Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

Since my last piece, the anti-Americans, Neocons, Israel Firsters, and former Obamaites have — like slugs — continued to slither forth and attack President Trump for deciding to evacuate U.S. troops from Syria and then Afghanistan. So far, the new wave of slugs includes Michael Bloomberg, Thomas Friedman, Eugene Robinson, Robert Kuttner, and the prison-bound, Obama-apologist Susan Rice, all of whom have damned Mr. Trump. David Ignatius also has returned for a second attack on the president. Ignatius apparently is taking over from the geriatric and clueless Bob Woodward as the Deep State’s most-favored, foolish, and fully controlled court historian.

Not to be outdone, FOX News is rolling out retired General Jack Keane at regular intervals to attack President Trump for not being smart enough to use the notorious bureaucratic-snare for prolonging unnecessary wars known as the “national security decision-making process”, and then accept its advice about what to do in Syria and Afghanistan. If used, this process would yield three easily predictable words of advice “stay the course”, this is because what that process inevitably wants is more war.

General Keane has been wrong about  almost every military issue he has addressed on television since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in October, 2001. Keane always sees light at the end of the tunnel, but when the light finally shows a clear picture, it is, invariably, one of more dead and maimed U.S. troops, billions of additional dollars wasted, less U.S. security, and endless war. Indeed, General Keane is the perfect product of the traditional war-wanting “national security decision-making process”. His analysis always calls for more war, no matter how definitively U.S. forces are defeated or have been shackled to make sure they cannot win.

Here is what President Trump seems to know: The wars in the Middle East, since the end of World War Two, have been caused by four factors: (a) the creation of the state of Israel; (b) unquestioning and unrelenting U.S. and Western support for Israel; (c) unquestioning and unrelenting U.S. and Western support for tyrannical regimes across the Islamic World, but especially in the Arab portion thereof; and (d) unrelenting U.S. and Western military, political, economic — the current lust Syrian oil and Afghan Lithium, for example — and cultural interventionism in the Muslim world.

American and Western troops are being shot at and killed by Islamists on Muslim territory not only because they are there to kill Islamists, but to act as the armed agents of the Western governing elite’s plan to homogenize world cultures, thereby making it easier for them to rule the globe in the fascist manner they, the EU, and the UN fancy. Most Europeans and some Americans have put up with this deadly, liberty-killing crap, but most Muslims have not, and will not, not ever.

What Mr. Trump seems to sense is that the threat to the United States flows directly and primarily from this endless and multi-faceted U.S.-led interventionism. He also knows that not a single U.S. Marine or soldier could be killed or maimed by an AK-47-armed, Islamist fighter if he or she was not present in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Niger, Mali, Chad, or the host of other intervened-in countries.

Unlike most U.S. presidents, politicians, generals, journalists, and professors, moreover, President Trump seems to have a good knowledge of geography. His acquaintance with maps has allowed him to see that the Islamist enemy is virtually no threat to genuine U.S. national interests unless our forces are operating on Muslim territory to enforce their governing elite’s order to impose so-called Western values on Muslims; protect Arab tyrants; and — most important — ensure Israel’s safety and its ability to do whatever it wants in the region.  (NB: Is it any wonder the Islamists are fighting this foreign intervention? Americans gave King George III the boot for doing far fewer violent and culturally catastrophic things to the thirteen colonies.)

Mr. Trump also gains another advantage over his critics from his familiarity with maps. While every president since McKinley has failed to notice and appreciate this key feature on a world map, President Trump sees that there is a 3,000-mile-wide oceanic water barrier off the east coast of the United States, and a 4,000-mile-wide barrier off the republic’s west coast. He also knows that our Islamist enemies have neither an air force nor a navy, and so have no way to get to the United States unless than can combine rowing like the Homeric heroes of yore, with explicit approval and divine help from Allah.

As result, Mr. Trump is working, I believe, on a two-part process, with both parts unfolding simultaneously. The first part is the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Syria and Afghanistan, not because the Islamic State and al-Qaeda are defeated, but because such a withdrawal makes attacking the United States a much more difficult task for the Islamists, as well as a much lower priority on their list of to-do tasks. After all, the Islamists focus on the United States because it knows U.S. generals are incapable of defeating them on Muslim territory, and because U.S. troops are on that territory. That is, U.S. Marines are shot in Afghanistan because they are there, not because they are U.S. Marines.

Once U.S. forces are withdrawn from Syria, the Islamists naturally will claim victory over America. That may hurt the pride of some Americans, but that’s water off a duck’s back if the nation’s splendid soldier-children are safely back in North America. In addition, minus the U.S. presence, the Islamists’ top priority will shift to killing troops belonging to what will be the main non-Sunni Muslim interventionists in the Sunni Arab world. These military forces include whatever European forces are goofy enough to remain after America leaves; Russian soldiers and mercenaries, Assad, his army, and his Alawite coreligionists, and the heretical Shia troops and militiamen from Iran, Lebanon, and Iraq. The Sunni Islamists, all praise to God, will have no shortage of killable targets to fill their time and attention after U.S. forces depart for home.

The apparent second part of President Trump’s plan has been unfolding in fits and starts since 2016: namely, his initiatives for a border wall and tightly controlled immigration. After U.S. troops withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan, America’s open southern border will remain today — as it was in 2001 — the most dangerous weak point in any national-defense strategy aimed at blunting the Islamist threat. This fact has been so blatantly obvious for so long, that those who have deliberately failed to secure the southern border merit hanging, and perhaps drawing-and-quartering after they are cut down. I noted this in books I published in 2002 and 2005, but made the point at greater length in my 2008 book, Marching Toward Hell, America and Islam after Iraq.

In America’s war with the Islamists the only place to start is with the physical security of the United States. Because our bipartisan elite has refused to control either our borders or illegal immigration, law enforcement agencies at all levels of government – local, state, and federal –have been left without even a fighting chance to defeat our U.S.-based Islamist enemies or those who were coming in from abroad. As long as the immigration-and-borders status quo remains, police agencies will be working against an undocumented pool of aliens that grows by the hour. In this context, the billions of dollars that Washington has spent to install electronic- and bio-detection gear at official border crossings, ports, and airports is of use only if Islamists are stupid enough to walk through an official entry point – whether at Tijuana or Windsor-Detroit – wearing I-love-Osama-T-shirts and carrying AK-47s, explosives, al-Qaeda identification cards, or WMD components. Unfortunately for America, al-Qaeda’s fighters have proven to be anything but stupid, and they are most unlikely to help us defend the United States by exposing themselves to the world’s most sophisticated detection equipment. In essence, we have, since 2001, spent untold billions beefing up official border crossing points … and are now equipped to reliably interdict only unimaginably careless or certifiably idiotic Islamic fighters. …

How to proceed? Well, the best answer would be to deploy the U.S. Army and Marines along U.S. land borders to prevent the entry of illegals until an effective network of fences, trenches, watch towers, radars, and – if necessary – minefields can be built in a crash program along the Canadian and American borders. But the world’s best and most expensive military is deployed overseas in losing Wilsonian wars meant to install secular democracies that Muslims are resisting to the death. And even if U.S. forces were not stretched so thin, those elected to run the federal government have, for decades, failed completely, knowingly, and deliberately, to ensure the physical security of U.S. borders. On this issue, Americans today find themselves in what Thomas Paine described as the “intolerable state” of being “exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without a government.”

If Mr. Trump can make his two-part plan a success, the republic will be in an enviable position: no Sunni mujahedin will be killing U.S. military personnel abroad, and the citizenry will be enjoying a reliable obstacle to Islamists — and all illegal aliens — trying to enter the country. In addition, the national government at last will be able to resume full sovereignty over the territorial domain of the United States in fact, and not merely as a spoken and transparently false claim.

Nearly as important, the citizenry and their leaders will be able to sit comfortably in North America and watch Russians kill Sunnis, and get killed by them; Sunnis kill Russians and Iraqi, Iranian, and Lebanese Shias; Sunni Afghans and their foreign allies killing Russians, Afghan Shia, pro-Western Sunni Afghans, and the soon to arrive Chinese forces. President Xi’s forces will be sent to guard the construction of Xi’s ignorance, madness, and hubris-fueled belt-and-road project that is to pass through China’s Muslim-dominated Xinjiang Province, the states of Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Sunni Rohingya-dominated area of Burma. And, with any luck, Erdogan’s Turkey and the panoply of Kurdish groups will get to join this lethal regional fandango.

Military and civilian deaths, as well as Russian, Chinese, and Iranian regime expenditures, will abound and proliferate across the region. And if Mr. Trump can swing it, Americans and their military can watch from home as those the national government has defined as the republic’s enemies merrily murder each other, weaken their regimes and economies, and make the intense Sunni hatred for the United States steadily weaken as Iran, Russia, China and their surrogates feel the full wrath of this and future generations of Allah’s warriors.

Such a magnificent result for the United States and its genuine national interests would clearly show, as the saying goes, that God is truly great, and especially so when you use the commonsense with which He endowed you.

Endnote:

M.F. Scheuer, Marching Toward Hell. America and Islam after Iraq, (New York, 2008), pp. 256-257

The great bulk of Americans, Mr. President, are ebullient over your decision to remove our troops from Syria, and soon from Afghanistan. Since the start of those two murderous misadventures, in 2001 and 2003, many American parents have welcomed home from war only dead; legless, blind, or armless; or mentally troubled children. No victories, no end of wasteful spending, no national government concern for dead, save for a few faux tears at Andrews Air Force Base, and no general officer competent – or, seemingly, willing — to lead our troops in a way that ensures America wins. Mr. President, the beginning of the end of the governing elite’s 70-years of military interventionism is a precious Christmas gift to Americans, their children, and their hopes for the republic’s recovery.

We never had a genuine national-interest reason for going to war in Iraq or Syria, and only justification for an annihilative, 15-18-month punitive campaign in Afghanistan. All those wars are now lost, which is the traditional manner of American war-making since V-J Day in 1945. You, Mr. President, have taken a large step to permanently ending military interventionism as the first option for presidents, their advisers, the Congress, and their senior civil servants. You also have laid down a marker to the U.S. corps of flag officers; namely, Americans have no time or respect for you if you do not win wars, or if you take U.S. troops to wars you know the president does not intend to win.

With respect, Sir, there is another very important product flowing from your decision to get out of Syria that you must note, and hopefully take to heart. Look at the list of those who have damned your decision. It includes Hillary Clinton, Lindsay Graham and most of the U.S. Congress, Max Boot, Elliott Cohen, Ezra Klein, Eli Lake, the New York Times, Slate, Bloomberg, Jeffrey Goldberg, David Ignatius, Robert Corker, the National Review, the Washington Post, the New York Post, etc., etc., etc. This list of anti-Americans has several common characteristics – beyond hating you — they are globalists, war-mongers, wasters of America’s riches and young people, aspiring destroyers of the U.S. Constitution, and, most of all, loyal adorers of Israel either via their faith or the generous subventions — that is, bribes — they receive from the disloyal leaders of the Jewish-American community and its organizations.

Whether you intended or not, Mr. President, your decision to leave Syria has brought every one of these rat bastards and hundreds of others out from under the rocks and cesspools where they dwell into the bright sunlight, a light that always, in time, fixes on traitors to this republic, thereby identifying for the citizenry the republic’s most lethal enemies. Ignore the rat bastards, Sir, stick to your guns, and carry on.

A Happy and Holy Christmas, Mr. President, to you, yours, and the republic.

The Texas judge who recently found Obama Care unconstitutional is the rare example of a public servant doing his duty by using his own commonsense and the plain words of the U.S. Constitution. While that should be the natural course of events, it seldom is.

In the United States, constitutional government really is a simple process if the obvious words of the Constitution are understood as they were written, not as judges want to misshape them. The purportedly well-educated Chief Justice Roberts shackled Obama Care and its “individual mandate” on Americans by defining it as a tax, rather than what the Constitution clearly defines it as; namely, a diktat placed by a master and his sycophant overseers – like Roberts – on an enslaved population. Obama and Roberts are perfect modern models of Simon Legree, although the lashings applied by both are far more vicious toward Americans than were those applied the original thug.

The ruling is a welcome and commonsense development, but if the issue gets back to Robert’s court the citizenry may well be reshackled with more well-imagined but utterly fatuous interpretations of the Constitution. If that happens, Americans once again would see a clear demonstration of the reality that the republic today is run by neither elected representatives nor the Constitution, but by a mostly aged, black-robed, unaccountable clique, which cares little about the Founder’s Constitution and cannot be controlled, overruled, or constitutionally eliminated by the electorate. This reality renders it impossible to ignore the brutal fact that the American republic is now ruled by nine petty tyrants who increasingly merit wide-ranging constrictions on their purview or, in time, disposal by whatever means are necessary

Also, last Sunday, FOX News showed a stunning and viciously anti-American discussion between Chris Wallace and Bill Gates. Now it has been clear for several months that many of FOX’s on-air personalities are either stridently anti-Trump – the always snide and bitchy Shepard Smith and the Bush-butt-kisser Dana Perino – or increasingly anti Trump, like Judge Napolitano. Not too much can be said about these folks except they seem to be money-chasing whores and that the post-Ailes, anti-Trump, Murdoch-sons’ management of FOX surely is funding their bought-and-paid-for lies and venom.

The grotesque Wallace-Gates conversation, however, is on a whole other level than the foregoing. Wallace’s ridiculously softball questions for Gates made him seem eager to follow Perino’s lead in the skill of journalism-by-sycophancy. Gates, for his part, plays the mumbling, generous-to-a-fault rich man, but all of his ideas, donations, and plans lead in only one direction; namely, toward a fascist world government, commanding overwhelming force to impose uniformity in thinking, speech, and behavior, and using U.S. taxpayers as a cash-cow for his plans until he can irretrievably bankrupt the republic. With that accomplished, he and other like-minded fascist billionaires will have destroyed the republic, lowering it to the standards he and his like see as the proper station for Americans; that is, as hapless, impoverished, Third World shit-holers.

Wallace and Gates were not only anti-Trump, they were as callously anti-American as it gets. Both attacked Trump’s efforts to re-establish America First as the country’s guiding star, and especially savaged his efforts to substantially reduce U.S. foreign aid. Because both men are rich enough to avoid most federal taxation, neither had any qualms about drawing this give-away money from those who most need to keep it in their pockets or saving accounts. Wallace and Gates apparently see no harm in having Congress take money from working Americans and give it to foreigners, who are, after all, not Americans and so do not command the protection of the Constitution or have any legal or moral right to call on Americans to hamper their own and their families’ futures by paying taxes for the sole purpose of seeing them wasted on or stolen by foreigners.

All told, Wallace and Gates really conducted an America-be-damned conversation, inferring it was the U.S. taxpayers’ moral duty to sacrifice their sweat, income, and kids-future for some benighted foreign riff-raff who are wondering about in lands far away, who are irrelevant to genuine U.S. national interests, and who are enemies of the taxpayers’ incomes.

The end of foreign aid – especially to African states, whose tyrant-rulers’ steal it; to Israel, which merits not a cent of public monies; and to the pathetic always-with-their-hands-out NATO countries – would give the national government the chance to make sure:

–(a) The 20-percent or more of American children who are malnourished are adequately fed.

–(b) The full border wall is quickly built to stop the unwanted, illegal, and republic-killing entry of the earth’s violent, criminal, drug-smuggling, and diseased dregs.

–(c) America stays out of other countries’ business, thereby avoiding involvement in their irrelevant-to-America local conflicts.

(d) And, perhaps most important, to begin to reverse the now solidly entrenched belief among average Americans that their national government does not give a good god-damn about their or their republic’s welfare and survival.

The time has long past where it is possible to believe that foreign aid and military assistance are beneficial to Americans. The pro-foreign aid argument was a noble-sounding lie from the start. That aid, since 1945, has produced only four things: oceans of wasted taxpayer money; unwanted/illegal immigrants; foreign entanglements leading to unnecessary wars; and the now well-grounded and only barely contained animosity of working Americans toward their national government.

Aid to others is today, as always, the sole responsibility of each individual’s conscience, it should never be coerced from any citizen by the self-important mobsters in Congress and at the IRS. Citizens, churches, community organizations, fraternal groups, and a hundred other kinds of service organizations are always free to donate to causes of their choice. It is to be hoped that all of these givers would have the commonsense to understand that there is no morally defensible reason to send their donations overseas when there is so terribly much to be done among their fellow citizens here at home, where charity must always begin.

If American aid must be sent overseas to be wasted and stolen, let it be drawn from the pockets of Gates, Wallace, Bloomberg, Buffett, Pope Francis, the Koch Brothers, Soros, the Clintons, the Obamas, the chairmen of Google, Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook, the Rockefellers, Hollywood’s rich degenerates, and all those hundreds of billionaires who pride themselves on helping foreigners, but only if most of the money comes from the pockets of working Americans.

Just for a change of pace, then, let the national government squeeze the above-noted litany of rich folk for the money that is soon-to-be-wasted on foreigners, and let it squeeze them long and hard, as Lloyd-Gorge once said, until the pips squeak. This would keep money in the wallets of working Americans, and give them some reason to begin to believe their national government may yet recognize that its job is to preserve, not destroy, the republic.

What needs to be destroyed by the national government – or, if needed, by citizen militias — are, for starters, the Democratic Party, ANTIFA, the FBI, and the Department of Justice. That destruction-and-reclamation process, however, will take time. The place to start is the creation of military tribunals to deal long-lasting pain to the three Clintons, Comey, Obama, Holder, Clapper, McCabe, Brennan, Yates, Soros, Page, Strozk, Rosenstein, McRaven, Muellar and his band of criminal attorneys (that may be redundant), the two Ohrs, all the Brits, Australians, and Israelis who worked to overthrow a U.S. election, Schumer, Finestein, Schiff, that cur Durbin, and all of the federal judges in the 9^th Circuit.

There also is strong reason to consider firing a good many CIA and FBI employees who were hired during Obama’s two terms. As far as the public record shows, there has not been a single employee of either organization who has resigned to speak publicly about their knowledge of the anti-Trump and subversive activities of Clapper, Brennan, McCabe, and Comey. Granted that there are not large numbers of officers knowledgeable of what those four scoundrels were doing, but there are some that do and all have been silent, and silence means consent. Without a thorough-going purge of the Obama-era CIA and FBI hires, the foot-soldiers of subversion and treason will remain in place and ready to try again.

Yes, yes, I know. All of this is only a start, but righteous retribution is sure to gather momentum once initiated.

Political unity continues to be a fading memory in the United States, and, as I previously noted here, that is okay with me. The media’s endless prating about the need for bipartisanship amounts to calling for the republic to be sentenced to death. Why would any decent, law-abiding, and patriotic American want to have anything to do with any Democrat or many of the Republicans, though the departure of Senators Flake, McCain, and Corker and 40 retiring Republican congressmen is a step in the right direction for that party.

What the media means by political unity and bipartisanship is the surrender of Trump’s base and all decent Americans still blessed with commonsense to the dictates of the Democratic Party on open borders, murdered infants, a daily increasing menu of ever-more-lunatic gender identities, media censorship, congressman and senators derived from reconstituted swamp scum, higher taxes, gun seizure, the end of free speech, a judiciary eventually formed from mad feminists, fake science, climate-change fanatics, sexual deviants of every imaginable kind, anti-Americans, and illegal aliens, and the final ruination of the republic, its Constitution, its history, and the citizens who remain loyal to them. The future of the Democratic Party, its members, and its media really can only be warmly anticipated by Americans if that evolving future is accompanied by a sound track driven by the steady, up-tempo beat like that found in the admirable composition by the noted German composer Werner Gruner, his Opus MG-42.

This said, we are now seeing a united U.S. Senate that is strong for confrontation with Russia, as well as for ending relations with Saudi Arabia and overthrowing its government. That rare unity, of course, is not the product of the Senate’s concern for the security and welfare of the republic and its citizenry. Rather, it is the result of the Senate – and the House of Representatives, for that matter – being owned by disloyal Jewish-Americans and their ultra-rich and savagely pro-Israel organizations. These Israel-Firsters clearly prevail over any semblance of America-First patriotism in the Senate and Congress whenever it comes to doing the bidding of their nation of first preference.

The fact that a nearly unanimous Senate wants to have President Trump publicly and economically beat up Vladimir Putin and militarily threaten Russia by further reinforcing NATO is utter madness worthy of a Marx Brother’s movie. After consulting with European diplomats and George Soros, Ukrainian President Poroshenko – a EU/U.S.-backed purveyor of fascism – sent three of his navy’s ships into Russian waters without asking permission for their transit. The Russians, ever wary of any but Russian adventurism in the Black Sea region, reacts properly, and seizes the three trespassing ships and impounds them and their crews. The Russians are within their rights, and an appropriate apology from Poroshenko’s government probably ends the incident and restores the status quo.

But, no, most of the one-hundred U.S. senators have decided to use Russia’s legitimate defensive action as something approaching an issue of high national-security interest and danger to the United States.  This is a claim that does not sound logical even if you say it fast: for example, “Poroshenko’s navy deliberately violated Russian waters. Moscow seized the trespassing ships and crews. Putin therefore is getting ready to invade Ukraine and the U.S. military and taxpayers must ride to the rescue of Ukraine’s fascist regime.” In other words: Ukraine attacks, Russia defends, the West says Russia wants war, and this amounts to a Russian threat to the United States. Come on.

There are admittedly few good guys involved in the Ukraine-vs-Russia confrontation, but that is neither here nor there. The face-off is simply none of America’s business. The EU, George Soros, and the anti-American, money-hungry clique of Obama, Clinton, Biden and his son, and McCain ran a “regime change” operation in Ukraine, replaced a pro-Russian government to anger Putin and Russia, and, for their trouble, expense, and intense embarrassment, got a fascist ruler and regime in the Ukraine, an economic basket case there to support, and Russia’s fully justified reacquisition of Crimea. But this kind of farcical and humiliating result imparted no lesson in the minds of Western interventionists; indeed, they seem to think it would be fun to repeat it, apparently eager to earn another dose of embarrassing comeuppance from Moscow.

Or could it be that in the United States, the anti-Russian fervor and the  bipartisan support for it is a function of Israel-First’s control of the U.S. Congress? The Ukraine-Russia confrontation poses no threat to the United States; the only correct response is let them fight it out if that is what they want to do. If the mighty EU decides to go after Russia without America, so be it. It would be most interesting, in fact, to watch Russia’s version of the Wehrmacht’s panzer divisions rolling down the already burning Champs Elysees. That would be a sight to savor, as the permanently adolescent EU mandarins get their collective ass handed to them by the tough, ruthless, and adult realist in the Kremlin.

But whose best interests lie in maintaining a consistent and high-level of U.S.-Russia animosities. The answer can only be Israel. The Russian government has troops stationed near its border with Syria, as well as naval and air assets nearby; it is maintaining and seems to be strengthening the Assad regime’s staying power; it is building new military and naval facilities in Syria; and it is supporting – or at least acquiescing in — Iran’s ambitions in the region. From Israel’s national-security perspective this situation is close to intolerable. Israel, however, though great at fighting semi-trained forces armed with Korean War-era weapons, is a midget power compared to the military capabilities of Putin’s Russia.

Next, amazingly, all of the Senate and many congressmen are still trying to use the dead journalist Jamal Khashoggi as a spear to run through the heart of both Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS) and the jobs of many American workers. Now, dead journalists are, these days, a dime a dozen; as noted previously, a UN spokesman claims that one is killed every four days, but there is no Senator expressing anger, grief, and vengefulness every fourth day. For example, at least two U.S. journalists and a U.S. humanitarian worker – recall, even if Khashoggi’s parts are stitched back together he is not a U.S. citizen – were killed in a short space of time a few years back by the Islamic State (IS). These killings occurred at a time when Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Emirates, and Kuwait were all supporting IS by allowing their young males to join its ranks to, and by sending donations to IS from both public and private coffers. Do you recall the ardor with which a unanimous Senate pushed the Obama administration to stop selling arms to the Saudis and the Gulf’s other tyrants? Do you remember how our NATO allies also stridently urged us to do so, and did so themselves? Do you recall how the U.S. and Western media demanded punishment of the Arab tyrants? For that matter, do you remember that the united Senate demanded the obliteration of the Kingdom after about 20 of its nationals – acting on the education they received in the Kingdom – killed nearly 3,000 Americans in 2001.  If you do, you are hallucinating. None of those things occurred.

Why, then, is almost all of the U.S. Senate so intent on attacking Saudi Arabia and American workers with heavy sanctions over the death of the non-U.S. citizen, pro-Muslim Brotherhood, pro-mujahedin, buddy-of-Osama journalist Khashoggi? Simple, really. Saudi Arabia is still the headquarters of militant Sunni Islam – and especially the militarily inclined Salafist sect — and the Kingdom’s private- and religious-sectors still are the source of much of its funding. The current Saudi crown prince is unlikely to be able to tame the Salafist movement, but the timing of when it ends his tenure is hard to calculate. One knowable thing, however, is that the longer MBS holds power and pushes his so-called reform agenda, the more violent and religiously radical will be the forces that over throw him and try to rule the country.

In other words, a near-term overthrow of MBS probably would result in Saudi Arabia slipping back into the characteristics that marked the nation before the Crown Prince rose to power, a condition which Israel had learned to live with. A significantly longer, anti-Crown Prince campaign, however, would bring the Salafi militants to the fore, and, when successful, they most likely would put power in the hands of someone whose religiosity, patience, ruthlessness, and worldview resemble those of Osama bin Laden.

Now, what country would greatly and justifiably prefer a near-term reversion to the kind of regime that governed Saudi Arabia for decades before MBS? The answer is, of course, Israel, a nation and people wise enough to know that Arabs are not the stuff of which stable democracies are made. They also are wise enough to know that a prolonged campaign against the Crown Prince’s rule might well yield a religious Saudi Sunni/Salafist regime, one as, or more militant and stubborn than the Shia regime in Iran. In essence, for Israel, it is better to take the Saudi devil you have long known, the one who could count on the West to come to its defense as long as it tolerated Israel.

Another reason, perhaps a stronger one, for Israel’s preference for the good-old Saudi regime is the Crown Prince’s November, 2018, decision to build a nuclear research reactor in the Kingdom. The Crown Prince and his advisers appear to have decided that it was not enough to count on the willingness of the Pakistanis’ to come to their rescue with the nuclear weapons the Kingdom helped fund.

The default consensus in Israel and the West may well be that MBS’s construction of a nuclear reactor is due his regime’s fear of Iran, and there is some truth to that. But the view from the Israeli government must be focused on both Israel’s national security and the unavoidable conclusion that a long MBS tenure could yield, at its end, both a Saudi nuclear arsenal and a bin Laden-like leader, or worse a leader like IS chief Abu Omar al-Bahgdadi. This credible threat certainly will move Israel to act in ways that are aimed to make sure MBS remains on the throne for the shortest possible time.

Okay, so Israel’s interests require a new U.S.-Soviet Cold War and a fairly quick termination of the Crown Prince’s reign for what it sees as legitimate, life-or-death national-security interests, and only the Israeli government can define what those are and what actions are required to secure them. Military options taken against either Russia or MBS, however, are the road to Israel’s destruction, and patiently biding time may be suicidal.

The only sensible, utterly reliable answer to Israel’s quandary is for it to call on the services of one of the U.S. government organizations that disloyal Jewish-Americans and their organizations have corrupted and purchased for Israel’s use in manipulating U.S. foreign policy to further Israel’s interests, rather than those of the republic. In this case, their most suborned and enslaved tool was chosen to do Israel’s bidding; that is, the United States Senate.

As if possessed by John McCain’s war-mongering lust, nearly all of the Senators have sought – for Israel’s interests — to promote armed confrontation with Russia over the worthless-to-America Ukraine. Likewise, they have taken up cudgels for Israel in declaring that MBS’s rule is intolerable because he is thought to have ordered the demise and divvying-up of the anti-American Khashoggi. The Senate, in fact, is demanding regime change in Saudi Arabia, an action that could please only Israel and the worthless, now turning-on-a spit soul of McCain.

Not surprisingly, after being briefed on 4 December 2018 by the CIA’s director on the agency’s findings about Khashoggi’s death, four of the most reliable Israel-First senators – Charles Schumer, Richard Durbin, Lindsey Graham, and Robert Corker – told the media that the entire Senate must be briefed by CIA so it could then unanimously demand that the Trump administration take actions to terminate MBS’s rule, notwithstanding that such action would cost thousands of U.S. jobs, drive oil prices toward $100-or-more per barrel, and take pressure off Iran. As always for the Senate, Israel’s protection is the only priority, and no expense to achieve that goal is too costly, even if it is to be measured in the weakening of the U.S. economy and the useless wasting of the citizenry’s livelihoods, taxes, and soldier-children.

Both of these problems – Russia and MBS – are easily resolved. For the United States, the answer to both is America First, which means refusing to be involved in fighting the imagined Russian and Saudi threats to the republic posed by the issues of Ukraine and Khashoggi. For the EU, the answer is to solve – for and by itself — the Ukraine problem it caused by cooperating with George Soros and the criminals Obama and Clinton to overthrow the pro-Russia Ukrainian government. For Israel, the answer is to grow up and fight your own battles or, better yet, grow up and stop believing God intended for you to always get your maximalist demands. For nearly 100 corrupt and treasonous U.S. Senators, the answer is a coerced, ten-year term in the new Guantanamo Bay prison facilities.

When I decided to write for publication about the confrontation between the United States and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the large amount of research material available led me to conclude that the U.S. national government – under either party – never expects to receive a response to the actions its takes against foreign entities. It blithely goes along bombing this place and that, sanctioning that person, this company, and the other nation-state, and witheringly denouncing foreign governments for decisions, policies, and actions that are rightly and solely their sovereign responsibility.

When Bin Laden and al-Qaeda began hitting U.S. interests and then territory – after repeatedly warning Washington that they would and formally declaring war on the United States – Washington and far too many Americans reacted with complete bewilderment, as if the United States had done nothing in the Islamic world that could, in Muslim minds, warrant a violent response. How anyone can be surprised by the application of  the simple and eternally justifiable maxim “an eye for an eye” speaks directly to the mediocrity and dilettantism of U.S. political leaders, as well as to the abject failure of the U.S. educational system and those who are, for some unknowable reason, identified as teachers, but are really the Democratic Party’s recruiters and brain-washers.

This line of thinking — the attacked will never hit back — is, of course, a form of mental derangement that still exists today, as the national government continues its military, political, economic, and, increasingly, cultural intervention in the Muslim world. It is a strange logic that concludes that a war caused largely by decades of arrogant U.S. military interventionism in Muslim affairs can be won by staging more military interventionism.

The unperceptiveness of the national government that I found in regard to understanding the threat from Bin Laden, et al., however, now seems to extend to other important American institutions; namely, the Supreme Court, the U.S. military’s leadership, and most mainstream journalists. Each entity pounds away at the American citizenry and their republic, and believes — I think and hope foolishly — that their targets will take such abuse as their civic duty and never respond against their tormentors.

–Supreme Court: Chief Justice Roberts’ criticism of President Trump for clearly pointing out the obvious – that the 9^th District is a direct and dictatorial continuation of Obama’s administration – must have been made as joke, or perhaps it just means that the Chief Justice is a nutcase. The federal judges in the 9^th District have issued a series of decisions that are intended (a) to be an expression of the Obamaites’ hatred for Trump and (b) to cripple the ability of the Executive Branch of the Trump administration to execute its most important constitutional responsibility, the protection of Americans and the maintenance of the republic’s sovereignty over its territory. The 9^th District’s decisions have long been as much of a joke as Roberts’ boot-licking decision – what does Obama have on him? — that Obama Care’s individual mandate was a “tax” and that the act itself did not illegally prevent interstate commerce by forbidding Americans to buy cheaper health insurance outside of the state in which they reside. Who is Roberts’ kidding? How smart can he be if he cannot discern either the rank political bias of the 9^th District or the general public’s anger-filled recognition thereof?

Indeed, Robert’s and his colleagues would do well to catch on to the fact that the nine of them and the federal judiciary generally are held, with good reason, in contempt by much of the American public. Roberts presides over a federal judiciary whose members would have been rooted-out, killed, burned to ashes, and then mixed with lime by the Founding Fathers and their supporters, who, to a man, absolutely opposed the idea that the American people should be legislated for and dictatorially ruled over by out-of-touch, life-tenured, unaccountable, biased, and, far too often, ancient, isolated, and addled judges.

The development of the Court since John Marshall began building the case for an omnipotent Supreme Court has been aimed at the negation of genuine republican government, a process of negation that now sees 300-plus million Americans being ruled and legislated for by a corps of nine “supreme” justices and their subordinate judges, most of whom seem to be Ivy-League educated, America-haters. Today, the Supreme Court has, in essence, the absolute power of the Louis XIV, and, like the all-powerful Sun King, it does not give a good god-damn about commonsense, abiding by the intent of the Constitution and the laws, or blocking the work of the other two branches to promote the safety, welfare, and aspirations of the citizenry.

But the smug and oh-so-superior Roberts and his court are, or at least ought to be, deeply concerned by the growing possibility that, at some point, it will be called to account for deliberately interpreting the Constitution in a way that has made the contemporary Supreme Court, and the federal judiciary writ large, an odious, anti-human, and extra-legal monarchy that is far worse than that the Founders’ slayed between 1775 and 1783. It has, moreover, made the Founders’ Constitution utterly unrecognizable, which, in itself, is sufficient cause for the current Supreme Court — which, as President Trump said of the 9^th District, is and long has been “out of control”— to be returned to the limited and non-monarchial role the Founders’ intended. This can be done by greatly reducing its purview, an action that would protect the citizenry from the kind of judicial tyranny that has allowed the murder of 60-plus million unborn Americans and only this week sanctioned the genital mutilation of infant American girls, while defending the rights of an elephant.

–U.S. Military Leaders: Admiral McRaven apparently has reappeared from the corporate boardroom and taken another swipe at President Trump by identifying him as the greatest threat to America. I have previously spoken in this space about McRaven, so there is no use rehearsing that analysis. It seems to me, however, that McRaven and any other retired or serving U.S. general officer who seeks to confront the President over threats to America ought to be confronted with a simple question, which could be posed as follows: “What threat, General _____ or Admiral ____, do you believe has accrued to the United States because you and your peers, and all of the U.S. admirals and generals since September, 1945, have collectively failed to win a single one of the wars in which the United States has engaged. Is that not the most basic and important job of general officers? Why have you all failed so miserably for the past 73 years?”

The answer will be discursive and empty, or, though it would take a level of moral courage never seen in a general or admiral, he could accurately respond by saying that the president for whom he worked had no intention of winning the war he had, in most cases, started. It is vital that if some general or admiral is brave enough to explain that which is now obviously true to most Americans, he should be asked this follow-on question, “If that is the case, and given you and all general officers often declare, in tearful words, that your first duty is to make sure the lives of your troops are not wasted, why have neither you nor any of your peers resigned rather than participate in wars the commander-in-chief had no intention of winning?”

The truthful answer to such a question is obvious from the lack of resignations. Generals and Admirals are toadies to the president, liars who care not a damn for their troops’ lives, and greedy bastards who will do anything to get to the post-service financial nirvana of corporate directorships. Admiral McRaven’s surname surely is more properly spelled McCraven to describe his complete failure to object, resign, and then speak to the American people about presidents who do not intend to win the wars they start and so utterly waste the lives of their soldier-children.

–Journalists: While mainstream media’s journalists ignore important issues – the Democrats’ election-fixing, Mueller’s sham investigation, George Soros’s apparent manipulation of the major tech stocks, the criminals rife among the migrants nearing the border, etc. – they, instead, consistently whine and rage about the number of journalists who are being killed around the world. This is, perhaps, one of the most perfect examples of those who relentlessly, and for decades, attack others and the things that are dear to them, and yet blindly believe they will never be the targets of retribution.

In the United States, few journalists have been killed, but it is naïve to think that the bells will not soon begin to toll for them. Since my long-past youth, mainstream journalists have joyfully ridiculed and attacked Christianity, conservatives, home-schoolers, pro-life advocates and organizations, the free market, stay-at-home mothers, boy scouts, the right to work, the republic’s history and heroes, patriotism, and nationalism. In turn, the same journalists have,

–Championed abortion, multiculturalism, illegal immigration, amnesty for illegals, diversity, racial quotas, and extreme feminism, all of which are designed to destroy the country’s social cohesion and inter-racial amity, not to mention that they are compelling evidence of mental derangement.

–The journalists have nearly unanimously supported the fatuous argument that sexual deviance of all kinds – including gender fluidity, trans-genderism, endless numbers of genders, and pedophilia – are just other forms of “normal”.

 –They have supported whole-hog the Democrats’ efforts to destroy the 2^nd Amendment and – with their Tech-baron allies – to destroy the 1^st Amendment. They also have long supported Obama’s obliteration of the 4^th Amendment.

–They have willingly become the paid and pampered pets of the Democratic Party. They have actively engaged in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate presidential election, and supported and largely formulated a vicious campaign to block a Supreme Court nominee by covering the transparently man-hating and lying – the bright trademarks of contemporary feminists – accusations of three demented, sadly comical, and obviously worn-out, sleep-around relics of feminist excess, each of whom should enjoy a future that includes a spell in prison.

–They are trying to suppress information about the obvious Democratic rigging of many of the 2018 elections by screaming that even the suggestion of such a thing is nothing but conspiratorial thinking. They are likewise refusing to investigate the increasing amount of detailed information that suggests the California fires were started or assisted by humans.

–They have repeatedly and gleefully published stories that put U.S. military and intelligence personnel and operations at risk. They are obviously willing to get those people killed, those operations ended, and the citizenry’s security lessened in order to win one or another of the journalism awards that never fail to reward such loathsome authors, as well as any other that is transparently anti-American.

–They have led the vicious and prolonged attack on the American South and its history, traditions, symbols, and collective memory in the name of protecting the tender sensitivities of those who are not worth even a handful of the dirt trodden upon by Marse Robert’s Army of Northern Virginia.

–They have defended and justified the violence of the Democratic Party’s armed wings – ANTIFA, BAM, and BLM – and always prefer a dead law-enforcement officer to the apprehension of a criminal or illegal immigrant, or the killing of someone who is shooting at the police.

–They have helped to inflict on America the rapist Clinton, the empty suit and war-mongering Obama and his emptier-suit wife, and they tried to saddle us with either the ancient, clearly authoritarian Sanders or the Wall Street-and-Hollywood-owned felon and charity-cheat Hillary Clinton.

–They have – on behalf of Trump-hating, Israeli interests, and the war-causing theory of human rights – tried to force President Trump to deal with Saudi Arabia in a way that would cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars and many thousands of jobs. The journalists pushing a break with Riyadh’s money seem to think Americans care deeply about their late, now deeply divided colleague Khashoggi. Why journalists could possibly think that any right-thinking American cares about the murder of Osama bin Laden’s buddy and Muslim Brotherhood member, or is willing to lose their job to respond to his murder, is far beyond understanding. Indeed, it would be best for mainstream journalists to see the broad popular indifference to Khashoggi’s murder as a starkly clear omen of attitudes to come about other similar events domestically and abroad.

This list, of course, could be greatly lengthened. It is extensive enough, however, to suggest that U.S.-based  journalists’ may have unwarranted confidence if they believe that that they are free to savagely attack the ideas, activities, traditions, and history of the republic, to which at least half of Americans are devoted, and never have to be concerned about being attacked with vigor and even hatred in return. The UN says that a journalist is killed every four days. A sad statistic for a very few, and one that is likely to understandably and justly get much sadder for these attacking curs disguised as journalists.

Like the Supreme Court, the federal judiciary, the U.S. general officer corps, and American journalists would do well to memorize, and repeat each day before work, the iron reality of life: “What goes around, comes around”.

U.S. presidents and their subordinate political, military, and intelligence officials have a long history of taking actions in foreign-policy situations where refraining from actions or commitments would have had tremendous long-term value to the American republic. In a regrettably consistent manner, when they encounter situations where no action should be taken, you can bet that they almost invariably act  The litany of these occasions of ass-backwards actions constitutes a sad history, one that makes it amazing that – though near to death – the republic’s heart still beats.

One example would be President William McKinley’s moving from the correct, U.S.-benefiting position of refusing to get involved in a war over Spain’s misrule of its colonies to a decision – based on moral outrage and political advantages, not material national interests — to enter the Spanish-American War in 1898. The so-called victorious outcome of that war was a plus only for the political future of Theodore Roosevelt, the career and popularity of naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan, the circulation of William Randolph Hearst’s newspapers, and the impetus given to multiple, militant Protestant sects who saw their “mission” as an unending overseas campaign to convert the heathen and protect believers, one that would be fueled by taxpayer dollars and the blood of U.S. Marines, sailors, and soldiers, who were expected to dutifully die or be wounded for God, country, and converts.

Given the questionable upsides of victory over Spain, a short audit of what were then termed “the glories of victory” seems in order. The United States acquired Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines from Spain, and occupied Cuba after Spain gave up its sovereignty there. The United States retained a right to intervene in the country after the peace, and when Cuba became independent in 1902 and the right was included  in its constitution. How these facts can be deemed positive accomplishments is a stretch. Consider the economic disaster in which Cuba stands today – ruled first by gangsters and now by Communists — and its continuing willingness to host Russian and Chinese military and intelligence assets. All this, 120 years after the United States waged the War of 1898 to “free” the Cubans. In addition, Puerto Rico is now a gangster-ridden island that is completely incapable of successful self-government – as recently demonstrated by the theft and waste of post-hurricane, taxpayer funding – and Guam, which is entirely dependent on U.S. taxpayers.

The American occupation of the Philippines, however, takes the cake for the most damaging aspect of the U.S. interventionist war on Spain. The war there persisted long after the defeat of Spain and involved U.S. Marines and soldiers in militarily suppressing Filipinos seeking self-determination. It also included a prolonged and brutal war against Philippine Muslims, a war that is still remembered negatively and is part of the package of U.S. actions that have earned enduring and still growing anti-American hatred in much of the historically savvy Islamic world. The U.S. government’s decision to block Philippine independence and leave the islands also fathered the conditions that yielded the opportunity for Imperial Japan’s defeat of U.S. forces in the islands in 1941-1942, the barbaric Bataan Death March, four years of a vicious Japanese military occupation, and a long and bloody land and naval campaign by U.S. forces to end Japan’s murderous rule over the archipelago.

The Spanish-American War’s ballyhooed success founders on several facts; namely, it was unnecessary and it gained America nothing but long-term problems. Most of all, it failed to accommodate what should have been a commonsense conclusion by McKinley and his successors that almost no area on earth that was part of the Spanish Empire was capable of the rule-of-law or of stable and equitable self-rule. The fact was obvious in 1898, it remains obvious today, and probably is applicable to much of the Muslim world and Africa. Indeed, one wonders why any country – like the United States – with a long history of relative political stability would welcome immigrants from any former component of Spain’s empire, people who are sure to bring with them the trademarks of Spanish colonialism: a peasant mentality, deep and enduring traditions of corruption in public and private life, a tendency toward violence, and a deep tolerance, even a preference, for authoritarianism. Where American leaders went looking abroad for these problem people in 1898, they today welcome their illicit arrival here at home.

Another, perhaps more instructive example, lies in the deadly year of 1917 and the decision of President Woodrow Wilson – freshly re-elected on the slogan “he kept us out of war” – to take the republic into World War One on the side of Great Britain, France, and the rest of their band of brigands. This war and the War of 1898, incidentally, are excellent reminders that the republic can be launched into an unnecessary war via a constitutional, congressional declaration of war , which in 1917, was opposed by eight senators – including leading non-interventionists Robert M. La Follette and George W. Norris – and 50 members of the Congress. Many of these men and women, and those work-a-day Americans who supported their opposition to the war, would be subject to harassment, media attack, ridicule, arrest, job loss, incarceration, and black-listing into the early 1920s. This campaign was captained by the national government’s Attorney General and Wilson’s propaganda henchman George Creel, who was chief of the pro-war, witch-hunting United States Committee on Public Information. Wilson and Creel were not the comprehensive civil-liberty deniers that Bush, Cheney, Obama, and Biden have been, but only because they did not have the technological weapons that the latter quartet turned against Americans who opposed their war-loving madness.

Because of Wilson, America was unnecessarily involved in Europe’s war of empires for 584 days, at a cost of 116,516 deaths and approximately 320,000 wounded or sick from the Spanish Influenza. (1) Wilson was one of the four men who presided over the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, and he allowed his British and French colleagues – respectively, Prime Minister David Lloyd George and President Georges Clemenceau – to not only impose a humiliating, U.S.-blessed, and economically ruinous peace on Germany, but to expand their nation’s imperial empires, especially in the Middle East.

The terms Treaty of Paris all but ensured a second Great War, and Wilson allowed it to cement the United States into the political and economic broils of Europe, as well as to the eternal Muslin-Jewish war in the Middle East. The modern phase of the latter war began when Britain and France reneged on their wartime promise to champion the Arabs’ bid for self-determination; by occupying Arab territories formerly components of the Ottoman Empire under the terms of the secret Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1917; and, most especially, by Britain’s Balfour Declaration of November 1917 ,which announced the British Empire’s support for Zionism and a Jewish homeland in Arab Palestine.

Wilson accepted all of these actions, implicitly making the United States as culpable as the Europeans for starting the fire that still burns today across the Middle East and much of the Islamic world. The outclassed politician Wilson, one commentator noted, generally behaved as a “blind and deaf Don Quixote” (2) and, on the Middle East, ignored the results of a knowledgeable team – led by two of his staunch supporters – that he had sent to evaluate conditions in the region. The two men presented a final report to Wilson warning him that acquiescing in the Anglo-French-Zionist land grab would make peace in the region an unattainable prospect. “The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted,” the King-Crane commission report explained in August 1919.

No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners [Henry C. King and Charles R. Crane], believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program, on the part of the non-Jewish populations of Palestine and Syria. Decisions, requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of a serious injustice. For the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a “right” to Palestine, based on an occupation of 2,000 years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.

There is a further consideration that cannot justly be ignored, if the world is to look forward to Palestine becoming a definitely Jewish state, however gradually that may take place. That consideration grows out of the fact that Palestine is “the Holy Land” for Jews, Christians, and Moslems alike. Millions of Christians and Moslems all over the world are quite as much concerned as the Jews with conditions in Palestine especially with those conditions which touch upon religious feeling and rights. The relations in these matters in Palestine are most delicate and difficult. With the best possible intentions, it may be doubted whether the Jews could possibly seem to either Christians or Moslems proper guardians of the holy places, or custodians of the Holy Land as a whole.

The reason is this: The places which are most sacred to Christians-those having to do with Jesus-and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them. It is simply impossible, under those circumstances, for Moslems and Christians to feel satisfied to have these places in Jewish hands, or under the custody of Jews. There are still other places about which Moslems must have the same feeling. In fact, from this point of view, the Moslems, just because the sacred places of all three religions are sacred to them have made very naturally much more satisfactory custodians of the holy places than the Jews could be. It must be believed that the precise meaning, in this respect, of the complete Jewish occupation of Palestine has not been fully sensed by those who urge the extreme Zionist program. For it would intensify, with a certainty like fate, the anti-Jewish feeling both in Palestine and in all other portions of the world which look to Palestine as “the Holy Land.”

In view of all these considerations, and with a deep sense of sympathy for the Jewish cause, the Commissioners feel bound to recommend that only a greatly reduced Zionist program be attempted by the Peace Conference, and even that, only very gradually initiated. This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up. (3)

Wilson dismissed and then suppressed these still-wise words, just at President Truman, in 1948, ignored much the same advice from General George Marshall and George F. Kennan, who warned of the substantial danger to the United States if the Truman’s administration officially recognized Israel. Obviously, failing to listen King, Crane, Marshall, and Kennan has led to America’s unnecessary and increasingly mad subjugation to the Israeli government, its foreign policy goals, a startlingly large number of disloyal Jewish-Americans; their organizations, academics, and media; and the non-Jewish Americans who they have suborned in the Senate, Congress, and the military, diplomatic, federal civil service, and intelligence agencies to blindly support Israel via bribes, campaign contributions, post-retirement corporate or think-tank positions, or intimidation.

Thus, America’s War of 1898 left the country’s bipartisan governing elite mesmerized by the door opened by victory over Spain that allowed it ego-gratifying hobnobbing with Europe’s dynastic powers and their monarchs; focused that elite and Protestant clerical eyes on the next prize; namely, the China market and all those Chinese souls to be converted and saved; and created an unquenchable ambition in both to take up with gusto what Kipling described as the “white man’s burden”. Then, after 1917, the U.S. political and economic elite gradually became addicted to the daft concept of “American exceptionalism”. In their hands, such exceptionalism meant aiming at economic exploitation abroad; forcibly imposing so-called values that were often unwanted by foreign peoples; and the cynical fomenting of patriotic fervor among always deeply patriotic taxpayers who would be forced to pay with their taxes and children’s lives to support U.S. military, cultural, political, and economic intervention abroad. All this to make sure that the world would see, applaud, and adore “the indispensable country” and its similarly indispensable and wholly self-loving elite. The strength and durability of this eventually fatal-to-the-republic myth remains the single greatest threat to the nation’s survival.

The foregoing leaves a vast amount of damage to, first, clean up and rebuild, and, second, to ensure that that which is rebuilt is never threatened by the same threats: immigration, NATO, and Israel. For the first time in decades, there is reason to believe that escape from these three lethal snares may be within reach.

–Indisputably, America has had much more than enough, not of the white man’s burden, but of the Americans’ burden, that which has been imposed by uncaring, moronic, and massively egotistical political leaders. For a half-century, the national government under both parties has ignored the well-being and material needs of Americans. Instead, it has funded the unlimited admittance of foreigners who are, as whole, entirely unassimilable, anti-American, and sure bets to rent social cohesion, derange elections, increase crime, drug-running, and disease, and ruin the health-care and educational services of many states. This is simply wicked, and, if blithely continued by the national government, it merits the lives of many politicians and civil servants who back this iniquitous pogrom against the American citizenry, their families, and their republic’s survival.

–French President Macron’s call for a “European army” is a godsend that was made luminous by the concurrence of German Chancellor Merkel. It allows President Trump to see how right his gut-hunch was when he argued that NATO is no longer a necessary or wise U.S. commitment and investment. The NATO alliance is an empty sack except for U.S. forces and endless expenditures of taxpayer dollars on behalf of defending the infantile Europeans. President Trump should yield to Macron’s desire – pretending not to be too happy when doing so – and let him, Merkel, and probably May try to field a 29-nation army of semi-pacifistic Europeans. They will soon need such a force, not to defend against the Russians, but to try to put down the domestic rebellions that they are going to face because of the EU-supported migrant invasion; the EU’s debilitating interference in the election results and economic affairs of member states; and the EU’s ongoing constriction of civil liberties, especially free speech. The United States must take no part in the coming European bloodbath. Macron is an addled, but gold-plated gift horse, Mr. President, accept the gift he is offering and get the republic out of harm’s way. Then you can begin to explain to Americans that the republic’s only “exceptionalism” lies in its geographical remoteness, twin oceanic buffers, abundant fresh water and other natural resources, and a population able to determine its own destiny once it is unbound from the European losers, rids itself of the lethal plague of unneeded and unwanted immigrants, purges the teaching cadre of its educational system, and annihilates the Democratic Party root and branch.

–Finally, when the DNI’s report detailing the intervention of foreign entities in the 2018 election is released in late December, the media is reporting it will note that more than 2o Jewish-American organizations, with close ties to Israel, will be listed as foreign interveners. If that proves to be true, it will follow and make more likely the now mainstream-media-ignored story that Israeli intelligence is involved in the FBI-CIA-MI6 operation that was meant to prevent Mr. Trump’s election and, since his election, to overthrow his presidency. Here, Mr. President, is a chance to act as Wilson and Truman should have acted and end unquestioning U.S. support for Israel, and, with it, end virtually any imaginable cause for U.S. participation in the future wars of the Middle East or Muslim world. As a delightful bonus, Russia can reap the lethal Islamist crop it has sewn in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, and China can be left to bleed to death from its unimaginably stupid and supremely arrogant plan to build the “One Road, One Belt” system of roads, railways, and maritime transportation through the heart of the Islamic world to Europe, while economically raping the region as it already is doing to the African continent.

These are marvelous opportunities that the United States really had no right to expect after so long pursuing policies that have helped to bring the republic to the brink of bankruptcy, irretrievable corruption, social chaos, and civil war. They may well be a trio of last chances, so not fail to grasp them, Mr. President. A chance to quickly murder three dire threats to the republic’s survival – illegal immigration, NATO, and the Israeli lobby – probably will not come again.

Thereafter, Mr. President accept as your own the foreign-policy view that  Senator Robert M. La Follete (R-Wisconsin) presented to the Senate on 18 November 1919,

I do not covet for this country a position in the world which history has shown would make us the object of endless jealousies and hatreds, involve us in perpetual war, and lead to the extinction of our domestic liberty. I, for one, harbor no ambition to see this country start upon the path which has lured other nations to their ruin.

Mr. President, we cannot, without sacrificing this Republic, maintain world dominion for ourselves. And, sir, we should not pledge ourselves to maintain it for another. (4)

–Endnotes:

–1.) https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_usa

–2.) Richard Drake. The Education of an Anti-Imperialist. Robert La Follette and U.S. Expansion. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2013, pp.292-315

–3.) https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_King-Crane_Report

–4.) Congressional Record, 18 November 1919, p. 8278, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CRECB…/GPO-CRECB-1919-pt9-v58-4-1.pdf

The multi-pronged foreign invasion heading northward toward the United States is a God-send for loyal Americans. The approach of these Democrat/Soros-funded, illiterate, unwanted, and unneeded people – all eager to be felons – puts the fat in the fire and makes President Trump’s decision to use the military to assist U.S. border-control agents an unavoidable exercise of legitimate executive power.

It is an operation that must be completely successfully, and no timidity must be shown Trump or his lieutenants. This is the national government’s last chance. If the national government fails – as it has for 50 years — the fate of border control becomes the responsibility of armed citizens, citizen militias, and, perhaps, the security forces of several state governments, if any of the latter care a lick about protecting their citizens, their families, and their prosperity. An armed citizenry is certainly capable of turning off the flow of unwanted foreigners into the United States. Such citizen-based border control is likely to be quite bloody. Well, after fifty-years of national government inaction and failure, so be it.

The other issue coming to a head is, of course, the mid-terms elections. Indeed, it is a turning point the like of which has been encountered previously in U.S. history. In 1860, the election of Abraham Lincoln put in train a series of words and events that yielded, by April, 1861, secession, the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and civil war. Between the publication of the final results of the 1860 election and Fort Sumter, the Southern secessionist leaders were presiding over a rising tide of fear among southerners – and probably among themselves – over what Lincoln might do to them and their region. Would he act to free the slaves, amend the Constitution to the South’s detriment, or take some other action that would bend the South to the North’s will? In this swirling tide of fear, Lincoln’s clear and frequently repeated promises that he would take no extra-constitutional or military action against the South went unheard or ignored in the South states. Jefferson Davis and his cabinet took their new nation to war not because of a clearly identified and imminent threat to the region, but on the basis of a persistent, decades-long, and steadily deepening fear – fueled for decades by the hate screeched at Southerners by the Abolitionists — that the national government and Northern states would act without warning to destroy Southern civilization.

The situation today is going to pivot, as it did in 1860, on an election, a mid-term vote this time. There, however, the similarity ends. This race, for loyal American patriots, is the last straw. They have sat back and kept their powder dry for the seven presidential administrations that followed Ronald Reagan’s second term. During this period the Democratic, Republican, and the Israel-First/Jewish-American establishments, as well as their media acolytes, have not only hurled savage, abusive, and dehumanizing rhetoric at the loyal citizenry — reminiscent of that with which the Abolitionists scourged Southerners — but have taken concrete actions against the citizenry which are far more punishing than anything done against the South by the pre-Fort Sumter Lincoln or any antebellum president. In addition to the above noted invasion of the United States by foreigner-felons that the Democrats plan to settle on their slave plantations, there have been multiple additional material attacks on loyal and law-abiding Americans. Here are just five:

–The unconstitutional, unnecessary, and defeat-filled interventionist wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, the Balkans, Syria, and Yemen. These wars have yielded only unconscionable waste: trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of lives and limbs of military personnel, constricted civil liberties, and the shattered 1^st and 4^th Amendments.

–The steady, nearly relentless murder of policemen across the United States by groups and individuals associated with and/or backed by the Democratic Party. In addition, the country’s elected Democratic leaders have made major cities, counties, and even states places of “sanctuary”, thereby allowing criminals of all kinds to congregate therein and feast on the lives and belongings of the average citizen and his family. And, all the while, the Republicans never once sought to restore law and order in those locales by arresting and indicting the Democratic leaders who blithely nullify national laws that fall squarely in the legitimate sphere of responsibility given by the Constitution to the national government.

–The massacres of law-abiding citizens in Orlando, San Bernardino, and Las Vegas were all aided or exploited by the Democrats to press their ongoing campaign to destroy the 2^nd Amendment. In the case of Las Vegas, they acted to cover up their almost certain involvement there by sending a James Comey protégé to the city to end the investigations. The Las Vegas dead ought to hold a special place in American memory. We all watched in real-time the murder and wounding of those people, and saw with our own eyes evidence of multiple shooters. We have been told that we are crazy when recounting what we saw, and that only one old and demented individual did the shooting. Bullshit. The blood of the Las Vegas casualties calls out for justice and those calls richly merit the application of the most severe vengeance by their fellow citizen, if the national government does not reopen the case and afford justice to those who were slaughtered, maimed, or had their lives forever changed for the worse.

–The severe damage to national security deliberately done by Hillary Clinton’s decision to use an unsecured server to hide her lawlessness, a server that automatically sent a copy of every document passing through it to the paymasters of her and many other Democrats – and probably many senior Republicans – who reside in Beijing. Anything resembling a fair trial for Clinton’s behavior would end with an espionage conviction that would send her to the gallows, along with any other of her colleagues who knowingly communicated with her using this server. That list of hangees must include Barack Obama, a man who so clearly recognized the criminality of Clinton’s communication system that he employed a pseudonym when using it. The same Chinese tyrants that Clinton, Obama, and their gang served and profited from are also supervising the unctuously kowtowing Silicon Valley Tech-Titans, men who hate all Americans who voted for Trump, but who willingly lick the collective ass of the communist tyrants for the money they are paid to technologically perfect the Chinese police state and military machine.

–The Democratic Party-led conspiratorial, criminal, and perhaps traitorous campaign – orchestrated by Comey, James Clapper, Great Britain, and John Brennan – to destroy presidential candidate Donald Trump, and then to overthrow the decision of the American electorate and remove a legitimately elected president. This campaign goes on, of course, even on the brink of the mid-term election, not least in the number of anti-American, Brennan loyalists who resigned from the CIA to run as Democratic candidates in the November 6^th election. Loyal Americans should do their best to ensure that none of these former CIA officers are elected. Why? Well, just yesterday (November 1^st), here in Virginia, Project Veritas proved that a former CIA officer and close friend of Brennan named Abigail Spanberger – who also taught in a Saudi-funded Islamic school in Virginia – has received financial support for her campaign in Virginia’s 7^th District, against the loyal, conservative Republican Dave Brat from, at least, Jonathan Soros, the son of George Soros, and James Comey. It is likely that every other former CIA officer running as a Democrat also is receiving funds from the same two shitbirds and others in their craven, anti-American flock.

As the now trite saying goes “elections have consequences.” Certainly, the election of Mr. Lincoln in 1860 did; sadly, in the form of a blood-soaked civil war. That war was based on Southern fears and the prolonged and abusive rhetoric of the Abolitionists, not on repeated and murderous material attacks by the national government and Northerners on the people and states of what became the Confederate States of America.

The 2016 mid-term election, however, finds a loyal American population that not only has been materially and murderously attacked by the Democratic Party for a quarter-century, but also has been rhetorically scourged by its leaders and members for the same period. Most recently, Democrats’ congressional leader said that those who do not vote for Democrats in next week’s election would have to suffer the “collateral damage” the party would inflict on them.

That sounds very much like a Democratic strategy that intends to win the midterms and then wage a war against the citizens who opposed them. The Democrats may win the former, but they will certainly die in huge, heartwarming numbers if they start the civil war for which they seem to so madly pine.

The old saying is “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.” I believe that is true, and that is why we have a Constitution and laws that allow domestic miscreants to be justly punished for their lawlessness and violence. Today, we are seeing a pattern of criminal violence, lawlessness, and subversion that is being conducted against the republic, its citizenry, its prosperity, and its survival by the Democratic Party.

First, we had the obvious lies of a two-bit floozy to savage Justice Kavnaugh and his family. Second, the Democrats’ Tech Giant buddies massively censored conservative social-media sites to silence them in the months before the mid-term elections. Third comes the timely and well-scripted Khashoggi killing, and a media report of Nancy Pelosi visiting the Saudi embassy in Washington the following day.

These three events, of course, are only a few of a larger flock of Democrat Party attacks on the republic, which, in total, are meant to sate the party’s Stalin-like thirst for absolute power. Not surprisingly, they are even using a self-declared Nazi supporter and a foreign power in the effort to impose their beliefs and lawlessness on the Americans who gave Trump a chance to fix the mess the two parties had made of the republic over the past quarter century. That the Democrats dictatorial goals are clear was underlined by Nancy Peolosi’s recent statement that when the Democrats again hold power, all those who refuse to abide by their diktats will suffer “collateral damage.”

Following are a few more Democrat attacks on the republic to throw into the mix with the three just noted.

–Invasion of aspiring felons : The Democrats’ near silence about the well-paid brigade of would-be felons that is headed for the republic’s southern border seems to mean they, Soros, and Steyer believe such an invasion is a politically winning tactic for the mid-term elections. If President Trump keeps his word to deploy soldiers and Marines to the border to keep out Central America’s human detritus, the political acumen of Democratic leaders may be found wanting on November 6th. The Democrats seem to actually believe that Americans want MS-13 members, other criminals, the diseased, the dole-seekers, and military-age Latino and Arab men to come into the country and then disappear. Maybe Democratic leaders are right, maybe their teacher-operatives have so dumbed-down several generations of students that they are now adult voters who are willing to cast ballots in favor of the republic committing suicide. I doubt it, but the pathetic lack of brains, commonsense, and patriotism displayed by all Democrats covered by the media is worrying. Perhaps Shakespeare should have written: “First, kill all the teachers.”

–Faux Postal Bombs: The mainstream media – including FOX News – have been providing 24-hour coverage of the Democrats’ latest plan to use their operatives to rig-up faux pipe-bombs and then deliver them to leading Democrats through couriers or via a ghost postal service that does not cancel the stamps on packages before they are delivered. Why would such coverage be necessary? Well, it may be to deflect public attention from the Democrats’ last great idea; namely, the challenge of President Trump and the U.S. border by the Soros-funded, scum brigade. That is a bit like challenging Lou Gehrig with a mediocre fastball in the middle of the plate. The Democrats’ and the utterly untrustworthy FBI have now rolled out someone they identify as a Trump supporter, but it is too late — and too utterly predictable — to make a difference. The bomb fandango is a bust, and the scum brigade shortly will be back at the center of the media’s coverage, and therefore in eye of those who would never vote for anyone who intended to let such a motley and vicious gang into the country and then have free rein. But as we move away from the focus on faux bombs to the scum invasion, one cannot help but feel a bittersweet twinge over how much better off the republic would have been if the Democratic bomb-maker had double-crossed his paymasters.

–George Soros: Soros represents a lot of bad things, but he represents nothing so much as the hatred of Israel and its Jewish-American Israel Firsters for the United States. Think for a moment about the Israelis’ relentless, post-1948 search for Nazis and Nazi supporters and their iron determination to destroy those they caught via execution or life imprisonment. Man or woman, old or young, big-league Nazi or simple prison guard, Israel has hunted them the world over, and more often than not its efforts have been successful. But what about George Soros? Here is a man who rapturously told 60 Minutes that not only did he help round-up Jews for dispatch to concentration camps, but that that span of activity may have been the best period of his life. Here you have a Nazi acolyte, crowing about how great it was to be a thug for the Nazis, and explaining how enjoyable it was to provide fuel for Nazi ovens. This sort of activity by Soros, in the Israelis always fiercely vengeful eyes, surely must be a greater offense than whatever was done by the Nazi prison guards in their dotage they haul out of U.S. cities every so often. The take away from this reality can only be that Israel approves of Soros’s activities and his campaign to destroy what is left of the Western heritage in Europe and wreck the American republic. Hiding beneath its vacuous declaration that Soros is an enemy of the state of Israel, the Israeli government allows its favorite Nazi agent to do as he pleases. This fact can only connote Israel’s approval – and perhaps direction — of this rodent-like man’s activities and goals. If Israel disapproved, Soros would have long ago been eliminated by Mossad. In this context, it can only be concluded that Israel supports the work Soros is doing with the Democratic Party to derange and destabilize the American Union, and that these activities provide an amusing scene for Israeli politicians to sit back and savor as they count the $38 billion the U.S. Congress has promised them. That sum, of course, would more than fund a border wall to protect Americans and their kids, but, hey, Israeli interests have always been more important to the Congress than the republic’s survival.

–Time to Scourge Her Majesty’s Government: In the current flow of events, it is important to keep the need for overseas retribution strongly in mind. Yes, there are multiple domestic targets for sweet but legal retribution on whom the hammer of law will fall if Trump holds the House. At long last, the three Clintons and large numbers of their hangers-on, as well Obama and most of his senior Cabinet members; much of the Department of Justice and the FBI; and Clapper, Brennan, and dozens of their henchmen at the DNI and CIA will be indicted, tried, and – pray God – convicted, and incarcerated and/or hung for their murderous attack on the law, the Constitution, and all loyal Americans. But this will not suffice. A special sort of excruciating public punishment remains to be designated and then deployed against the British government ministers, their senior intelligence officials, and the operatives controlled by those senior officials who helped the Democrats try to destroy the candidacy of Donald Trump, and then persisted in helping a media-backed, DOJ-FBI-Democrat campaign to overthrow a legitimate U.S. presidential election and the man Americans elected as their president. Perfidious Albion has once again – for the umpteenth time in U.S. history – earned a thorough thrashing from the Americans they still regard as contemptible colonials, though those colonials – with their blood and taxes– have ensured, since 1914, that Britain could continue to preen and pretend to be anywhere near a Great Power. As a first step, there must be a public admission, made in Parliament, of Britain’s aggressive intervention in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and its participation in a plot to overthrow Mr. Trump after the inauguration. Next, a public apology from the Prime Minister, one in which she details the full extent of British activities in support of the Democrats’ subversion, and then announces the dismissal of the chiefs of MI6, MI5, and GCHQ, as well as the chief of British intelligence in Washington. That is not a full dish of humble pie, but it is at least a good start.

–The Economy: The financial/business media have been offering myriad sophisticated explanations about the stock market’s sell-off. Rising interest rates, inflation that never seems to materialize, and trade policy toward China are being portrayed as the leading culprits, according to FOX Business, CNBC, and other such media outlets. Now all of this is fine, interesting, and, I suppose, pertinent. What is surprising to me, however, is that these expert commentators are focused on numerous trees and seem – save for Lou Dobbs and Stuart Varney– to have no idea of what the forest looks like. The main, perhaps only, cause of the stock market’s jitteriness is the possibility of the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives. The violence-peddling Democrats clearly lack any recognizable talent in their current congressional cadre, and their new crop of candidates for the midterm elections – especially the wretched former CIA officers who worked for and are loyal to John Brennan — appears to be markedly less talented and, in more than a few cases, plainly barking mad. The prospect of an anti-American, anti-business, and authoritarian Democratic majority in the House is the main issue that is troubling the business community and roiling the markets. It is hard to know why this obvious fact has so far escaped the media’s tribe of economic gurus. Could it be that those gurus are members of the Democrat and Republican establishments, that they hate Trump, ache to see his and America’s recent success come undone, and count on profiting from covering the nearly certain economic disaster after a mid-term Democratic victory. I am tempted to say “you bet”.

Given this sorry litany, is it any wonder why Mr. Lincoln described the Democrats in 1838 as the “mobocracy”? In that speech, Mr. Lincoln was condemning instances of the Democrats practicing their favorite past time, namely, the lawless lynching of black and white men they feared or deemed opponents. Well, under the Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas, the Holders and Lynchs, and the Comeys and McCabes , it is clear that the mobocracy is alive, lawless, and ready to apply “collateral damage” upon those who oppose their rule

Poor Jamal Khashoggi is dead, and perhaps dismembered. A Saudi “hit team” reportedly traveled to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey; lured Khashoggi into the building; and then either murdered him or, more gently, allowed him to expire during a “botched interrogation.” The Western world is aflame in feigned self-righteous anger, pretending to be enraged that such a thing could happen, and the American president is being pushed hard to punish Saudi Arabia.

Now, clearly, Khashoggi’s luck ran out. After paling around with Osama bin Laden and traveling with and giving positive media coverage to the Mujahedin – anti-American services that made him a must-have for the Washington Post – he launched steady public criticism of Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman, the heir to the Saudi throne. When he would not stop, he paid the price that many Saudi dissidents before him have paid. The only difference between the prior dead and the dead Khashoggi is that the Saudis made the mistake of killing the latter sloppily in Turkey, instead of quietly at home.

This sort of behavior is not unusual in the Islamic world, although the published media pieces about this sort of extraterritorial lethal operation more often than not describe Israel’s Mossad entering Muslim countries and killing one or another of Israel’s countless Muslim enemies. Remember how loud the world’s outspoken and lasting condemnation of the Mossad’s international murders has been? Oh, yes, that’s right, there has been none.

For the United States, it is hard to understand why the Congress should be bent out of shape over the fact that Khashoggi got bumped off.  It does not seem that Khashoggi was a U.S. citizen, and these days one less writer for the Washington Post is a small step toward the republic’s survival.

No one, I suppose, approves of the Saudi’s action, but it comes down to an illegal action taken by the Saudis on Turkish soil, and the Turks must have a law that addresses the occurrence. Let them deal with the Saudis in a Turkish court. The legal case should be easily won, as all signs so far show the Saudis killed Khashoggi

Americans must understand, however, that the uproar they are seeing and hearing in Congress over the Khashoggi affair has absolutely nothing to with its sympathy for the murdered man and his family. Had the Israelis killed Khashoggi, Americans would have heard crickets, at most, from their own politicians and media and all of Europe’s.

What Americans are hearing in the spreading demand for harsh sanctions against Saudi Arabia are the voices in the Congress and Western media who are paid for their support by Israel via pro-Israel Jewish-American leaders and their advocacy organizations, entities that have a peculiarly malign power – in the forms of campaign contributions and media coverage – in the final weeks before the mid-term elections. The Israel-trained seals in Congress are now slapping fins and barking against the Saudis as ordered by their pay masters and election manipulators.

The basis for this current Israeli intervention in the conduct of America’s foreign policy and its coming election is definitely not poor, old Khahsoggi. Instead, his timely death is being used as cover for the Israeli-subsidiary called Congress to apply sanctions to block the pending sale of $110 billion worth of U.S.-made arms to Saudi Arabia. The Israelis and their disloyal Jewish-American compatriots are seeking to scuttle that deal in order to defend Israel.

For these Israeli, Jewish-American, and congressional/media enemies of the republic, it is damn the American workers who will lose work if the deal fails, and damn whatever impact a successful attack on the deal might have on the U.S. economy and the price of oil.

Their screeching anti-Saudi rhetoric has nothing to do with avenging Khashoggi’s life, protecting human rights, or enforcing international law. It has only to do with making sure that Israel’s recent, blatant intervention in U.S. foreign affairs and elections – via the disloyal Jewish-Americans and those they control in Congress – continues to maintain the fact that U.S. decision-making in the Islamic world is controlled by a nation-state that is irrelevant to, and the enemy of the genuine national security interests of the American republic.

I carry no brief for the Saudis, they are bastards, deceitful, murderous, and have knowingly caused substantial pain and loss for the United States for decades. But we should not attack them if the only certain victims of the action will be Americans and their families, and the only sure beneficiaries will be Israel and disloyal Jewish-Americans.

There can be no “America First”, Mr. Trump, until you can reduce the influence of Israel, and its well-paid American-citizen shills, on U.S. foreign policy to the level of that currently enjoyed by, say, Sierra Leone. That is, to near nil.

On the 11 October 2018 edition of the increasingly vapid FOX & FRIENDS, Senator Rand Paul was interviewed. He provided a clear and concise explanation about why non-intervention is an indispensable – perhaps the key – component of a national-government policy meant to establish, in fact, not merely aspiration, the republic-saving tool known as “America First”. Senator Paul’s performance is yet another in a growing chain of examples of how much he has matured as politician, a legislator, a thinker, and a man who can speak with telling impact on those millions who supported his father and those who today support the Trump administration.

The best part of the interview, for me, was Senator Paul’s calm demolition of FOX’s preeminent juvenile twit, Brian Kilmeade.  As Senator Paul explained the madness of the United States currently being militarily involved in seven foreign civil wars, none of which threaten a single genuine U.S. national security interest, Kilmeade descended into an even-more-than-usual babbling mess, sputtering out that Senator Paul was wrong about U.S. participation in foreign civil wars. When the latter stood by the obvious truth he had stated, Kilmeade accused the Kentuckian of wanting to turn over “Yemen to Iran” and their Huthi coreligionists. Like all illogical and anti-American Neocons and Israel-Firsters, Kilmeade harbors the delusion that America has a right to have a definitive say in Yemen’s destiny, and, worse yet, that he and his ilk know precisely what the content and design of that destiny must be.

Senator Paul, who is a Southern Gentlemen blessed with some empathy for the daft, did not nail Kilmeade’s ears to the floor – so I will try. In the first place, Kilmeade and his fellow-travelers always have championed the “right” of the United States – due to it being “exceptional” – to determine the destiny of any country on which they fixed their malign gaze.

Claiming to want to bring democracy, elections, human rights, women’s rights, peace, and stability, but really only wanting power, these interventionists and the unable-to-win-a-war U.S. military have left a trail of nation-states that now form an enormous funeral pyre whose flames continue to be fed by U.S. and foreign casualties, trillions of U.S. dollars, the destroyed infrastructures of several of the world’s least-wealthy states; and budding civil wars. Kilmeade and his interventionist brethren, when they stand back and view this McCain-designed disaster, will decide that they must again exercise America’s divine right of “exceptionalism” and advocate re-intervention in the same places where first application of the altruistic myth of militarized American exceptionalism has already and predictably failed.

The human and material destruction of Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq are all the product – in whole or in part – of the illogical abstraction known as American exceptionalism. It also is the product of the U.S. governing elite’s hubris; its well-maintained ignorance of foreign peoples, their histories, and their ways; and its complete lack of concern about the certain, disastrous impact of that doctrine on Americans and their families, the national government’s debt, and the alienation of Americans’ affection for their government.

In the governing elite’s eternal devotion to military interventionism, undergirded and justified by the absurd doctrine of “American exceptionalism”, the republic’s citizenry has only four roles to play; namely, to pay for it, to die or be maimed for it, to never question it, and to condemn and ostracize those who oppose it.

What Senator Paul and President Trump cannot yet say, is that the only proper response to Kilmeade’s question “do you want to give Yemen to Iran?” is that such an occurrence would be (a) irrelevant to the national-security interests of the United States, and (b) would be a blessing for the United States as the bankrupt, isolated, and inflation-ravaged Persians can assume responsibility for a country, economy, and society that are in even worse shape than their own.

The even harder-to-speak but essential truth for men of goodwill toward the republic and its citizens is that if the Yemenis killed – with or without Iran’s involvement — each other to the last person, leaving Yemen quiet and unpopulated, it would be no skin off the republic’s nose. The citizenry, moreover, would pocket an enormous monetary savings because their government had not ridden, Custer-like, to the rescue and, in doing so, inevitably lost another prolonged war. The same fact pertains to Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Palestine-Israel war.

The devastation delivered so far by the post-9/11 interventionism of the governing elite and its rah-rah boys in the Congress and media is small beer when compared to what is coming. To date, the interventionists have ruined non-threatening nation-states one at a time, but they seem to have not yet fully recognized the seeds of continental catastrophe contained in their witless destruction of Qahdafi’s Libya. Libya minus the Qahdafi regime has destabilized not only itself, but has afforded Islamists of all stripes the path over which an entire continent is being destabilized.

From the Sinai Peninsula-Israel border west to Mauritania, and from Algiers south to the economically dying Republic of South Africa, the Islamists – native and foreign – are gradually emerging as viable threats to many of the already corrupt regimes that misgovern the continent. Libya, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Nigeria, Somalia, Tunisia, Egypt, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Cameroon, Mali, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burkina Faso, and Mali are all struggling against Islamist propaganda, sabotage, and fighters. Moreover, the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda — in north, central, and western Africa – are alive and, if not completely well, recovering strength.

If they are receiving accurate intelligence briefings, Senator Paul and President Trump should be able to clearly see the disaster the Neocons, the Israel Firsters, and perhaps even U.S. generals and diplomats are steering the United States toward on the African continent. As the growth and advance of Islamist forces noted above unfolded, the media have reported that the U.S. military’s presence across the African continent greatly expanded in a way that roughly mirrors the Islamists’ progress. At this point, multiple domestic and foreign media list the following as places where the U.S. military has at least small bases:  Mozambique, Tanzania, Burundi, Kenya, Somalia, Uganda, Ethiopia, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Chad, Niger, Ghana, Senegal, Liberia, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Egypt, Morocco, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. (1)

Several media pundits have described the establishment of these U.S. military bases as a “lily pad” approach to the Islamist problem in Africa. The term sounds harmless enough, but the reality is that these bases almost certainly were created to preposition troops, equipment, and ammunition; to build airfields or improve old ones; to waste large amounts of money building Potemkin local allies; to modernize harbor facilities; and to build a cadre of troops familiar with the lay of the land, as well as with the local peoples and their languages, customs, tribal arrangements, and their loyalties to local authorities.

These bases are designed to make an undeclared, unconstitutional U.S. military intervention in Africa easier, faster, and quieter when the congressional, media, and military war-mongers are ready to again demonstrate to the world and the republic’s citizenry the fact that only this country’s governing elite is “exceptional”, and it only in the sense of starting and losing unnecessary wars, bankrupting the U.S. treasury, making the republic multiple vengeful enemies, and killing and maiming the soldier-children of American parents.

On FOX, Senator Paul struck a sound blow in favor of non-intervention and on the priority of placing the well-being of America and Americans far ahead of any foreign matters. Kilmeade’s shrill and agitated response suggests that some of his ilk believe that non-interventionists are gradually securing an ever more sympathetic ear from the citizenry. After four consecutive presidents’ used the U.S. military to condition citizens to believe it is America’s proper, even mandatory role to play the military enforcer for the construction and maintenance of the New World Order, now is the time for Senator Paul and President Trump to keep this issue in front of Americans. Both men and their lieutenants could do no better than to update the 1941 words of Charles A. Lindbergh so that their focus are on the whole world, not just on Britain and Europe, and then use them repeatedly when speaking to Americans about what the term America First means.

“We are assembled here tonight,” Colonel Lindbergh told a capacity crowd attending an America First rally at Madison Square Garden on 23 May 1941,

“because we believe in an independent destiny for America. Such a destiny does not mean that we will build a wall around our country and isolate ourselves from contact with the rest of the world. … An independent American destiny means, on the one hand, that our soldiers will not have to fight everybody in the world who prefers some other system of life to ours. On the other hand, it means that we will fight anybody and everybody who attempts to interfere with our hemisphere, and that we will do so with all the resources of our nation. It means that we rely on our own strength, our own ability and our own courage to preserve this nation and to defeat anyone who is rash enough to attack us. It means that we have faith that these United States of ours can compete in commerce or in war with any combination of foreign powers, and that we are no more afraid of the Europe of Germany than our forefathers were afraid of the Europe of France or England or Spain.” (2)

Amen, Colonel, amen.

Endnote:

–1.) See, for example, https://daily.jstor.org/why-is-the-u-s-military-occupying-bases-across-africa/; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/21/map-the-u-s-currently-has-troops-in-these-african-countries/?utm_term=.399faee3b147; and https://observer.com/2017/12/us-military-has-presence-in-50-of-54-african-countries/

–2.) Charles A. Linbergh, “We Lack Leadership That Places America First”, Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. VII, pp. 482-483. http://www.charleslindbergh.com/pdf/speech7.pdf