the money to fight those who have, through legislation, bribery, and a supine Supreme Court, integrated so much discrimination into the Constitution. Those on the short end of this stick see no point in cooperating with their tormentors because their pledges always are worthless, and because they are protected by their own vast wealth, the governments and courts they own, and their advertisement of their lethal capabilities and intent via the never-investigated and growing trail of corpses — which today includes their child procurer Jeffrey Epstein — that leads back to the gunmen employed and directed by the Clinton/Obama-built deep state

—Why? Because the above-noted people teach our children that whales and moles must be saved and then protected, but inform them that the murder of 61-plus million babies – even after they are born – is a just right to kill, as well as a sign of female equality, empowerment, and positive achievements. Because they teach our kids the crap pseudo-science that supports an insane belief in man-caused climate change, which is at least as much about instilling in kids an expectation and eagerness for the creation of an authoritarian world government that controls every aspect of their lives. Because they teach children to believe that our Founders were nothing but misogynists, slave-drivers, and white supremacists who created a worthless republic, whose founding documents and physical symbols must be destroyed, and whose population must be diluted by illiterate, diseased, and very often criminal illegal aliens who will reliably vote in rigged-elections for authoritarians and receive more of America’s wealth than do needy U.S. citizens. That wasted wealth will come from the taxes of middle-class and blue-collar families whose jobs also will be taken by illegals. Those on the short end of this stick see no point in cooperating with their tormentors because their pledges always are worthless, and because they are protected by their own vast wealth, the governments and courts they own, and their advertisement of their lethal capabilities and intent via the never-investigated and growing trail of corpses — which today includes their child procurer Jeffrey Epstein — that leads back to the gunmen employed and directed by the Clinton/Obama-built deep state

Why? Because of the war the Democrats and their allies are waging on the Bill of Rights and Christianity. The tide of censorship that is now occurring is driven by the Democrats, their Tech-giant and media cronies, and their unconstitutional hate-speech laws, and it is gutting the 1^st Amendment. Because the Democrats and some Republicans know depth of their own corruption, paid cooperation with China, and sexual crimes, they press ever harder to destroy the 2^nd Amendment, the only real failure of which lies in the fact that it has yet to be used for its ultimate purpose, which is to allow loyal-to-the-republic citizens to use their own arms to kill those who – like so much of the current governing class — brazenly seek to overthrow the U.S. Constitution, destroy the republican form of government it mandates; deal traitorously but for great personal profit with China; and, believing themselves superior people, by seeking to reduce the citizenry to a mass of enslaved and obediently servile yes-men. Those on the short end of this stick see no point in cooperating with their tormentors because their pledges always are worthless, and because they are protected by their own vast wealth, the governments and courts they own, and their advertisement of their lethal capabilities and intent via the never-investigated and growing trail of corpses — which today includes their child procurer Jeffrey Epstein — that leads back to the gunmen employed and directed by the Clinton/Obama-built deep state

—Why? Because, the Democrats and some Republicans have knowingly wasted the wealth and children of middle-class and blue-collar families via their endless and unnecessary interventionist wars; by their spendthrift giveaways, in cash, armaments, or protective military services, to tyrant-ruled and enormously wealthy countries; by building all kinds of modern infrastructure projects in foreign countries while America’s own has rotted; and by pouring unknown billions of tax dollars into post-Cold War NATO Alliance, even as the other 27 members of the Alliance cut their defense spending to the bone. Those on the short end of this stick see no point in cooperating with their tormentors because their pledges always are worthless, and because they are protected by their own vast wealth, the governments and courts they own, and their advertisement of their lethal capabilities and intent via the never-investigated and growing trail of corpses — which today includes their child procurer Jeffrey Epstein — that leads back to the gunmen employed and directed by the Clinton/Obama-built deep state

—Why? Because, most recently, 22 Democratic presidential candidates have pledged to continue and increase the tax-rape of middle-class and blue-collar families and use the funds to pay for health care for illegal aliens; to end border controls and allow in every bound-for-the-dole Third Worlder; to fund more programs to slay the non-existent, on-the-take-scientists’-created climate crisis, which is meant to install authoritarianism; to make sexual deviants an even more privileged class under the law and then proceed to legalize pedophilia; to prevent life-saving medical aid for babies born of botched abortions; to deny due process to gun owners and try to seize their weapons; to continue to attack and damn the Christian faith of judicial nominees and other candidates for national-government posts; and to wipe out the fossil fuel industry and all the jobs that are part of it. Those on the short end of this stick see no point in cooperating with their tormentors because their pledges always are worthless, and because they are protected by their own vast wealth, the governments and courts they own, and their advertisement of their lethal capabilities and intent via the never-investigated and growing trail of corpses — which today includes their child procurer Jeffrey Epstein — that leads back to the gunmen employed and directed by the Clinton/Obama-built deep state

The foregoing is nothing like a complete list of the tangible and accelerating grievances harbored by the middle-class and blue-collar families who have been and are still being economically and socially savaged by the Democrats and their allies. The list will do for a start, however, and it shows that calls for “unity” do nothing but boost the caller’s ego and feelings of self-worth, while displaying their ignorance and hiding the true intent of the citizenry’s tormentors. The time has come to put things plainly to Democrats, their allies, many Republicans, the media, and much of the bipartisan governing class; Knock it off or get knocked off.

The tormentors of Americans must always remember that they have not yet killed the 2^nd Amendment, and that the duty of American citizens loyal to the Constitution and the republic and Union it created is as clear and legal as can be. Indeed, the willingness of loyal Americans to perform their 2^nd Amendment duties may yet be the only means by which our blessed republic can forever eliminate its many domestic enemies and be preserved intact for generations to come.

Endnotes:

–1.) Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson, “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms,” 6 July 1775, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/arms.asp

–2.) From the 2^nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rights1.asp#2

–3.) King James Version, Psalm 144, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+144&version=KJV

For almost a year, claims have been rife that the United States was either “on the edge of energy independence” or “energy independent”. There has been very little public push back against these claims, suggesting that there is great deal of truth in them. Since the energy in question long has been sitting nearby in the ground or under the oceans one is tempted to ask “What took so long?”

Still, Obama did all he could to prevent energy independence, and Hillary Clinton would have shut the door on the issue, so all that can be said is that President Trump, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and American energy companies have done a great and lasting service to genuine U.S. national security interests.

The question that cannot be dodged, however, is why the United States is at daggers drawn with Iran because Tehran is cocking around with British shipping? The UK is an ally of America’s imagination, not one of contemporary or historic reality. The only thing the United States has ever gotten from the UK – and it is no small thing — is what the Founders called “English liberties”, which are at the very heart of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. But in toting-up the pluses and minuses of the republic’s relationship with Britain, the negatives far out way the positives, the single one of which was just mentioned.

–1770-1775: The British Crown and Parliament gradually denied British North Americans the “English liberties” that were their birthright; occupied Boston with military forces; closed Boston Harbor to commerce; suspended representative government in Massachusetts, as well as its governing charter; and started a war when the British army attempted to disarm Bostonians and those living in the region surrounding the city.

–1776-1781: The British military conducted a savage war against pro-independence British Americans, and promoted civil war among, and Indian wars against, them. British American prisoners of war were treated with enormous barbarity, and the king’s army and navy burned and pillaged villages, towns, and other property.

–1783-1796: Notwithstanding the Treaty of Paris (1783) that ended the American Revolution, British Governors, civil officials, and military forces stationed in Canada armed, incited, and otherwise assisted Indian tribes to attack the new republic’s frontier settlements and populations. It also tried to entice Vermont to join British Canada.

–19^th Century: Britain waged war against the republic from 1812-1815. Later in the century, British governments meddled – contra-the Monroe Doctrine — in the Western Hemisphere in Texas, Venezuela, and and other Latin American states. Most damaging, the British government dangled the glittering prize of official UK recognition for the Confederacy – thereby augmenting Southern determination to keep fighting – and provided the C.S.A. Navy with commerce raiders that were used, in part, to bring contraband through the Union blockade and into southern ports. Those C.S.A. raiders also ruined New England’s whaling industry and severely damaged the carrying trade of the U.S. merchant marine. Britain also provided Confederate ground forces with small arms and a limited number of sophisticated artillery pieces.

–1914-1917 and 1939-1941: British governments used their intelligence, propaganda, and military personnel, and those of the some of the countries of Britain’s empire – Canada, in particular — to covertly influence/suborn U.S. citizens, politicians, bankers, industrialists, media, and opinion leaders to demand the republic’s entry into both world wars on the side of Britain and its allies. In 1917, Britain succeeded in gaining America’s unnecessary participation in a European war. By 1941, covert cooperation among British agents, Roosevelt administration officials, and leading U.S. citizens again succeeded in driving America toward war, but this time war came only because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the republic.

The foregoing is but a brief summary of some of Britain’s centuries-long despicable behavior toward the United States and its national-security interests. That such UK behavior continues today is patently obvious in the large and willing role Britain’s government and – at least –intelligence agencies played in Obama’s attempt to destroy President Trump’s candidacy and then to overthrow his presidency and administration.

Given the foregoing record, why does the Trump administration give a damn about Iran seizing a British tanker. That act could be spun into an act of war, but it would still be an act of the war against Britain not against the United States. If the British want their tanker back, let the windbag Boris Johnson – who authorized British electronic surveillance of Trump and his organization before and after the 2016 election — fight Britannia’s battles.

Let old Boris and his anti-Trump diplomats negotiate with the Mullahs and get the ship back, or let the mighty Royal Navy sail smartly into the Persian Gulf, deal a death blow to Iran’s navy, and return to the UK on clouds of glory with the freed ship. In other words, why not let a British prime minister perform as the adult leader of a nuclear power – for the first time since Mrs. Thatcher retook the Falklands in 1982 – and let the British military prove if it is anything more than a force from which small units are sent to unnecessary wars with U.S. forces to keep the realm’s American Neocon sugar daddies sweet.

There is another problem that has been fully exposed by Trump’s apparent preparations to send the U.S. cavalry to aid the British in their problem with Iran. The minute that it was publicly confirmed that Iran held the British ship, the British foreign secretary announced that the Royal Navy was not big or strong enough to meet all of its worldwide commitments. This, of course, was the UK government’s way of telling Trump that only the U.S. navy could get the tanker back if push came to shove with Tehran.

The common belief is that Tehran is a tin pot regional power with a crumbling economy, and that Britain is Great Power armed with both nuclear weapons and a storied and heroic military. And yet the first words out of a senior British minister amounted to telling America, “Oh, we’re so weak, so it is your duty to help us.” Now, Britain is a country that – as noted above – has tormented this republic since its inception and even before. But the real question is not why would we help a bastard that has caused America harm for nearly 250 years, but also what does Britain’s inability to fend for itself against Iran, say about its reputation as the strongest member of NATO?

What it says is that the United States should immediately begin the formal process of withdrawing from the alliance. If Britain is the strongest of NATO’s European militaries, but cannot get a single ship back from Iran, what does that say about NATO as a whole? Most of Europe’s NATO members – save for two or three east European members – have steadily disarmed since the 1991 demise of the USSR and are far weaker than the UK. In addition, Europe’s educational system has, in the same period, bred the warrior spirit or inclination out of the bulk of its students. In this light, Britain appears the pick of a mighty mangy, effeminate, and militarily obsolete NATO litter. Having seen Britain defeated and scream for help because Iran captured of just one of its merchant ships – a skill that it once employed to devastate the U.S. merchant marine and press American sailors into the Royal Navy – what possible use would Britain and NATO’S other European members be if Russia moved against Europe?

The answer is next to none, and so any Russian move westward could be stopped only by the quick use of British, French, and American nuclear weapons. Why would the United States have any interest in staying in an alliance that can only defend itself with nuclear weapons, the elites of which have laughed and smirked as U.S. taxpayers have been, for decades, scalped to pay for the additional American military strength needed to make up for Europe’s NATO slackers and their unwillingness to pay for their own defense? The answer is that the republic has no genuine national-security interest in doing so, and ought to depart NATO as soon as legally possible, and thereafter let the European governing elites decide if they want to become responsible adults or learn to speak Russian

In sum, for the American republic, energy independence means nothing if the national government still is willing to be drawn into wars to protect another country’s energy supplies. If Britain cannot take care of itself on the energy front, let the bastards in perfidious Albion sit and freeze in the dark. Likewise, the NATO alliance is a dire threat to the United States because its European members are today far less capable of defending themselves – with conventional arms — against the Russian military, than were their far better-armed predecessors to confront the Wehrmacht in 1940.

Overall, the United States would be better off without Britain and the rest of NATO as allies, for whom we must automatically go to war to defend if even just one of them is attacked. Indeed, as my dear friend Colonel Mike says, the republic would be better off and safer by having an alliance with Five Guys rather than with the Five Eyes – at least we would get a burger and peanuts to shell out of the former.

The on-again, off-again status of war with Iran seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future, as it has, more or less, for the past forty years. President Trump cancelled an air strike on Iran after it shot down a U.S. drone because he did not want to kill 150 Iranians in return for a wrecked machine. Good for him, I suppose.

I am tentative here as I do not know if the president has a solid hold on the fact that the contemporary U.S. military has no capability to fight and win a war without the use of nuclear weapons, notwithstanding the fact that it has the taxpayer-funded conventional-arms capability to wreck any country or organization that attacks or credibly and imminently threatens the United States. The attack on Iran the president called off is wearyingly typical of the approach of the U.S. military – and U.S. presidents — for almost all of the decades since V-J Day, too small, too limited, and no more than a ludicrous tit-for-tat from goliath that bemuses the gnat-like enemy. This infantile war-making approach kept U.S. military forces stuck in Vietnam for decades, in Korea for 65-plus years, engaged in a quasi-war with Iran for 40 years, and in Afghanistan and Iraq for, respectively, 18 years and 16 years.

Of all of the forgoing wars, only the Afghan war was necessary, and it should and could have been wrapped up in 15-18 months via a devastatingly punitive offensive against al-Qaeda and the Afghans. The U.S. military’s tit-for-tat approach in Afghanistan — as on so many other occasions – inevitably produces nothing but a longer and more expensive war that the U.S. government finally gives up on, an action that implicitly recognizes defeat and encourages other half-pint foes to take it on.

The only mercies in war are those actions that lead to a speedy and definitive victory. On this basis, America’s road to durable peace and the effective deterrence of non-nuclear nation-states and organizations lies:

–First, in the U.S. government publicly abandoning, forever, Just War Theory, and especially its idiot tenet of proportionality. Responding to pin pricks with pin pricks invariably favors America’s enemy, which of course cannot even remotely match America’s conventional military power. This concept leads to interminable wars – see Iraq and Afghanistan – and always yields American defeats and grossly unnecessary casualties and expenses on U.S. side.

–Second, by responding with overwhelming and indiscriminate conventional force against any entity that attacks the continental United States, or can be credibly shown to pose an imminent life-and-death threat thereto, the fore-mentioned mercies can be applied. In addition, there is no room for worth-listening-to condemnation of this approach if the U.S. military is used only to respond to these two circumstances, and presidents and their generals avoid using force to remove bad-guy leaders, end a bad guy’s brutal domestic policies, or spread democracy, women’s rights, and secularism. Inflicting catastrophic defeat on an enemy best serves the defense of the United States and its genuine national interests — which are few in number and not often threatened – and would render war-making a rarely required activity for the American people.

–Third, by immediately retiring the colonels and general officers who have been sent to attend courses at Harvard at any other Ivy League school and imbibed there the madness that has given the republic multiculturalism, anti-white racism, open immigration, socialism, plans with which the Constitution and republicanism can be extinguished, and, the worst of a stinking lot, diversity. Imagine, for moment, the low quality of any mind that can believe that a policy that is meant to divide Americans against themselves is really a valuable force for producing national unity and a cohesive society. Such a mind is unfit to lead Marines and soldiers into battle.

A second category of colonels and general officers that merits immediate retirement are those who (a) can be proven to have said “there is no military solution” about any war in which they were involved and so were helping to lose it. (The latter covers all U.S. wars since 1945), and those who (b) remained silent and led their troops to be killed and maimed in wars they knew that neither the president nor his senior-most general officers intended to win.

–Fourth, by reinstalling the Founders’ controlling foreign-policy precepts. These are neutrality in other people’s wars and rivalries; non-intervention in other countries problems if they do not impact genuine U.S. interests; trade conducted through reciprocal bilateral treaties that contain no political or military commitments; maintaining proper diplomatic relations with all countries so long as the foreign regime effectively governs its territory and keeps order at home, notwithstanding its domestic policies or actions; formal congressional declarations of war, per the Constitution; and avoiding alliances that limit the republic’s independence of action and sovereignty. (NATO and the UN must be the first to go.)

The foregoing words are not meant to be bloodthirsty or brutal. They are meant only as commonsense. For Americans, wars can be very few in number because of our geographical remoteness, economic might, and abundance of resources. The seemingly endless, post-1945 steam of unnecessary wars and defeats are due, in large part, to the above-noted problems and attitudes; the ignorance of many of us of the republic’s history and its usefulness in framing policy and action; the president’s unconstitutional, so illegal, ability to make-war off his own hook; and an abject failure to define the nation’s relatively few genuine national security concerns; that is, those which, when attacked or credibly threatened, would create compelling grounds for waging a necessary war.

And, as the Roman historian Sallust wrote millennia ago, in that kind of war “only the victor gets peace in return for war.” (1)

Endnote:

–1.)  Sallust. Catiline’s Conspiracy, The Jurgurthine Wars, and Histories. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 65

On the domestic front, Mr. President, for more than 30 months those who support your administration, its reelection, and love their country, have watched what can only can be seen as a rising tide of Democratic-and-media driven lawlessness in the country. They also have seen a determination by parts of the population to ruin the nation’s economy, impose censorship at the hands of the nation’s tech enemies on behalf of the Democratic party, raise taxes to catastrophic levels, and to admit enough illiterate, criminal, and/or diseased Third Worlders to irreparably destroy the republic’s social cohesion and ensure permanent rule by the Democrat slave-drivers at the national level.

The depth of the division in this country’s population is great and fast approaching the point where the blossoming and hardening hatreds can only be resolved by a test of arms. The broad and increasingly comprehensive censorship of conservative pens and voices – and even your own writings — moves forward with your government refusing or legally unable to eliminate the censors. These companies, moreover, appear to have made allegiance to the Democratic Party and the mudereous paganism called progessiveism conditions of employment, and so most of their work forces are willing to help their bosses limit the civil liberties of Americans who think differently. This is intolerable. If the law cannot protect conservatives from these people, there are other ways to remove those censors, Sir, and the growing anger over these actions is making the non-governmental – and perhaps violent — option more likely as the mean with which to ensure 2020 yields a fair presidential election.

The online censorship phenomenon is only the most recent revelation of the depth of the anti-America forces located in the republic’s governmental and business institutions. The number of the republic’s domestic enemies, it has become apparent, is enormous. Since the beginning of your political travails, Mr. President, you and your cabinet members have claimed that those criminals in the FBI, CIA, DNI, and the State Department who sought to overthrow your government are few in number, and they in no way reflect the views and beliefs of “99-percent” of the agencies’ work forces. This is bullshit.

It seems, sir, that you and your team have not noticed that all of the mainstream media, all of the Democratic Party, and most of the Republican Party also are claiming the same crap, that 99-percent of the federal bureaucracy are good guys. But until the lies of the Democrats and media about Russian collusion were proven beyond doubt as a hoax as great in scale as the claim of a climate crisis, it seems that very few officers from the above agencies came forward to help your administration, and more important, to defend the republic. There is news these days that more are coming forward, now that the jig is up. We’ll see.

But the relevant point to recall for each of these agencies is that no one with a desk on their seventh floors – Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Kerry, their extensive band of lieutenants, lawyers, and executive assistants, etc. – ever does anything but make plans and issue orders for others to execute. They are dime-store potentates who tell others what to do. It is the rank and file officers who do the leg work; read incoming and outgoing communications; do surveillance and install phone taps; type-up and format outgoing communications; do the necessary archival research; write new and alter old software programs; deal directly and regularly with foreign security services; overhear cafeteria conversations; gripe to each other about nefarious goings-on; and, most important, obey orders that either ignore presidential direction or hide presidential intent, such as the complicity of Brennan and George Tenet in Clinton’s decision not to even try to kill Osama bin Laden in 1998-99.

The noted agencies, Mr. President, are not complete hives of traitors of the stripe of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, and Kerry, but neither are they lacking in that species of poisonous cretin. There also is a layer of employees in each agency that are eternally indebted to the Democratic Party and its loyalists in the senior civil service for their jobs and the permanency thereof. The Obama administration’s appointment of these people lowered the overall brainpower, competence, security, courage, and loyalty of the four agencies. Numerous people were appointed not because they were intelligent, loyal, truthful, and serious about security, but because of their loyalty to the Democrats, their sexual orientations, their political philosophies, and/or their allegiance to the mad and republic-killing commandment “Thou shalt never abandon diversity and multiculturalism”. Mr. President, neither you, your administration, nor the republic will ever be safe until these layers of danger are eliminated. While these people remain employed, the foot soldiers of tyranny are intact and at the ready for another try.

In the foreign arena, Mr. President, there are also a number of stern actions that are needed. The first, in my mind, is to send a savage and substantive signal to those who pretend to be our allies. During your visit to Great Britain, Sir, you were quoted as praising the skills and attitude toward America of Boris Johnson, the man who is the favorite to be the next Tory leader, and so the new British prime minister. Your words, Sir, suggest that you were not briefed by your advisers on the likely role Boris Johnson played in orchestrating the British government’s willingness to employ its intelligence services to assist the Democrats and the U.S. media in their plan to overthrow you and your administration.

In my memory from working for CIA, Mr. President, the chief of Britain’s sigint service (GCHQ) must seek the approval of the UK Foreign Secretary, and then, I think, the prime minister, to proceed with the UK’s most dangerous and sensitive intelligence collection operations. Now, on 17 November 2017 — that is, after you won the presidency — then GCHQ-chief Richard Hannigan asked the UK Foreign Minister – a man named Boris Johnson – to approve the renewal of a 90-day program of GCHQ sigint collection against “the Trump organization and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., both located 725 5^th Avenue, New York, USA”. The GCHQ chief reminded Boris Johnson that this collection program — named “FULSOME” – was established at President Obama’s request on/or before 15 September 2017, that is, before the election. (NB: The Boris Johnson-approved GCHQ anti-Trump/anti-America collection program therefore appears to have run, at least, from 15 September 2017 to 15 March 2018. I have found no data showing that Johnson opposed this covert operation against, first, a private U.S. citizen, and then against a sitting U.S. president.)

Apparently, Mr. President, your friend Boris Johnson approved the renewal request because the collection appears to have continued. One must assume, too, that Johnson and Prime Minister Theresa May approved both of Obama requests for Britain’s GCHQ to intercept your electronic communications, as well as those of your family, businesses and campaign organization.

I am an old, retired, and, perhaps, a bit dotty senior CIA officer, Mr. President, but it seems to me that no government performing in the manner outlined above can be described as an ally, much less America’s most loyal friend and the most important NATO partner. If Boris Johnson becomes prime minister, Mr. President, he must be regarded as your personal enemy and the enemy of the republic, as well as the protector of all of those in the British intelligence, security, and diplomatic services who executed the covert program directed against you and the American electorate.

The British people, of course, can choose any party they want to govern their country, but Jeremy Corbyn and the Labor Party have long been anti-American, and Boris Johnson and his fellow Tory Party grandees secretly tried to help to destroy your presidency and the U.S. election system that gave you a fair-and-square victory. In power, neither party nor leader could be trusted as a close and reliable ally.

If you are ignorant of Boris Johnson’s complicity in trying to overthrow your election and administration, Mr. President, you could direct your CIA chief to ask her British colleagues for the following document:

–“Robert Hannigan, Director GCHQ to Rt. Hon. Boris Johnson, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, 17 November 2017”.

–If the British have trouble finding the document, the CIA’s chief might give them the following search terms, all of which are said to be in the document: “Obama”, “GCHQ References: A/7238.6547/12”, “Richard Hannigan”, “Boris Johnson”, “Renewal of Warrant CSO/142263”, “FULSOME”, and “U.S. National Security Advisor Rice”.

These terms will certainly help the British locate the document, but if they fail there is a fair chance that other copies of the document are located in other places where the British are unable to fail in their search.

Having watched nearly three-years of Donald Trump working, haltingly but stubbornly, to reestablish the great and republic-preserving pillars of American foreign policy — non-intervention and neutrality — it is clear that the trail toward those goals is long, winding, and, far too often, a process that yields two steps forward and one step back.

It was most encouraging to see Trump let the Neocons – especially Bolton, Abrams, Pompeo, and such of their mouthpieces as Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, and Bill Kristol  – make perfect jackasses of themselves via their botched handling of the none-of-America’s-business Venezuela problem. These wretches thereby showed Americans how desperate they are for war, and how utterly useless they are in the conduct of a U.S. foreign policy that serves the republic’s only genuine foreign-policy goals; peace; few if  any foreign political and/or military entanglements; a deterring military, capable – in mind, skills, and material – of total victory in the rare cases that demand war-fighting; freedom of the seas for trade and prosperity, and the maintenance of full sovereignty and independence of action.

The Neocons made a humiliating hash of Venezuela, achieving nothing but failure in driving the two socialists enemies – Guaido and Maduro — into each other’s arms for talks in the convivial atmosphere of Scandinavia, safely away from the suffering both have inflicted on Colombians with their socialist economic policies and their attendant authoritarian rule. The living conditions of the latter clearly were worsened by the bumbling of Bolton, Abrams, and Pompeo. Trump might just as well have assigned their job to the Marx Brothers, and could have expected better results from a Groucho-led effort

Over the past three weeks, however, my sense was that the Trump administration was going to take the one step backwards mentioned above on the issue of America’s now forty-year old, unnecessary, on-again/off-again, quasi-war with Iran. The drama came to a head last week when the Iranians were identified as the entity that shot down an unmanned, U.S. military drone that reportedly was flying over international waters.

Per media reporting, President Trump, on Friday, approved a limited military response against Iranian missile-and-radar sites, but then stopped the operation about 30 minutes before it was to occur. Earlier in the day, the media showed film of Pelosi and Schumer nearly dancing with joy after the president told them of the attack plan, probably in anticipation of large monetary bonuses from their AIPAC masters, an expensive war they could blame on Trump, and the shelving of growing public and conservative-media interest in Obama’s corrupt deal with Iran, which eventually will put him, Valerie Jarret, Ben Rhodes, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and his State Department team, and a number of U.S. general and intelligence officers in prison or, far better, on the gallows.

Trump’s stated reason for stopping the strike – too many Iranians would have been killed in revenge for a crashed, unmanned drone – is fair enough and hard to criticize, except for those Neocons and another of their spokesmen, Chris Wallace of FOX News. As readers of this space know, I am relatively unconcerned by any number of foreign casualties if the U.S. military is ordered to respond to an attack that killed Americans and so long as that response is meant to be overwhelmingly decisive to end the confrontation, not to begin a decades-long, tit-for-tat, inconclusive, and blood-and-treasury-draining conflict.

Trump’s correct decision to stop the airstrike, however, will not end the issue with Iran. Indeed, one can wonder if the president is not giving the Neocons and Israel-Firsters enough rope to hang themselves. Clearly, the recent limpet-mine attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and the shoot-down of the drone were attacks produced by the republic’s above-named worst domestic enemies, as well as by Israel’s military and intelligence operatives and, most maddeningly, members of the U.S. military and intelligence services and, almost certainly, their human assets in the Gulf and Iran.

Trump and his team, I suspect, have laid out the bait for a trap that could be the finale of this edition of the Iran war, and perhaps a start toward the end of all of it. The president said that it was not appropriate to kill 150 Iranians because an “unmanned” drone was shot down, adding that the loss of U.S. military personnel in te attack would have produced an entirely different kettle of fish. These words are high-stakes stuff, as they clearly are meant to suggest that Trump would have attacked Iran had the attack by the republic’s domestic and foreign enemies on the U.S. military killed U.S. Marines, soldiers, or airmen.

Given that people like Bolton, Shapiro, Levin, Abrams, and Kristol do not give a tinker’s damn about how many Americans die in defense of Israel’s interests, there certainly will be another attack meant to kill U.S. military personnel, probably soon. There also is the chance, of course, that those who staged the attack on the drone may simply skip a second attack, meant to kill American troops, and instead try to murder President Trump.

If Trump’s is running the sort of operation just speculated about, he should be saluted, supported, and prayed for. It is a sophisticated operation, one lethally dangerous to those tasked with its execution, and one that requires superb intelligence and near-perfect timing. It is, in the strongest possible sense, an America First policy, one that would expose U.S. citizen traitors and facilitate the quick purge of Obama appointees from the U.S. military, diplomatic, and intelligence services

Most important, a Trump victory would first luridly disclose, and then destroy, the deep, war-causing corruption driven and paid for by wealthy Jewish-Americans, their organizations, and their overseas friends, and publicized by their legion of media shills. A Trump win also would put on public display for flaying those men and women who have been purchased to champion pro-Israel policies and make them the law of the land — both de jure and de facto —  a cast that stars almost 535 bought-and-paid for senators and congressmen, and their large supporting cast of intelligence directors, general officers, and senior civil servants. If that happy result occurs, what more need be said than “Sic Semper Tyrannis” or, a bit more coarsely, “String ’em up”.