Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

On Wednesday, Robert Mueller made a final attempt to keep himself and his  Democratic and Federal civil service colleagues out of prison and/or off the gallows. In a stumbling, no-eye-contact, and head down eight-minute reading of a typed statement, Mueller all but begged Speaker Pelosi and Gaulieter Gerry Nadler to keep pressing the impeachment of President Trump.  In so doing, Mueller accomplished three things:

–First, he unwittingly underscored the fact that he and his band of Stalin-trained lawyers found absolutely no evidence of either collusion or obstruction and so, to keep the political persecution of Trump alive, they wrapped their report and yesterday’s briefing in vagueness, legal mumbo jumbo, and partisan innuendo so as to allow Nadler and Pelosi’s other congressional Gaulieters to run with the impeachment campaign. Mueller pretended that his words, per the Constitution, merely put responsibility on the Congress for deciding guilt. What those words really meant were that Mueller knows himself to be a criminal – recall his slavish, poop-boy role in delivering samples of traitor Hillary’s Uranium-1 merchandise to Moscow for Putin’s inspection – and is hoping that Herr Nadler can keep him out of prison.

–Second, Mueller’s words moved the nation closer to civil war by highlighting the fact that equality before the law is no longer available for most citizens. Why should any non-elite American believe that the Department of Justice, any federal judge, or the FBI will treat him or her as “innocent until proven guilty” if the absolute right of the President of the United States to that treatment is withdrawn? Mueller made it clear, not only that he a conniving political hack, but that there is neither truth, honesty, constitutionalism, patriotism, nor honor in the Democratic Party, its leadership, funders, elected members, judges, supporters in the citizenry and bureaucracy, movie stars, and on-the-payroll media. In so doing, he has identified for American patriots their and their country’s most lethal enemies. Mueller’s malign performance today will go a long way toward making Americans loyal to the republic and its Constitution prepare for the worst. They now know for a certainty that they must be ready to provide to Mueller and his ilk the effective, if cruel, reality inherent in the existence of a still-free people who are ready and even eager to use the 2^nd Amendment for the main purpose the Founders intended – killing all political tyrants and other civilian and military enemies of the republic and Constitution.

–Third, and sadly, Muller’s words proved that even the U.S. Marine Corps – for which my respect and admiration is almost unbounded — can produce the occasional filthy, stinking, and traitorous shit-bird of the kind he has proven to be. This is an important lesson for loyal Americans because it shines an even brighter light on the depth of disloyalty and lawlessness among those in the federal bureaucracy and U.S. military who were appointed by or received preferment or promotion from the Obama administration. Until this wave of disloyal human detritus is purged away, in one way or another, the republic cannot be safe.

 “How strangely,” Samuel Adams wrote in 1776, “will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” Adams, of course, was referring to King George III. He did so, however, in words that are perfectly applicable to Mueller’s perverse mutilation of every citizen’s once ironclad right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Mueller is a disgrace and traitor to American jurisprudence, the republic’s Constitution, and the nation’s citizenry. May he rot in hell.

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.” U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3

After Major-General Benedict Arnold sold British spy Major John Andre the plans for the Continental Army’s fortress and other defenses at West Point on the Hudson River, the unfortunate Major Andre was captured by local militiamen as he headed back to New York City. Andre was out of uniform when he was seized and so was tried as a spy and not as a captured British military officer. He was convicted and sentenced to be hanged.

General Washington confirmed the sentence and denied requests from several of his young aides – including, I believe, Colonel Alexander Hamilton – to imprison but not hang such a “gallant” officer as Andre. Washington refused and Andre was hanged by the neck until dead, as that marvelous saying goes. Washington’s intelligence operatives and soldiers also actively sought to capture Arnold. He even sent Lafayette and about a thousand continental soldiers to oppose and try to capture then-British Brigadier-General Arnold as he led a raid into Virginia. If captured, Arnold surely would have been convicted and given the noose.

Currently, Americans, as a people, are faced with an Arnold-Andre like situation that will test the mettle of the citizenry and of President Trump. To date, there is strong evidence that at least five foreign governments were enlisted by the leaders of the Obama-headed national government’s executive branch, and its intelligence and law-enforcement organizations, to support the coup they were running against President Trump; namely, Australia, Britain, Israel, Italy, and Germany. Other participating foreign governments may yet surface.

The enlisting of foreign-government assistance by U.S. citizens to overthrow a legitimately elected U.S. president can be described as nothing else but treason, as it is defined in the Constitution. This behavior cannot be dismissed as “dirty politics” and earn only a slap on the wrist. It must not be played down in the indictment and prosecutions of these U.S. citizens that are to come. The direct, in-person actions of these citizens amount, beyond question, to waging war against the existence of America’s Constitution and republican form of government. If the trials of the people engaged in these activities prove treasonous behavior, the only possible suitable punishment is hanging – and the president must, as did President Washington, allow the punishment to be carried out, no clemency, no commutation, no pardon.

Allowing for the mountain of pertinent evidence yet to be released on those people active in leading the failed coup, the information already disclosed shows that the following people seem to be liable for indictment for treason for enlisting foreign-government support for the express purpose of overthrowing Trump and republican government in the United States:

–Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Ben Rhoads, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Ashton Carter, Loretta Lynch, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, John Kerry, John Brennan, and James Clapper (NB: Substantial expansion of this list will occur when the senior aides to these people are identified. That group will include some general officers and others from, at least, FBI, CIA, NSA, and State.)

The reporting on the issue of foreign-government involvement supports the belief that each of these individuals knew, approved, helped promote, and did nothing to stop, the enlistment of foreign-government support to overthrow the Trump administration. There must, of course, be the normal cycle of indictments for treason, subsequent civil or military trials, and then the decisions of the juries or judges.

Personally, as the actions of these individuals were nothing less than waging war against the existence of the American republic, I would prefer open and televised military tribunals to handle the trials. Open and televised non-military trials, however, may be preferable for reasons of which I know nothing about. If treason convictions are secured, the sole acceptable punishment is the one that can only be found on the gallows, at the end of a rope. Televised executions, needless to say, would be mandatory.

After the main event concludes, there also will be some international tidying up to do. If they can be identified, all foreign intelligence and military officers, bureaucrats, politicians, spies, and journalists who knowingly assisted the Democrats’ coup attempt should be the subject of extradition requests from the United States to make sure they do not escape retribution for their war-waging on America. All five of the countries so far fingered for helping the Democrats’ war on republicanism claim to be allies of the United States, so arranging extradition ought to be accomplished smoothly. If extradition is refused by one or all of the accomplice countries, the men and women of the U.S. Special Forces are precisely the team that can arrange the presence of all these foreign brigands in American courts.

This is the first of four articles I plan to write over the summer on the fact that history always repeats itself, primarily because human nature never changes. Almost all American children schooled in the post-1945 era have been taught that history never repeats itself. That is a lie, of course, but it has been drummed into young heads for 75 years, and now it is constantly parroted by those who are said to be well-educated professionals, such as university historians, leading politicians, and general officers. These creatures, of course, have flocked to interpret U.S. history in terms identical to the Democratic Party’s most extreme ideologues, specializing in the “deconstruction” of U.S. history, which is simply replacing truth with lies and hate.

The pieces I plan to write will focus on the unchanging nature of the Democratic Party, comparing that party in the antebellum and Civil War/Reconstruction period – roughly 183o-1877 – and the party’s history from 1963 to today. The specific topics to be looked at are the party’s approach to (a) nullification and secession; (b) slavery; (e) the electoral college, the Union, and the ballot; and (d) the use of history.

–Part 1: Nullification and Secession

The fact is that history always repeats itself, and it has been doing do since the written record of man’s activities began in the Old Testament’s Book of Samuel. Today, there is an unfolding story that is a pretty close replica of the Democratic Party’s behavior and ideas in the antebellum period of American history. This week’s Democratic 1860-61-like talking point – “We are in a constitutional crisis” –by itself demonstrates that history is now repeating itself.

The Democrats, since the era of the early republic, have not changed their basic authoritarian, indeed, dictatorial and treasonous tendencies. In the decades before the Civil War, the Democrats focused on policies meant to somehow maintain their power in the Senate, Congress, and Electoral College, even as their representatives became fewer because most of the new states being admitted to the Union would be located above the Missouri Compromise line, and so non-slave. The refusal of the northern states to meet southern demands in full was the faux “constitutional crisis” of the era, the one which Southern fire-eaters later used, in 1860-61, to frighten their fellow citizens into believing that the newly elected Abraham Lincoln intended to free the slaves by invading the south.

One of the earliest manifestations of the Democrats rule-or-war ideology in this period is found in the Nullification Crisis of 1832-33, when the South Carolina government declared that it would henceforth determine for itself whether laws passed by the national government were constitutional. If the South Carolina government found a federal law unconstitutional it would declare the law null and void and prevent its enforcement in the state. In its exercise of illegal power, South Carolina was acting on the union-breaking concepts and advcie published by three Democratic icons, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John C. Calhoun.

The threat posed to the survival of the Union by South Carolina was defeated, in part, because support for it from other southern states was tepid, and, in larger part, because of Andrew Jackson’s steadfast devotion to the Union and willingness to work out problems — especially on tariffs — between the national government and South Carolina and the South generally. The grease that made the easing of tensions work, however, primarily was Jackson’s extremely credible threat that he would bring the army down to South Carolina and hang the nullifiers who were endangering the union.

Without a Andrew Jackson — himself a Democrat — at the national government’s helm, Americans now a face a far worse threat to the survival of the Union and the safety of the citizenry than that presented by adorers of Jefferson, Madison, and Calhoun. The current threat from the Democrats is to be found in their spreading application of the 1830s doctrine of nullification, this time under the guise of “sanctuary” cities, counties, and states. The unconstitutional lunacy of sanctuary-ism is safe from near-term popular detection because our schools have made Americans ignorant of and/or hateful toward the history of their Civil War era.

The sanctuary locales established in the United States by Democratic governors, mayors, county executives, etc. are far more dangerous to the Union than anything done by the nullifiers, or, indeed, those who would later become Confederates after April, 1861. In addition, the sanctuary process is a small sample of what secession looks like; namely the creation of territories within but separate from the American Union, where the Constitution and the legitimate laws of the national government – those pertinent to the supremacy clause – cannot be applied or enforced without coercion.

The Sanctuarians have not produced even a remotely plausible theory of government, such as nullification. They have simply wept crocodile tears for the criminals illegally crossing the U.S. border and defied the supremacy clause of the Constitution, the latter, so far, without the severe punishment required in response. In doing so, they have put specific territories beyond the reach of the national government on issues that are its sole prerogative; namely, defense of international borders, immigration, and the law-enforcement responsibilities attendant thereto. These sanctuary designations are purely de facto actions and have no basis in law, save for the inexplicably listened to bleats-from-the-bench by judges who are shills for the disunion plans of Obama and the Clintons, which are meant to destroy both the Union’s cohesion and republicanism.

Those Democrats who declare and administer “sanctuaries” are, themselves, simply criminals and the lethal enemies of the security of the republic and the viability of the Union. They facilitate the entry, and then welcome and harbor illegal aliens, every one of whom are criminals just from their act of illegal border crossing. The territorial sanctuaries they create are not the humanitarian havens they claim them to be. They are, rather, crime-ridden, law-free-zones; breeding grounds for growing criminal gangs; hiding places for all kinds of criminals; sources of contagious diseases long-considered eradicated in the United States; bases for the child-and-women traffickers providing fresh meat for pedophiles and whoremasters north and south of the border; launching pads for narcotics cartels selling death to astounding numbers of Americans; and shelter and training areas for Shia and Sunni militants entering the United States to eventually kill Americans.

There can be no doubt that the Democrats, by defying legitimate national government laws and creating sanctuaries for criminals, the diseased, slavers, terrorists, narco-traffickers, and inhuman savages, are reenacting their nullification-and-secession gambit of 1860-61, a tack that brought on the republic’s most murderous war.

It is clear madness for the national government and the American people to continue putting up with the Democrats’ latest forms of nullification and secession as they pollute and cripple the republic with crime, drugs, costs, and endless, non-English-speaking dole-takers. In 1860-61, Lincoln patiently and repeatedly assured southern leaders that the national government meant no harm to the South. He stood that ground, even as the Southerners stopped postal service and seized arsenals, until Jefferson Davis ordered Confederate batteries to fire on Fort Sumter. That cannonade started four years of brutal warfare.

These days, the Democratic nullifiers and secessionists have long since fired their war-starting shots. For several decades, the U.S. citizenry has been under gradually intensifying attacks by Democratic-sponsored narcotics, criminals, disease, terrorists, and relentless wasteful expenses all because of open borders and, now, sanctuaries for the foreign vermin the Democrats intend to use as enslaved voters who will reliably keep the party in power forever.

Faced with the Democrats’ damaging, expensive, and socially corrosive war, the Trump Administration has so far dawdled around, trying to use words and threats to dissuade the Democrats from continuing their war on the republic’s culture, language, history, treasury, and, indeed, its existence. There are many things that need fixing in the United States, but closing the border and eliminating the multiple, illegal secessionist territorial sanctuaries are a more dangerous national-security threat than anything currently posed by the Russians, Chinese, or Iran. Indeed, that threat is second only to the danger to the republic still existing from the many dozens (hundreds?) of people who willingly participated – in alliance with foreign governments – in an unsuccessful coup against President Trump.

Arrest the coupists first, Mr. President, and start the legal processes that will take many of them to the noose and the rest to prison. But, then, get moving and spare no effort to quickly eradicate those who keep the border and the sanctuaries open. If you cannot do so, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who will try to do so, and, if that happens, you will have allowed the republic to topple into a replay of 1861-1865. Not much of a legacy.

Below are a pair of pieces I wrote about the danger the republic would face if John Brennan was ever given a senior position of trust in the U.S. Government. I am reprinting them here because: (a) both appeared on this blog before Godaddy deleted it, and so are not on non-intervention2.com, and (b) Brennan just said he would be glad to testify before the Congress about whether or not he had been part of a coup against the president. I thought the pieces might suggest a few questions that could be asked Brennan if the testimony he is so eager deliver comes to pass.

The first piece is dated 3 June 2018, the second 6 February 2013. The latter was prepared for the Republican Senator’s staffers — at their request — before the Senate hearing on Brennan’s nomination as CIA Director. The Republican Senators ignored the points made in the piece.

Brennan’s innate perfidy has been known, obvious, and ignored for a long time. The republic has paid a high cost for that reality.

————————————————————-

John Brennan and Osama Bin Laden: The protector and the protected? The scent of Arab money?

Posted on June 3, 2018 by mike

I have kept quiet about former-CIA Director John Brennan’s ongoing, near-hysterical tirades against President Trump and the Republicans for two reasons. First, I thought that the critical response was pretty strong and coming from commentators whose words command a large audience. Second, I had my say in this space when Brennan was nominated to the post of CIA Director.

On 1 June 2018, however, I read Brennan’s OpEd in the New York Times. It is an egregious piece of propaganda and faux nostalgia. It also infused with the author’s overweening — and thoroughly baseless – sense of self-righteousness and personal heroism. Two items in the article particularly caught my eye. The first was Brennan’s claim that he is a “non-partisan”, which is true only in the sense of his own willingness to do anything for anybody who will improve his official position and, so, his financial position. The second was his claim that in the Oval Office of four past presidents he had heard the presidents “dismiss the political concerns of their advisers, saying, “I don’t care about my politics, it’s the right thing to do.’” (1)

The latter statement rings hilariously and viciously false to anyone who worked in the Clinton administration to prepare operations for the CIA to capture or the U.S. military to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton, I happen to know, had ten chances in 1998-1999 to try to end the bin Laden problem and refused each opportunity when it was presented to him.

I never understood why Clinton refused every anti-UBL operational opportunity. Did he honestly believe that Americans would damn him if some Afghan and Arab civilians were killed in an attack on bin Laden that was meant to defend them and the republic, an explanation that he gave to an Australian audience on 10 September 2011?

But now, in the swirl of events that will, pray God, culminate in the annihilation of the republic’s bipartisan governing elite, I wonder if there was more to it than simply Clinton’s personal hubris and moral cowardice, and if that more could be money, Arab money.

The main commonality in the decision-making about whether to conduct an attack on bin Laden in the 1998-1999 period was that the decision was made by a small, closed group of people: Clinton, Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, DCI George Tenet, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger – who later stole probably UBL-pertinent documents from the National Archive — and, on each occasion, John Brennan. Brennan was in close and frequent contact with Tenet from his then-senior post on the Arabian Peninsula. There are, for example, messages to the White House from him, and the then-U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, pleading that an operation to capture bin Laden in Qandahar, scheduled for May-June, 1998, be canceled because the Saudi leaders had pledged to end the bin Laden problem. This and other such episodes are noted in the 2013 piece appended below.

Based on this commonality, and the fact that these men were protecting what the Saudi king and his advisers had determined to the kingdom’s interests, could it be that another factor influenced the bin-Laden-protecting decisions of Clinton, Tenet, Clarke, Berger, and Brennan. It is well-known, after all, that the Saudis and their fellow Gulf Arab monarchs amply reward foreigners who forfeit their own nation’s interests and protect theirs’. We also know that Brennan resolutely defended the Saudis’ refusal to assist in anti-UBL operations – even sending a message to CIA HQs telling the UBL unit to lay off asking for Saudi help because the requests “offended” them – and was never once directed by Clinton, Tenet, Berger, or Clarke to knock-off his sycophant approach to the Saudis and push them hard to assist in preventing bin Laden from killing more Americans. (2)

Could these men have been acting in this manner because they knew what side of their bread the Gulf tyrants were buttering? I do not know, but I do wonder, and there may be a clue. In February-March, 1999, Clinton was presented with numerous, high-quality chances to kill bin Laden – using U.S. military assets — when he was visiting a hunting camp in Afghanistan’s southern desert. The camp belonged to and was inhabited by a group of UAE princes, who heartily welcomed bin Laden to their accommodations with some regularity. Each attack opportunity was sent to the White House, and each was turned down or responded to with silence. Eventually, the camp was closed and bin Laden disappeared from the scene.

Not long afterwards, a memo written by Richard Clarke found its way to CIA. In it was a checklist of items that he had recently discussed – apparently via telephone — with the Crown Prince of the UAE. In one of the items, Clarke noted that he had, with Clinton’s permission, warned the UAE leader that U.S. intelligence knew about the princes’ desert hunting camp and also knew that bin Laden was in the area He added that it might be best for the princes not be in the area. The camp closed almost immediately after the conversation that Clarke memorialized. Shortly afterward, CIA’s Counterterrorism Center learned that the UAE Crown Prince was about to purchase more than $8 billion worth of the export model of a U.S. fighter-plane, I think the F-16.

Coincidence? Who knows, though I am not a believer in coincidences. But there may be a way to ferret out the truth. There is a brilliant and startlingly industrious gentleman named Charles Ortel who is now minutely investigating the finances of the Clinton Presidential Library and the Clinton Foundation and its various sub-organizations. There also are reports that FBI officers in Little Rock, Arkansas, are pursuing the same targets. Perhaps one or the other will find some a record of a transaction involving those institutions that is pertinent to the coincidence of the UAE’s $8 billion-plus purchase of F-16s and the decisions of Clinton, Clarke, Berger, Tenet, and Brennan to ignore the chance to kill bin Laden for what they apparently thought was the unworthy goal of saving American lives.

Beyond pure avarice, apparent criminality, and worship for Obama, could it be that the mere possibility of finding a document showing Arabs rewarding their favorite Americans is fueling John Brennan’s stuck-pig like, holier-than-thou squealing? It is, I think, worth finding out.

Endnotes:

–1.) New York Times, 1 June 2018

–2.) I am not suggesting that these five men knew that the al-Qaeda attacks on the USS Cole (October, 2000) and then the 9/11 raid were coming. From my own experience, I doubt it, but there still are many smart people working to resolve this issue. I am asserting, however, that these five men refused to take any of the ten CIA-provided chances to kill bin Laden, and, in doing so, they could not have done anything more important to protect bin Laden in his Afghan lairs because they knew only the CIA was able to provide such capture/kill-opportunities.

 ———-——————————————

John Brennan as CIA chief would serve his own interests, not America’s

Posted on February 6, 2013 by mike  http://www.non-intervention.com 

France’s recent interventions in Mali and Somalia underscore the accelerating ability of Al-Qaeda-in-the-Islamic-Mahgreb (AQIM) and its Africa-based allies to threaten the continent’s nation-states, as well as access to natural resources—oil, strategic minerals, and uranium—that are essential to the French, U.S., and other Western economies. The growing power and geographical reach of AQIM mirrors the growth of all components of Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups, save possibly the central component in Afghanistan-Pakistan. The bottom line here is that sixteen years after Al-Qaeda and its allies began their religious war, the United States and the West confront an Islamist enemy that is larger, better armed, smarter, and far more geographically dispersed than ever before.

Now, that paragraph merits a fuller and more data-supported explanation, but for now, let’s look at one of the men—John Brennan—who for nearly 15 years has ensured both that the above-described growth in the Islamists’ power has occurred, and that most Americans have no idea that a still-growing part of the Muslim world is at war with the United States.

This month, President Obama nominated John Brennan to be the next CIA chief. Mr. Brennan was a longtime Agency officer and held a number of senior appointments there. He also has held a number of senior positions outside the Agency in the nation’s national security apparatus. One might argue that all of these positions were based on Mr. Brennan’s unvarying willingness to say “Yes, my genius leader” to anything his boss of the moment said was a good idea. It also has been said that he was thoroughly detested inside the Agency while working for DCI George Tenet—primarily because his first question on the proposal of a covert operation to protect Americans was always was “How will this impact on Director Tenet’s reputation”—and for fully supporting the CIA’s overwhelmingly successful rendition program while Messrs. Clinton and Bush were in power, and then damning the Agency for the program and helping to destroy it when he snuggled up to President Obama and his consistently anti-CIA party. Indeed, there was a popular joke inside CIA in the 1990’s which ran something like: “Question: Why is George Tenet never photographed from behind? Answer: Because they have not found a way to dislodge John Brennan’s nose.”

Now, it surely would be unfair to deny any nominee a job because of how people reacted to his performance as professional sycophant or because of off-color humor made at his expense. But there are at least four substantive reasons to deny Mr. Brennan the job of heading the CIA. The following are those reasons, and one would think that if the Senate does not ask him about them, it will have failed to do its job.

–1) 1996: When, in December, 1995, the Agency set up a unit to dismantle al-Qaeda and capture or help the U.S. military kill Osama bin Laden, one of that unit’s first actions was to ask Mr. Brennan—who was then what George Tenet has described as “CIA’s senior officer on the Arabian Peninsula”—to secure from the Saudi intelligence service some very basic information and documents about bin Laden. The Saudis did not respond, and so the bin Laden unit sent frequent messages to Mr. Brennan asking him to secure the data. When we finally received a response from Mr. Brennan, it was to tell us that he would no longer pass the bin Laden unit’s requests to the Saudis because they were annoyed by them. DCI George Tenet backed Mr. Brennan’s decision, and when I resigned from CIA in November 2004, the Saudis had not delivered the requested data.

–Comment: I speak on this from firsthand experience, as I was the chief of the bin Laden unit at the time. The messages from Mr. Brennan refusing to push the Saudis on bin Laden are in the archives of several government agencies, but, more important, they are in the archive of the 9/11 Commission. (NB: I know the documents are there because I supplied them to the Commission.)  In the latter archive, the messages have been fully redacted to protect the CIA sources and methods and so ought to be easily available to the Senators and to the media via a Freedom of Information request.

–2) May, 1998: For most of the year between May, 1997, and May, 1998, the bin Laden unit—with fine support from too few other Intelligence Community agencies—prepared an operation to capture Osama bin Laden using CIA assets. During the preparatory work, none of the bin Laden’s unit’s bin-Laden-specific information requests to the Saudis were answered, and given Mr. Brennan’s above-noted attitude, the unit was not ever sure the requests were passed to the Saudi intelligence service. Just before the capture operation was to be attempted, Mr. Brennan convinced Wyche Fowler—then U.S. ambassador in Riyadh—and DCI George Tenet that the U.S. government should cancel the capture operation. Although the Saudis had yet to lift a finger to assist U.S. efforts to counter bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and because it is the merest commonsense to know that Afghans never obey orders from any foreigner, Mr. Brennan, Ambassador Fowler, and DCI Tenet all assured then-National Security Adviser, Mr. Sandy Berger, that the capture operation should be canceled. Mr. Berger cancelled the operation, only to demand—through his assistant for terrorism Richard Clarke—that the operation immediately be restarted 75 days later when bin Laden’s al-Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania.

–Comment: I also speak on this issue from first-hand experience, as I was the chief of the bin Laden unit at the time, and also traveled in early May 1998, with DCI Tenet and the then-chief of CIA’s Near East Division to hear Mr. Brennan explain why this ludicrous reliance on the thoroughly unhelpful and often obstructive Saudis was a better way to protect Americans than by using CIA’s capabilities. Again, however, it is more important to note that the papers documenting this entire episode—including notes from Mr. Brennan, Ambassador Fowler, and DCI Tenet to Mr. Berger urging the cancellation of the capture operation—are in the archives of several government agencies, but, more important, they are in the archive of the 9/11 Commission. (NB: I know the documents are there because I supplied them to the Commission.) The latter archive the messages have been fully redacted to protect the CIA sources and methods and so ought to be easily available to the Senators and to the media via a Freedom of Information request.

–3) May, 2010: In a speech at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), John Brennan told Americans it is incorrect to attribute the words “jihad” or “jihadists” to the war being waged on America by bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and their allies.  In the Obama administration, Mr. Brennan explained, we refuse to “describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community….” Brennan said it would be “counterproductive” for the United States to use the term, as it would “play into the false perception” that the “murderers” leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a “holy cause. Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism—that the United States is somehow at war against Islam.” Bearing out Mr. Brennan’s testimony about the Obama administration’s position are a host of government documents—including Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points on the recent death of four U.S. officials in Benghazi, Libya—which refer to al-Qaeda or other Islamist militants not as “Muslims” or “Islamists” but in the Orwellian and deceiving term “Violent Extremists.” And, not surprisingly, the Committee on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) last week validated that Messrs. Brennan and Obama are following its orders by claiming that the word “Islamist is a stealth slur. It exists as a piece of coded language.”

–Comment: No one expects clarity or complete honesty from a politician, but when a senior U.S. bureaucrat speaks in public to Americans—who are, after all, his/her employer—about their nation’s national security, one has a right to expect that the speaker at least be in honesty’s ballpark. Mr. Brennan’s words above are—when considered objectively—as close as it is possible to come to a complete lie. Far more than 90-percent of the references to “jihad” in the Koran and the Hadith—the verified collection of the Prophet Mohammad’s sayings and practices—are martial in nature, and the one Hadith that provided the basis for Mr. Brennan’s lie has never been verified, is not included in the authoritative/verified Hadith collections, and is mainly used to mislead Americans by such apologists for militant Islam as the leaders of CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and academics like Georgetown’s Professor John Esposito.  The Senate, one would think, should ask Mr. Brennan to explain his lie, as well as to explain why the administrations he has served as a senior adviser—those of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama—have completely ignored the words spoken and written by Osama bin Laden and other Islamist leaders, even though there is a remarkably high correlation between the motivations and intentions they express and the actions they take in their religious war against America and its allies. A Senator might even find it appropriate to remind Mr. Brennan that the United States made a mistake similar to his in the 1920s when it ignored the motivations, intentions, and prescriptions for actions found in the words of former corporal in the Kaiser’s army.

–4.) 2013: Since May, 2011, when Osama bin Laden was marvelously killed through cooperation between the CIA and the U.S. Navy Seals, Mr. Brennan has consistently told Americas that the Obama administration’s policies have yielded a substantial reduction in the power, reach, and capabilities of al-Qaeda and its Islamist allies. To be fair, President Osama and Republican leaders repeatedly have said the same thing; most recently, President Osama said as much as he met Afghan President Karzai to finalize plans for America’s abject defeat in Afghanistan and the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul.

–Comment: During his confirmation hearings, the Senators should display two maps for Mr. Brennan. The maps should be simple and clear political maps of the world—no rivers or mountains to make viewing arduous. One should represent September 2001, and the other should represent Spring 2013. The one for 2001 will show al-Qaeda and its allies overwhelmingly domiciled in their Afghanistan stronghold, along with a scattering of small cells around the world. The map for 2013, on the other hand, will show al-Qaeda and other Islamists still active in Afghanistan, but also has having established other large enclaves—where training, arms caches, and operational planning can be easily accommodated—in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Palestine, across North Africa, Nigeria, and, as noted above, in northern Mali. Given that even a cursory comparison of the maps will show the Senators and all Americans that the post-9/11 al-Qaeda-Islamist movement has grown significantly in numbers and geographical reach, Mr. Brennan might reasonably be asked to explain why he, as well as the Clinton, Bush, and Osama administrations he served, have invariably misled Americans by asserting that the Islamist threat is receding.

The foregoing four points, I think, provide firm substantive ground on which to evaluate Mr. Brennan’s fitness to be chief of the CIA, and will allow his reputation for servile toadyism and deception to be left aside. I would also add that there are at least three children who deserve to hear Mr. Brennan’s answers. Let me explain.

In late 1995, I interviewed and hired a young Agency officer to work in the bin Laden unit. Over the next decade-plus, she and her colleagues in the unit and overseas succeeded in defining the motivations and leadership ability of Osama bin Laden; the organizational structure of al-Qaeda and its ties to other Islamist groups; al-Qaeda’s highly lethal intentions and capabilities; and provided the Clinton, Bush, and Osama administrations with at least 12 chances (May-1998-May, 2011) to capture or kill bin Laden—only the 12th of which was taken.

Over these years, the young woman I hired performed brilliantly, while having had three beautiful children who are now motherless because their Moma was killed by al-Qaeda at Khowst, Afghanistan, in December 2008, still trying to find Osama bin Laden after all the other chances she helped deliver to U.S. presidents were ignored. Those three children, as well as the mothers, children, wives, parents, husbands, and fathers of those intelligence officers and military personnel who have been killed and maimed in the war against al-Qaeda and Islamism deserve to hear Mr. Brennan explain those of his actions that helped keep bin Laden alive to kill so many Americans, as well as why he and his political masters have consistently lied to all Americans about the threat they face from the growing Islamist movement. I trust that those three motherless children—and the deceased CIA officer who bore them—will be front and center in the minds of the Senators when they question Mr. Brennan.

Two-plus years of the republic’s life have been stolen on the basis of criminal investigation that had no predicate crime to justify its operations. In other words, it operated on the basis of nothing, no basis whatsoever. Like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin, U.S. investigators targeted the man they want to destroy and then worked to frame a crime for his demise. They also enlisted multiple foreign powers to help them execute their framing project, an action both treasonous and gallows-worthy

But the rigged criminal investigation – like the Nazi Democrat’s rigged 2016 election – failed, and the target was exonerated. All Americans with commonsense know that in the American legal system the prosecutor must make a decision on the evidence he gathers. He either indicts or does not indict. In the latter case, the prosecutor traditionally simply says little or nothing so not to defame the non-indicted, and, therefore, innocent target.

In the present case, a supposedly splendid legal mind said he could not indict or exonerate the target, which is a lie on its face. He did not indict the target because there is no evidence to do so. Again, the rigged investigation failed.

This splendid prosecutor, however, deliberately created a path for the usual Nazi Gauleiters in Congress, along with their we-are-only-following-orders Nazi-Democrat operatives, the media, AIPAC and its disloyal ilk, and their political allies, like the junior Senator from Utah, to keep the republic- and Constitution-destroying hoax alive, so as to continue shattering the republic’s unity and endangering its existence.

All attentive Americans now know beyond doubt that – unless the current administration applies the laws with all permissible severity – there is no equality under the law for anyone who is not part of the National Socialist Democratic Party. It is clear, after all this time, that America’s Nazis, far more in number than anyone imagined, have wanted civil war all along and are now trying to ignite it.

So be it. These goose-stepping American Nazis, however, ought to recall that at times those who get what they want are, in the end, massively disappointed – and, in the best of times, they die. Imperial Japan, for example, got exactly what it wanted by destroying a portion of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Japan soon reaped a catastrophic, U.S. Marine Corps-driven whirlwind for getting what the Emperor wanted in Hawaii. Tough shit for Japan.

Today, there are many well-armed Americans who are angered and driven by a fierce hatred for Nazi-American actions meant to destroy the republic. When these patriots have had enough – a point surely near – the American Nazis, will get the civil war they have wanted and then, like Japan, they will die in agony, floating in an ocean of blood. Tough shit for the American Nazis.

Julian Assange’s post-arrest situation is being used by the bipartisan U.S. political elite and mainstream media to add additional chaos to the public square, this on the eve of the reckoning that the Constitution and President Trump and his team are soon going to deliver to those who have robbed the republic of two-plus years of its life.

Assange, of course had nothing to do with the so-called Russian interference in the 2016 election – the claim of which has been a hoax since the start – nor did he join the Russians to hack Podesta and DNC e-mails. The latter were stolen by that rare DNC official, Seth Rich, who balked at the corruption the DNC was using to ensure Hillary Clinton’s nomination. He apparently downloaded the e-mails onto a flash-drive – a process proven a senior NSA internet expert via his examination of the time it took to download the data – and then passed the e-mails to Assange’s people in a manner about which I am ignorant. Rich paid for this action with his life, probably murdered by DNC-paid, illegal MS-13 immigrants, and then left to die in a Washington hospital room as DNC Chair Donna Brazile reportedly patrolled the corridors until Rich breathed his last. Hopefully, Brazile will be among those who are administered a hefty dose of painful constitutional retribution, and has time to think about it before she is hung.

Assange, now under arrest in the UK and awaiting an extradition hearing, has moved the U.S. governing elite and its media whores to strive to use him to increase political and media chaos and to slow the advance of their approaching doom. The senators, congressmen, mainstream media, groveling-to-Disney FOX commentators, bound-for-prison folks like Brennan, Clapper, and Comey, puffed-up and always defeated and far-from-the-battlefield generals, and most of what passes for the legal profession are baying like rabid hounds for Assange to be punished severely “for endangering American lives”. The charges against Assange, as I understand them, deal with hacking not dealing with the Russians, but no matter, for these anti-American, anti-Trumpers any port in a storm will have to do when they are looking at an appointment with the noose.

The scaborous tide of hatred directed at Assange since his exit from the Ecuadorian embassy and his arrest by the British police has been stunning. As a former CIA officer, I have always damned those who published classified material, and living in northern Virginia, on the doorstep of the Washington Post, there has been such damning to do on a daily basis. Indeed, if Assange’s actions were assessed in comparison to those of such scum as Dana Priest, David Ignatius, Bob Woodward and his ferret-looking sidekick, and so many other Post writers, Assange would be let off the hook scot-free.

Assange’s crowd of howling critics would be far better served if they simply recognize and then attack the massive damage to U.S. national security that has been done by the Post’s large stable of anti-American employees. This is not to say that Assange should be excused from being tried for the laws he is accused of breaking – if there truly are any – but a conviction of Assange would do nothing but again underscore that there is no such thing as equality before the law in today’s United States. Assange, in other words, ought not to go to an American prison unless Priest, Ignatius, Woodward, and the ferret are on the same chain gang making little ones out of big ones.

Back to the Assange haters and attackers. These people have, almost to a person, used a phrase that says ‘Assange endangered American lives”. Now, that may or may not true, only time and a fair trial and an unbiased judge — the last two scarce commodities — can determine that issue. But the scourging of Assange is being used by the mainstream media, the Congress, and the lefty elite as a handy tool with which to prevent any public focus on the idea that Assange might not be alone in “endangering American lives”.

Agreeing that if there is non-invented, unComey-like proof against Assange, he should face a fair trial, what should be done about the following deliberate actions if the standard of “endangering American lives” applied to Assange is to prevail as grounds for criminality. If they are applied to Assange, the same grounds must be applied to every person who is found to be endangering American lives, and that leads to dealing with:

–Every America president since 1945 who has deliberately endangered American lives by starting undeclared, unconstitutional, and unnecessary interventionist wars that he did not intend to win.

–Every American general officer who has led troops in combat since 1945 and has endangered the lives of American troops while knowing that the commander-in-chief did not intend to win the unnecessary war he started.

–Every American President and the politicians serving in the Senate or Congress since 1945 who have endangered American lives and the country’s sovereignty and independence by supporting, signing, and adhering to international agreements alliances, and organizations that are funded by stealing from U.S. taxpayers –monies that ought to go to rebuild our infrastructure, feed malnourished kids, or simply to reduce taxes and debt – and which block the U.S. military from using every available weapon, including, landmines, napalm, cluster munitions, etc., to utterly defeat the republic’s genuine enemies.

–Every American politician serving in the Senate or Congress since 1945 who has endangered American lives by failing to complete the simple task of controlling our southern border, thereby protecting U.S. sovereignty and the cohesion of the American union and the society therein.

–Every American president, politician, judge, churchman, journalist, and professor since 1945 who has endangered the lives of Americans by unconstitutionally supporting — or refusing to effectively oppose — disunion, and so has paved the road to civil war by allowing the creation of “sanctuary” cities, states, and counties as a means of housing and protecting the Third World scum of murderers, rapists, illegal voters, kidnappers, criminals, and the diseased they have welcomed into the country.

–Every American politician serving in the Senate or Congress since 1945 who has endangered American lives by welcoming the illegal immigrants who have killed, raped, enslaved, dismembered, drunkenly run-over, and spread disease among Americans.

–Every leftist American federal judge serving since 1945 who has endangered American lives by preventing effective border control, by demanding treatment of illegal alien criminals as if they were law-abiding U.S. citizens, and by unconstitutionally blocking legitimate Executive Branch actions to protect Americans against illegal aliens.

–Every American politician, journalist, professor, and churchman who has, since 2001, endangered American lives by telling the public the palpable lie that “Islam is a religion of peace”, and then supported extra-legal protections for the clearly non-peaceful Muslims they have brought into the country with little or no vetting, like those who slaughtered Americans at San Bernardino, and those, like Ilhan Omar, who seems to have told us that she wants to see the slaughter of more. (NB: Only the stupid or lawless would try to deny Omar the right of free speech. In Omar’s and many other cases in our history, the 1st Amendment has been an invaluable tool of early warning because it allowed citizens to advertise their hatred for the republic and/or their loyalty to foreign movements and powers, as in the current performances of Omar and Gauleiters Nadler and Schiff.)

–Every American Senator and Congressman since 1945 who has endangered the lives Americans by reaching into their pockets to steal their money, and thereby reduce their families’ economic viability, and then gave that money to foreigners for whom neither America’s citizenry nor the government it owns – and can dismiss via the vote or, if necessary, the rifle and noose – bear even the slightest responsibility.

–Every technology titan, legacy media owner, and fact-checking guru since 1995 who has endangered the lives of Americans by censoring the dissemination of news so as to hide conservative and libertarian viewpoints in favor of the leftist tyranny that is now strangling to death the Constitution and the civil liberties it guarantees.

The foregoing list, of course, only contains ten of the many thousands of post-1945 instances where those most “endangering American lives” were well-known Americans who intended to do what they were doing. They were and are Americans who held positions of elected power and trust; individuals who commanded attention and influence because of their wealth, celebrity, or religious, military, judicial, academic, or civil-service authority; or because of their status as industrial, media, or financial leaders. Assange must face the accusations that are leveled against him, but, whatever the resulting decision is on that issue, it alone will not move the United States one inch closer to the restoration of republican government, a strong union with all states treated equally, and equality before the law for all.

As noted here, there are today many thousands of far more criminal, and much more deadly people to hunt than Julian Assange, and the hunt for them is now underway. If the hunt fails and is not reattempted by the government or the people, the republic will die.

But if the hunt fails because the hunters are found to lack the stomach for destroying the republic’s domestic enemies through constitutional means, the end of constitutional options for the termination of those enemies is not at hand. A well-armed and purposeful citizenry will still have its chance to act constitutionally and, indeed, act as the Founders intended them to act, which is — with determined faces, hardened hearts, and steady trigger fingers — to accept that it is their “right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” and thereafter act accordingly.

A good many important events are swirling around, most unreported by the mainstream media. The marvelous ongoing destruction of the reign of the French emperor Macron by twenty-one weeks  of the yellow-vests’ activism — seasoned with increasing police violence against them — is virtually unknown to Americans. Ironically, interested Americans have to depend on big, bad Putin’s RT for live coverage of the revolt against the French tyrant.

Anyway, the French story is one for a day when I am better educated about it. For know the four following items must suffice.

Brexit. UK Minister May – the smug, self-ordained slayer of British liberty– appears to be on the verge of proving that the UK is no longer a nation where power is lodged in the citizenry. For the three years since the British people ordered their leaders to remove the country from the EU, May has strung out the process and then, at the last moment, tried to create an emergency situation that would permit a Brexit agreement that ties the UK even closer to the EU and surrenders more of its sovereignty and wealth to the tyranny in Brussels. The British political process appears chaotic at the moment, but it seems to be drifting toward telling the British majority who voted to leave the EU to drop dead. With no privately-held arms and armed only with votes that clearly mean nothing, the British electorate is powerless. By helping the effort to overthrow President Trump, May also has proven that the only U.S.-UK relationship that remains special is that between Britain’s political parties and the U.S. Democratic Party. All of them are corrupt, tyranny-peddlers, and all merit being erased from the face of the earth.

Joe Biden. Here is a man who is now the pale shadow of a former nothing. He accomplished nothing during forty years in the U.S. Senate, assisted Obama’s systematic destruction of the U.S. constitution, hates being white, and appears to be involved in extensive illegal financial activities – along with other members of his family – with Chinese and Ukrainian entities. These activities, he thinks, make him worthy to be president of the United States. Clearly, only an unthinking ass could come to such a conclusion, but as being an ass is the basic requirement for being a Democrat or supporter of the party, Biden may have a crack at gaining the party’s presidential nomination.

Before anyone decides to support Biden, even lamebrain Democrats, however, three videos are worth a look. The first is a video of an apparently drunken Biden behaving as an out-of-control fool. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmRXH7RkCZQ) Who would give command of the republic’s nuclear weapons to such a lush? The second is a video that contains clips of Biden fondling young female children in public on multiple occasions. This film strongly suggests Biden is looking to be far more than simply “affectionate” with the targeted kids. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWabeiBwKq8, Clips start at 17:23) The third video simply shows the kind of perverse, corrupt, and criminal adults and activities Biden eagerly has teamed up with and embraced for all his political life. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSSMG0MaEnQ )

The Monroe Doctrine. It was inevitable that John Bolton, Secretary Pompeo, Vice-President Pence, and Trump’s other Neocons would begin bleating about the necessity of using the Monroe Doctrine to overthrow Venezuelan President Maduro and evict the Russian and Chinese officials and troops that reportedly have arrived in Venezuela to support the ruling regime. The Neocons, however, are at least fifty-years too late to credibly use the Monroe Doctrine for anything.

Proclaimed in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. warning to the European powers against having any ambition to reestablish their empires in the western hemisphere or to create new colonies therein. This doctrine was the handy work of strong and credible men, JamesMonroe and John Quincy Adams. But that was long ago.

With our post-1945 political class’s naïve, even mindless assistance, the Europeans and Third Worlders reestablished beachheads in North America with the creation of the UN in 1945 and its placement on U.S. soil. Today, it is clear we have less to fear from Europeans in America than the Third Worlders. These unwanted, unneeded, largely illegal immigrants are remaking the once sparkling cities of San Francisco and New York into wastelands, contaminated by a growing number of diseases spread by people who are too stupid to know how to use indoor plumbing. Portland and Seattle are reported to be the next cities to be ruined and diseased by shitty people, shitting outdoors.

The Monroe Doctrine, moreover, was meant to be a two-way street. We certainly warned off the Europeans, but we quite clearly promised that, in return, the United States would stay out of Europe’s internal affairs, especially its wars. U.S. leaders, however, first violated this pledge by staging the unnecessary and ruinous U.S. military intervention in World War I, and then by Roosevelt’s deceitful manipulation of public opinion and crucifixion of Colonel Lindbergh — both activities aided by the overt and covert help of British intelligence and Jewish-American leaders — so as to be ready to repeat Wilson’s interventionist disaster when Japan attacked and Germany declared war, actions that allowed the portrayal of an unnecessary war as necessary. Not surprisingly, Roosevelt chose to save Europeans by focusing first on Germany’s defeat, instead of focusing America’s military fury on those who attacked Pearl Harbor.

The final straw that shattered the Monroe Doctrine’s quid pro quo occurred in 1949, when NATO was formed and the United States unnecessarily became, in matters related to war and peace, a European country. Since then, the republic has played the indentured servant to the European elites, becoming the hewer of weapons and drawer-down of U.S. national wealth to serve effete European leaders who had no intention, then or now, of defending their countries unless the United States was willing to shed far more blood, limbs, and money than those leaders were in Europe’s defense.

In other words, the Monroe Doctrine is a dead letter and that may be a good thing as the U.S. military has not won a war since 1945. Regarding Venezuela, Trump – unless he goes berserk – has let his little gang of juvenile Neocons play out their game to failure. These geniuses have killed the popularity of their hand-picked substitute president, and increased the likelihood that Maduro would be reelected by the people who elected and reelected him in the first place. Regarding the Russians and Chinese now in Venezuela, let them pay the freight for engaging in a certain-to-fail effort to feed and rebuild that demolished nation. For the United States, the only thing the Neocons ever wanted in Venezuela was war and oil. Trump must not become today’s General Smedley Butler, a man who led his Marines in battle in multiple unnecessary U.S. military interventions south of Texas. Those U.S. military operations were always conducted in the name of spreading democracy, but, as General Butler said, their sole goal was to preserve and expand the economic interests of J.P. Morgan, Chase Manhattan, other financial titans, and their shareholders.

The Gaulieters and Israel. The latest hate-driven operations by the Iron Cross-seeking Gaulieters Nadler and Schiff will lead to nothing substantive, but they will harass and defame the president, while robbing the republic of two more years of its life. What is it that has driven Jewish-Americans, seemingly as a whole, to hate a president who, despite their united and virulent opposition, has improved American living and economic conditions far more in two years than the Jewish-American-loved Obama-Biden regime did in eight?

In part, it is because of their disregard, even contempt for all Americans who are not part of their community, as well as those Americans who oppose the policies that the community’s spokesmen, media, celebrities, and political leaders make clear they love best; namely, abortion/infanticide; identity politics like those of Nazi Germany; Islamophobia; ending the electoral college,; open borders; minority rule; sexual deviancy redefined as normal behavior; white people, the climate-change hoax; demented feminism; neutering the 1^st, 2^nd, and 4^th Amendments; hating Americans from the southern states and the Midwest; and, most of all, Israel.

The Jewish-Americans’ deep-seated hatred for President Trump has existed since he announced his candidacy and today is broadcast far, wide, and daily. Starting with Bill Kristol’s anti-Trump obsession – yielding the destruction of his own magazine and, currently, his own hilariously self-demeaning role on CNN – leading members of the Jewish-American community in all walks of life have heaped hatred, vitriol, and lies upon Trump, his administration, and his family. Under this downpour of Jewish-American hate, Trump has conducted himself with more of the actions of a true Israel-First shill than almost any of his predecessors. The president has moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem: he has recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; in his campaign to significantly reduce wasteful and often stupid foreign aid, he has made no mention of reducing the $38 billion in taxpayer funds that Israel is extorting from the U.S. Congress it owns; he has lavished praise on an apparently corrupt Israeli prime minister; and he has used his son-in-law to do Israel’s bidding in the farce known as the Middle East Peace Process. In other words, short of converting, Trump could not have done more in terms of behaving like an Israel-Firster – the direct opposite and deadly enemy of America First — and kowtowing to Jewish-Americans and Israel. Nor could he have done more in less time to solidify hatred for the United State in the minds of Muslims in America and around much of the Islamic world.

Which leaves two questions: Why do Jewish-Americans and their leaders and journalists so universally hate Trump? And why, in response to their mocking, scurrilous, and lying hatred, has the president continued to act as their pathetic yes-man?

I have no definitive answer, but I do have a speculation. The blazing hatred for Trump from Nadler, Schiff, Bloomberg, Wasserman-Schultz, Kristol, Durbin, Finestein, and so many other leading Jewish-Americans in politics, the media, the academy, and Hollywood could well mean that these creatures believe Trump will ultimately stop his slow application of an America First foreign and military policy by lethally turning on his, America First’s, and the republic’s greatest domestic enemies, of which there are five main groupings.

The first four are (a) the mid- and senior-levels of the federal bureaucracy, (b) the Democratic Party, (c) the academy, and (d) almost all of the media. The federal bureaucracy is already being culled of its richly verminous manpower – note the panic of Brennan, et. al — and the pace of that delightful process seems ready to pick up considerably. The Democratic Party is being destroyed by its socialist majority, and before long many dozens of its leaders will be facing the splendid pain inherent in the coming return of equal treatment under the law. No longer immune from the law that applies to all other Americans, these Democratic grandees will be humiliated, incarcerated, and forever vilified. The academy, too, will soon be  imploding as a consequence of the 1^st Amendment being restored to campuses. The academy’s hoard of two-bit, badly educated professors will confront the end of their courses on righteous feminism, anti-American U.S. history, gender studies, statue destruction, Antifa-sanctifying, the glories of sexual deviance, pedophilia, multiculturalism, and diversity, and a host of other useless topics once classrooms are again open to students who know these subjects are worthless and can be debated into oblivion by a bit of commonsense and the 1st Amendment’s ironclad protections. Not much needs to be said about the media. These Bloomsbury-like, faux intellectuals and sexually-uncertain weaklings have destroyed their own credibility, and will, if there is any justice, drown in the stinking cesspool they created and call home, all the while shrieking about Russian interference.

The republic’s fifth lethal enemy, unsurprisingly, is much of the country’s Jewish-American community and the state of Israel. It seems ridiculous to have to try to persuade Americans of this reality, especially after they have seen the Congress vote near unanimously to try to remove 1^st Amendment protections from a sitting, though reprehensible and dumb as a rock, congresswoman, and, again, near unanimously vote to give $38 billion to Israel. This rare unanimity comes at a time when the Congress cannot muster enough votes to fund relief for 16 million malnourished American children, for preventing infanticide, for restoring U.S. sovereignty, for stopping the inflow across open borders of fentanyl, heroin, pedophiles, MS-13 gangsters, women for forced prostitution, criminals, and young children for the pleasure of pedophiles.

Why would the 1^st Amendment be mangled and $38 billion given to Israel by massive congressional majorities, while solutions for America’s most serious and pressing problems cannot be passed? The answer: Jewish-Americans own the U.S. Congress and command majorities in both houses whenever they demand them. Their motto is “Everything for Israel, let Americans be killed, raped, starved, and addicted”.

But, if my hunch is correct, President Trump knows the depth, breadth, and power of these corrupting Jewish-American Israel Firsters. He surely also knows the enormous range of anti-American espionage operations – from suborning U.S. citizens to spy for Israel, to the theft of our intellectual property and technology – conducted by Israel’s intelligence services, with help from Israel-First U.S. citizens and some federal servants at all levels. If you will recall, when the fake FBI-DOJ Russian investigation began to unravel, the media reported that members of Israel’s diplomatic and intelligence services were involved in anti-Trump operations with the British, Australian, and Italian services. The reported Israeli role in the attempted coup has long-since disappeared from the media and, as far as I could find, the White House has never mentioned it.

My bet is that President Trump will make the disloyal Jewish-Americans and their country of first allegiance the last target on the above list of the five deadly enemies of the republic. The president seems to have insulated himself – through his butt-kissing praise for Israel and such Neocon stupidities as his decisions on Jerusalem and the Golan Heights – from any accusations of anti-Israeli thoughts, words, or behavior. When the time comes, Trump will have massive, and massively persuasive, data that will disclose to Americans the details of Israel’s longtime corruption of the U.S. Congress; campaign of espionage against the U.S. government and military; and practice of sharing U.S. technology and other classified information with the republic’s enemies. When Trump does this, Israel and Jewish-American Israel Firsters, together with the extraordinary damage they have done to U.S. foreign policy and the republic as a whole, will be, at long last, just an annoying memory.

During the years of the Muellar investigation the terms “treason” and “sedition” have been prominent in many discussions of the legal penalties appropriate for the government officials who set the witch hunt of President Trump underway and then prolonged it as far as possible. Now that the investigation is over and the President was not indicted, the full power of the law must be applied against those who deliberately robbed the republic of more than two years of its life solely because they lost an election and hate the man who beat them.

In other words, this episode is not finished, and it will not be complete until the Department of Justice cleanses itself and the FBI of those who began and abetted the witch hunt, and the President orders the directors of NSA, CIA, and any other participating federal agency to do the same. The number involved in this fraud probably will be in the hundreds. Ideally, all such disloyal people should be indicted and tried for their illegal behavior, but at a minimum they must be publicly named, fired, disenfranchised, and permanently banned from future employment with the national government.

For the high-ranking civil servants and politicians at all levels involved in the witch hunt, now is not a time for Americans to engage in the forgiveness and reconciliation they have shown themselves capable of in the past. In many ways, the past two-plus years posed more of a threat to the republic’s survival than the civil war. At worst, a Confederate victory would have would have created two North American republics with nearly identical Constitutions. A victory for the unconstitutional, Obama-led witch hunt against Trump, on the other hand, would have led to the removal of a legitimate president for no reason save his foes’ hatred and lust for power; the further accretion of power to the federal government; the federalization of elections, the simple description of which is tyranny; the end of, at least, the Electoral College and the 1^st, 2^nd, and 4^th Amendments, and open borders and unlimited immigration. The legal retribution against those who have acted in a manner meant to destroy the republic must be precise, as fair as possible, and it must be conducted in public, go wherever the evidence leads, and led by prosecutors who proceed remorselessly.

On the issue of treason, it seems likely that an indictment of Barack Obama would lead to a trial in which he would be found to have met the Constitution’s definition of treason, and would be convicted and, if justice prevails, executed. We already know, for example:

–That Obama asked Britain’s sigint agency and government, through Susan Rice passing on his request, to maintain its clandestine coverage of Trump, For this we have a document signed by the head of UK’s sigint service that was passed on and approved by Britain’s foreign secretary.

–That, at Obama’s request, Britain’s Mi6, with the Italian, Australian, and Israeli intelligence services, worked with parts of the CIA and FBI to wreck Trump’s campaign and, afterwards, to overthrow his administration. All of this assistance had to have been arranged by former CIA Director John Brennan, and none of those services would have given him the time of day on such an issue if he did not have, and prove that he had, Obama’s authorization to do so.

That, to reconfirm the foregoing, we know that the multiple “foreign governments” that Obama enlisted to attack the republic have interceded with President Trump and asked that he not declassify documents showing that they knowingly and willingly assisted Obama and his lieutenants to try to stage a coup d’état against a legitimately elected U.S. government.

Obama’s deliberate arranging of this already well-documented and large-scale intervention by foreign powers to subvert a presidential election and then a sitting administration must surely meet the Constitution’s rightly rigorous requirements for a treason charge and, ultimately, conviction.

Another of the Founders’ foremost teachers among the English republicans, Algernon Sidney, nicely summarized the meaning of a country’s leader secures the assistance of foreigners to attack his countrymen:

And whatever Prince seeks assistance from foreign Powers, or makes Leagues with any stranger or enemy for his own advantage against his people, however secret the Treaty may be, declares himself not to be the Head, but an enemy to them. The Head cannot stand in need of an exterior help against the Body, nor subsist when divided from it. He therefore that courts such an assistance, divides himself from the Body; and if he does subsist, it must be by a life he has in himself, distinct from that of the Body, which the Head cannot have. (1)

Replacing the word “Prince” with “Obama” catches exactly what Barack Obama apparently did to attack all Americans in an attempt to destroy their republic, their liberties, and their independence. He deliberately separated himself from the citizenry and now stands isolated and deserving of being described as the treasonous enemy of the Constitution and equality before the law. Such an allegation of treason must, of course, be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in open court proceedings.

That said, if Obama is indicted for his seeming treason and is convicted, I pray that the rotten bastard swings.

–Endnote:

–1.) Algernon Sydney. Discourses Concerning Government. Indianapolis, In: Liberty Fund, 1996, p. 540. (This editor of Sydney’s book was Professor Thomas G. West)

A bullet from the back of a bush took Medgar Evers’ blood
A finger fired the trigger to his name
A handle hid out in the dark
A hand set the spark
Two eyes took the aim
Behind a man’s brain
But he can’t be blamed
He’s only a pawn in their game

–Bob Dylan, Only a Pawn in Their Game, 1963

Only in the English-speaking could this keep happening. An Australian shooter — perhaps a new version of the brilliant Mr. Dylan’s pawn — goes to New Zealand, murders fifty Muslim citizens, and the world again is subjected to two inevitable events. First, the anti-gun activists who know and care nothing about the dead Muslims in Christchurch have started the inevitable grief festival – candles, flowers, notes, and other crap – as well as chanting the Islam-is-the-religion-of-peace mantra. Second, an obviously unfit, nerdy, and anti-gun New Zealand Prime Minister — Jacinda Ardern – launches an attack on her own people because her intelligence and police services failed to track the attacker, and then took forever to get to the scene of the murders. Like Barack Obama’s consistent behavior in similar situations, Ardern’s first instinct was anti-gun, and she swore to disarm New Zealanders in short order.

Now, let’s get this straight. The Australian attacker, given his behavior during the attack, clearly is a trained and skilled mercenary. This judgment is backed by what the press has reported about his globetrotting itinerary, which shows that he focused his travel on countries where fighting and drug trafficking are commonplace. Are we really to believe that New Zealand’s intelligence and security services were stupid or lazy enough not to have watch-listed this man, asked the Australians to keep close tabs on him in that country, or shared the data about him with MI-6 and CIA, both of which are better positioned than New Zealand’s services to keep track of him as he traveled, as well as to provide early warning of his ill-intent.

If you do not accept that such an utterly complete failure occurred, you would almost think that “Five-Eyes” cooperation in regard to this attack was meant to assure that the Australian shooter succeeded. After all, parts of the British, Australian, and U.S. external intelligence services cooperatively worked with Obama, the Democratic Party, and the international media to overthrow the legitimately elected Trump administration. In this light, it is not at all odd that the attacker’s so-called manifesto amounts to one stone that hit two of the Democrats’ favorite birds, their goal of undermining and eventually eliminating Trump, and their desperate eagerness to end the ability of private citizens to possess the guns needed to prevent the authoritarian, one-party state they want to install in the United States.

There also are the facts that former-DNI James Clapper was in Australia for visit in November, 2018, and former-DNC chief John Podesta was in New Zealand for several days in March, 2019. Both men fully support the elimination of President Trump and the U.S. Democratic Party’s policy of creating and managing armed terrorist wings like ANTIFA, BLM, and BAM to riot, burn cars, destroy other property, and intimidate and attack people – usually Trump supporters — in the United States. Only idiots would accept the two visits as simple coincidences and reject out of hand a hunch that either or both men had something to do with the Christchurch attack. Both men should be seen as “persons of interest” until their presence and meetings in both countries are thoroughly investigated and fully explained to the public.

The official story of the shootings cannot, at this point, be accepted at face value. Unless an explanation comes forth that contains more commonsense, and far less nonsense, one will have to conclude that what the public so far has been told is a lie, and the Christchurch attack, like the Las Vegas attack in the United States, was sponsored by forces antithetical to individual rights, free speech, and the ability of people to defend themselves against the armed terrorists who are on the payrolls of the Democratic party and its sister parties around the world, especially in the English-speaking world.

To cap off this badly played farce, New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern – the female complement to Barack Obama – decides to take immediate, savage, and Obama-like political advantage of fifty dead Muslims even before their blood congeals. Because of the attack, she announces her intention to disarm New Zealanders; the media say that some Kiwi patsies have already surrendered their weapons. Ardern, thank God, looks likely to have a pretty quick end to her political career. This dimwit wants to disarm her countrymen at precisely the moment when the country must begin preparing for a near-certain and major Islamist attack in New Zealand. If anyone thinks the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, or East Asia-based Islamist groups will fail to avenge the Muslims’ murder with an attack on New Zealand’s people and interests, they could be sold a pyramid or a warehouse full of 2016 Hillary Clinton for president posters.

Ardern also has asked the next G-20 meeting to take measures that would amount to the international censoring of articles and sites on the internet and social media that G-20 leaders and their advisers deem dangerous. You can bet your last dollar that any such effort would yield regulations to exterminate the presence of conservative, anti-establishment, and anti-globalist commentators, as well as global-warming skeptics, from the internet and social media, while protecting the advocates of each of those causes. In simple terms, if Ardern succeeds, the fascists win.

For the countries and peoples of English-speaking world, it is more important than ever before that the citizenry be as heavily armed as possible. Never before have they encountered as powerful and self-avowed domestic enemy of their freedoms, civil liberties, traditions, histories, religions, and language as they now face from those who call themselves “Progressives”. If the time comes to definitively end this growing progressive oppression, armed citizens will find that targets are both plentiful and more than deserving of being sent to eternal pain.

Nearly three years ago, the majority of the British electorate voted in a referendum to leave the EU. The British voters were sick of Brussels’ authoritarians strutting, preening, and acting as their masters; the EU-sanctioned flood of unwanted, diseased, unskilled, uneducated, and violent migrants; the refusal of their own government to protect them from that wave of human refuse; and the increasingly clear reality that the power of the British Parliament, judiciary, and laws was being blunted by EU institutions. It also was clear — though nearly all British media ignored this fact — that the civil liberties of Britons were being constricted in favor of giving legal preference to migrants. So much is this the reality, that a native-born Briton defending himself against a threat by, say, a knife-wielding Muslim, is more likely to be damned than helped by the law.

While shocked by the public’s support for what was, in essence, a freedom referendum meant to make sure that Britons once again would be ruled by Britons, and that British sovereignty, independence, and nationalism could again flourish, Britain’s political class stayed cool. The oh-so-wise. British upper-class – long ensconced in the parts of the Conservative Party — joined with other Conservative, Liberal, and Labor leaders, business titans, and almost all of the nation’s media to undermine, slow-roll, terrify the citizenry, and, eventually, undo the result of a legitimate referendum that approved the UK’s departure from the EU. To date they have succeeded. With very few exceptions, those working to keep the UK mired in the EU swamp have used every possible artifice to disguise their obvious contempt for the pro-exit voters’ because of lower socio-economic status, lack of Oxbridge educations, and cheeky uppityness in challenging what their betters had so kindly done for them by making Britons the groveling subjects of the mighty EU.

As the March 29^th, 2019, deadline for the referendum-sanctioned UK withdrawal from the EU approaches it is emphatically clear that neither the Prime Minister, the Parliament, the House of Lords, nor the political establishment as a whole intend to do what the voters demanded they do. Instead, they will debate, comment, introduce new withdrawal plans, and create organizations that support a second referendum to overrule the first. The second referendum, like the 2018 U.S midterm elections, will turn not on the re-expression of the people’s will but on the number of illegal ballots that are needed to ensure vote totals that keep Britain in the EU.

These past three years of debate on withdrawal from the EU demonstrate, not the concern of the British governing class for the country’s economic future or the population’s welfare, but rather the fact that the governing elite does not have the least fear of the people who vote for them, and thereby instruct them  about what to do. Britain’s upper-class governing elite has been conditioned to regard their countrymen as docile, non-threatening semi-humans who will take any amount of disenfranchisement or other forms of abuse the elite chooses to dispense. After all, the British elites believe:

–We dismantled the UK immigration-control system and let in a plague of unwanted Muslim and other economically and socially debilitating migrants, and they did nothing.

–We allowed Brussels to pass judgement on our laws and virtually all governmental policy decisions, and they did nothing.

–We sent tens of billions of pounds to Brussels to be dispersed to the EU’s long line of loser states and Third World shitholes, and they did nothing.

–We passed laws to give legal preferment to Muslim migrants and reduced the civil liberties of the native-born, and they did nothing.

–We read or listened to all of their electronic communications, and even sent them to jail for their thoughts or speech, and they did nothing.

–We have killed and maimed their children in the military by starting unnecessary wars that we did not intend to win, and they did nothing.

–We limited the ability of the police to apprehend or kill the many Muslim migrants who have made knifing the native-born their main recreational activity.

–We have turned a blind-eye to Muslim migrants who are grooming young, native-born British girls for future raping, and they did nothing.

These people, these voters, the British elite has concluded, will abide any pain, poverty, humiliation, betrayal, and legal degradation we fix on them, and they will do nothing but vote us back into power. The pro-exit voters may be Britons, the pro-EU elite has concluded, but if they are, they are mindless British sheep.

And now these British elitists, these so superior politicians, journalists, professors, businessmen, pundits, etc. will brazenly prove, by ignoring the exit-referendum’s results, that the sheep can vote whatever they they want, but we will still do want we want. Britain will remain in the EU forever, under any terms we decide to shackle on Britons, and they will do nothing.

How can this be happening? The answer is simple and the lesson is clear. The elite have ensured that Britons have long been virtually unarmed, and that their schools have taught students only to obey, not to think. What, then, have these elitists to fear from those in whom all power supposedly rests? To date the answer has been nothing. A politician, journalist, professor, parliamentarian, businessman, or prime minister, who does not keep a slight but always present fear in the back of his mind that people can only be pushed and abused for so long, historically is the stuff that sneering tyrants and popular anti-regime violence are made from. In Britain, today, there is an enormous number of the former, and none of the latter who, being disarmed, cannot put a sense of fear into their tyrannical masters.

It appears to be too late for Britons to protect themselves, and save their laws, their culture, and their nation from the UK’s elite, EU-worshiping tyrants, but it is not too late for Americans beat off their domestic grandees. So long as Americans maintain their 2^nd Amendment rights – even by killing those who would dare try to neuter them – they will be following the all-to-true warning of, oddly enough, an Englishman whom the American Founders respected and, obviously, took to heart for themselves and their posterity.  “[O]ur ancestors were willing,” John Milton wrote in his Defence of the People of England

“to put anything into the king’s power rather than their arms and the garrisons of their towns; conceiving that that would be as if they went about to hand over their liberty to the unrestrained cruelty of their kings.”

John Milton was saying that free men must never allow the power of the sword to belong to the king alone. By allowing themselves to be disarmed, Britons long ago handed over their liberty to the “unrestrained cruelty of their kings.” It seems much too late for Britons to recover their lost liberties, but it is not too late for Americans. So long as they protect the 2^nd Amendment, Americans will have a chance to recover their eroded liberties and defend themselves and their republic.

Who knows, perhaps the Americans-killing, no votes on border control by the MS-13 faction of Republican U.S. Senators on 14 March 2019, may be close to the last straw for those who oppose that kind of consistently bloody-minded, callous disregard for the citizenry’s lives and welfare. Endangered Americans ought to recall a few of the other words written by the estimable Mr. Milton: “[I]t is in the highest degree agreeable to the law of nature, that tyrants should be punished….”