Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

The mere sight of President Trump sitting down at the table with North Korea’s Kim Jung Un was startling. I had thought that the only way out of the North Korean nuclear mess was war, one which I would have supported because it would have been the last resort that war always is meant to be.

But Trump and Pompeo — despite the sabotage efforts of Bolton and Giuliani — took a chance, engaged Kim, and produced a first-ever meeting between the two sides. Trump had the guts to try to undo the first and one of the most bitter fruits of unnecessary U.S. military interventionism, one that occurred because Truman thought himself unbound by the Constitution and went to war on his own authority — of which he had none — and under the abhorrent flag of the United Nations. Though still quite a long shot, if Trump gets the republic out of the Korean snare after 68 years he will have served Americans with the distinction that comes from obeying the Constitution and serving the citizenry. No matter how the initiative works out, Trump gets full marks for trying. And one can only conclude that those who see only see showboating in his meeting the North Korean dictator would have preferred a possible nuclear war.

Prior to flying to Singapore, Trump also served the republic well with his performance at the G-7 meeting in Canada. What could have possibly upset any American about Trump explaining to the European and Canadian fussbudgets that his job is to serve and protect America’s workers and industries is beyond knowing. But upset them he did, along with virtually all of the U.S. media. Those un-journalists mounted their high horses and condemned the President for “offending” those they referred to as our “closest allies” and for risking a “trade war” in the process. Good Lord, do these media folk know anything about these European wretches, our seven-decade-old, all-take and no-give European allies?

Since VE Day in 1945, the Western Europeans have sucked off the fat American tit both economically and militarily. They never paid their own way in NATO, and unilaterally disarmed after the USSR fell. They and the rest of Europe avoided nuclear Armageddon only because U.S. taxpayers paid much of the niggardly foreigners’ share of NATO expenses, and funded the creation and maintenance of a massive American nuclear deterrent that more than matched the Soviet’s and so kept the peace. Had U.S. leaders wisely declined to sign the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, the Red Army would have been marching along the tree-lined boulevards of Paris even more quickly than the Wehrmacht did in 1940. These days, the Russians better hurry if they want to get to Paris, or any other European capital, as Macron, May, Merkel, et. al are making Muslim-driven violence shit-holes of their once splendid cities and cultures, places that no one in his right mind would want to govern.

In Canada, the Europeans switched focus away from NATO, although they still spun lies about the “Russian threat”. That threat, of course, is not to the United States — Russia poses only an easily manageable threat to the republic, and would pose none at all if it not for NATO — but to the Europeans whose armies are decayed, under-gunned, undermanned, and effete. Armies that must now, moreover, accelerate preparations for the coming bloody domestic war they will have to wage against the Islamic barbarians and Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda veterans their civilian masters have and are welcoming into the EU, even providing the fighters with housing and access to the dole.

The six womanish EU and Canadian leaders also whined mightily about the Trump administration’s determination to pry them loose from America’s financial tit — which has little left to give — and then serve first and only U.S. economic interests until it gets the trade imbalanced reduced and creates a fairer trade system. This will cause pain for the Europeans and some Americans, but to maintain the trade status quo with Europe — or China — can only lock the United States into trade deficits that will act as a paralyzing economic handicap for the foreseeable future. Justin Trudeau’s loss of his false eyebrows while denouncing Trump, after the latter was no longer there to respond, speaks directly to the kind of allies Canada and the other six are; that is, Islamophile, unmanly, and utterly worthless.

Finally, the retaking of much of the Islamic State-held territory in Syria is better seen as Russia and the West winning some time rather than winning the war. The Trump administration speaks too easily about the “defeat” of the Islamic State. IS did indeed lose manpower, financial resources, important leaders, and territory — and not a little prestige and bravado. But IS has now returned to its original advantageous milieu; that is, as a veteran and talented guerrilla force, which, though it is being ignored by the Western media, is steadily increasing the number of its attacks, ambushes, car-bombings, and assassinations of Iraqi civilians, police, community leaders, and military personnel. IS’s geographical reach in Iraq also seems to be growing as most major cities or their environs are experiencing IS attacks, though so far of limited size.

In Syria, both Moscow and Damascus are at least six months into what both describe as a “mopping up” campaign against IS remnants. U.S. generals also proclaimed such nonsense during their losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All, in turn, were merely singing the same refrain that Red Army generals chanted for all of the USSR’s ten-year occupation of Afghanistan; indeed, its strains hung in the air even as the Red Army fled Afghanistan in shame, while the much-despised Afghan remnants retook their country.

While Moscow and Damascus speak as if they are out of the Islamist-made woods, they have at best a respite while IS regroups, rearms, and identifies opportunities for beginning the probably lengthy military campaign that they surely believe will lead — if God wills it —to a final victory. They should be prepared for the gradual resumption of an IS-pressed war in Syria, and they should ignore the fatuous but widely believed and well-loved Western conclusions that the morale of the mujahideen is broken; that their state supporters have stopped sending aid; that their dream of a Caliphate is wrecked beyond recall; and that they have been permanently intimidated by Russian and Western firepower.

Now, I would have no problem if the Trump administration and Moscow were simply crowing falsely because they intend to use the victory their spinners are declaring as cover for getting out of the Syria-Iraq theater before the IS recovery is solidly underway. I fear, however, that they actually believe what is being claimed and, if so, their interventionist juices will keep flowing. There is every reason, at least in the councils of state, to acknowledge (a) that the Syria-Iraq respite will not last forever and (b) that if withdrawal is not accomplished while the getting is good, the United States, Russia, and several NATO countries will not only have to eat their words, but will have to remain in the theater to prove their power and resolve by trying to re-defeat the Islamist enemy they never fully defeated in the first place.

For the U.S. government time is short to get its military completely out of Syria and Iraq, and to make clear that the republic is done intervening in Muslim affairs, protecting Arab tyrannies, and defending theocracies, whether Islamic or Jewish, and that it is determined to let the Muslims, Israelis, Shias, and Sunnis settle their animosities among themselves, preferably peacefully but by all-out war if necessary. A clearly stated and an enduringly resolute policy of non-interventionism toward these issues has never been more important to the preservation of U.S. security and the republic itself.

Why is this assertion credible? Because, in part, the U.S. and Western media have not only failed to provide accurate coverage of affairs in Syria and Iraq, but they have all but ignored the steady growth of militant Islamist movements in Afghanistan, India, Kashmir, much of Southeast Asia, and most of Africa. While the unwise have boasted of the war-ending trends in Iraq and Syria, the Islamists of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State have brought the U.S.-NATO installed Afghan government to the brink of destruction. After nearly 17 years of war, Kabul cannot be secured from attack; the strength of the mujahideen in northern Afghanistan and along the Afghan-Central Asia border is growing, a reality that did not occur during the Soviet occupation; and the West, Russia, and the Afghan regime are treating the world to a mindless lie by claiming that the recent “temporary ceasefire” is a sure sign that peace is on the way.

As always, America’s war with Islam is a war of choice. The Islamists, from the start, have not wanted to fight the United States, their goal was and is to destroy the tyrants — Arab and Israeli — who have ruled and abused them and their faith since World War Two. They attacked and fought the United States because they saw reality as it was: the U.S. government and most of its European allies providing relentless and decades-long support and protection to Arab tyrants, as well as unfailing support and protection for Israel. Without this U.S. support, the Islamists would have focused on local issues, and would not have gone looking for trouble with the U.S. military.

The Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations refused to recognize this reality. Instead, they intervened more frequently, and took advantage of neither America’s geographical remoteness nor the fact that no genuine U.S. national-security interest would be at risk if the above-noted support and protection were ended. A cessation of the U.S. government’s unnecessary interventionism in the Arab world before the 9/11 raid, would have isolated the war to that region, and its costs in blood and treasure would have fallen to those who long-ago earned and now merit them richly, the Arabs and the Israelis.

Today, it is even more important for the national government to exploit our lack of genuine security interests in the Arab world and America’s geographical remoteness. As noted, what has occurred in Syria and Iraq is a pause, not a victory. At the same time, the “peace movement” in Afghanistan is a charade. Even if it produces a so-called coalition regime involving Ghani’s regime and the Taliban, it will only exist until the last of U.S. and NATO forces evacuate the country. After that, Ghani and his cohort will be eliminated by the Taliban, and another war will begin between the Taliban and the Islamic State and its growing size, strength and territorial control. In addition,

• By all evidence, militant Islamism remains an armed and vibrant movement that is growing with speed in most of Arab and Black Africa; in recent weeks, the media have reported the reinvigorated presence of IS in Libya and Central Africa, and Islamist attacks in parts of heretofore peaceful Mozambique.
• In Southeast Asia, militant Islamism is growing in Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and to a more limited extent in southern Thailand. In addition, the media report that the regional governments are bracing for the return of foreign fighters from the Middle East, and that the Philippine Islamists are attracting foreign fighters from other countries in the Pacific.
• China also is doing its level best to spread the Islamists’ war. While most of the the international media has been oblivious, Beijing is making the Uighur Muslim-dominated Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region into a huge concentration camp for Muslims in which they have the choice to accept the eradication of Islam, die, or resist with whatever arms they can secure. This situation, of course, poses no direct thereat to U.S. security, but it seems well on the way toward becoming a cause célèbre in the Sunni Muslim world, one which will bring support from Sunni regimes and wealthy individual Muslims just as did the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Chinese attempt to strangle Islam — and when needed Muslims — in Xinjiang is likely, overtime, to produce a considerable swell of well-funded and properly armed Islamist militancy in South, South East, and East Asia. Moreover, China’s quiet support for the Burmese regime’s and the country’s Buddhist firebrands’ campaign to annihilate Burma’s Rohingya Muslims will strengthen the Islamists’ anti-China fervor that was started in Xinjiang ,and is now being stoked by Beijing’s clearly jihad-causing efforts to build the One Belt, One Road network of highways, rail lines, harbors, and their attendant facilities through the heart of Muslim central and southern Asia.

Now is the time for the Trump administration to announce with a flourish that because of both the Islamic State’s enormous loss of territory in Iraq and Syria, and the budding peace process in Afghanistan the U.S. government recognizes that its task has been completed and that all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from, and all economic aid to those nation-states and the non-state forces in each, will be terminated by 31 December 2018. Such a statement has a modicum of truth — IS lost the territory and the Afghan ceasefire has made always-wrong diplomats giddy with what they deem the approach of peace — but its main goal would be to get the republic out of three theaters of war that will stay such for decades to come. By defusing the Islamists’ motivation to attack U.S. interests — thereby allowing the focused application of resources against their main enemies, Arab tyrants and Israel — and exploiting the republic’s great gift of geographical remoteness from Islamist forces, the Trump administration can concentrate on getting America’s bacon out of the growing Islamist fire in Africa, and the nascent one that is, with China’s indispensable if brain-dead help, beginning to catch hold in Asia.

Americans are still paying the ungodly and unnecessary price, in terms of the lives and money, that have been expended in their governing elite’s interventionist political meddling, military invasions, and hectoring cultural incursions in the Islamic world. These wounds demand a cauterization that would end the republic’s bleeding, and then a strict application of non-interventionism that will prevent them being reopened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes

1. New York Times, 1 June 2018
2. I am not suggesting that these five men knew that the al-Qaeda attacks on the USS Cole (October, 2000) and then the 9/11 raid were coming. From my own experience, I doubt it, but there still are many smart people working to resolve this issue. I am asserting, however, that these five men refused to take any of the ten CIA-provided chances to kill bin Laden, and, in doing so, they could not have done anything more important to protect bin Laden in his Afghan lairs because they knew only the CIA was able to provide such capture/kill-opportunities.

See also:

Events during the past several weeks have left, at least with me, a growing sense that the need for armed rebellion in the United States and the UK is edging closer. The bipartisan political establishments in the United States and in Britain have left their citizenries in a brutal jungle where either the law is not enforced, or new laws are passed to limit fundamental rights — especially free speech — and/or to discriminate against the native-born in favor of preferred minorities or violent Muslim refugees and immigrants. Each native-born citizen is now approaching a break-point where the choice will come down to either passively obeying and truckling to his elite-run government’s discriminatory, humiliating, and increasingly lethal diktats, or to rebel and seek to destroy the central government that is now focused on destroying him, his family, and his nation and its history.

Of the many troubling events of the last fortnight, four seem particularly likely to move rebellion closer:

Trump’s travel ban and judicial tyranny

In response to an appeal against a lower court’s unconstitutional blocking of the implementation of the president’s travel ban, the appellate judges voted 10 to 3 to sustain the lower court’s illegal and republic-endangering decision. As in all of the court decisions pertaining to the ban, the judges ignored the law and the Constitution, and instead chose to behave as mind-readers. This meant that they applied their partisan hatred of Trump rather than the law, and allied themselves with their personal political ideology and worthless foreigners to block clearly lawful measures needed to protect Americans, as well as the republic that was created by the Constitution and which these tyrannical jurists are sworn to defend. Having lifetime tenure, these judges leave the citizenry with only one way to negate their political partisanship, lawlessness, and preference for foreigners over U.S. citizens.

Manchester and the madness of disarming

Nearly a hundred of what the Islamic State called “Crusader casualties” occurred in a Libyan Muslim’s suicide attack on young girls attending a concert by one of America’s elite-but-sluttish entertainers, a young woman who told the media soon after the attack that she wished all her fans “would f…ing die.” Swinging into action after the bombing, the Manchester government, Britain’s Tory government, and the British police and media moved quickly to silence any person who dared be critical of Muslims. This persecution extended to a female radio broadcaster who simply and truthfully asked if was not far past time for British men to stand up and defend their wives, sisters, and daughters against the Muslim slime — those two words are mine not hers — that Britain’s political elite has allowed to overrun the United Kingdom. The post-attack behavior of both governments and the West’s mainstream media — including America’s media — eloquently speaks the truth; namely, that native, white Britons, Germans, Americans, etc. exist only to work and pay for Muslim refugees who will never assimilate, but will merrily kill native citizens or hide those who do. After two decades in which the use of the ballot box has been unable to halt the inflow of Muslim murderers, the British people — and soon the American people — are left with only one way to negate the lawlessness of their elite. Sadly, Britons have let themselves be disarmed by their own government. Perhaps it is time for Britons to recall the words of one of their greatest republican patriots, a man who also was a hero to America’s Founders. “[O]ur ancestors were willing,” John Milton wrote, “to put anything into the king’s power rather than their arms and the garrisons of their towns; conceiving that that would be as if they went about to hand over their liberty to the unrestrained cruelty of their kings.” The consistent “unrestrained cruelty” of post-Thatcher UK governments in ruining British society with unlimited Muslim immigration, and by forcibly imposed multiculturalism and diversity have left the citizenry unable to resist their nation’s destruction because it long ago accepted the madness Milton described as a decision that “the power of the sword must belong to the king alone.” Now, the unarmed British citizenry finds that it must acquiesce in whatever “unjust laws the king would have ordered imposed on them.” [1] Americans, praise God, still believe in and abide by Milton’s words.

Seth Rich and his fellow corpses

Rich was the victim of a political assassination in Washington, DC, in July, 2016. Rich had worked as an IT Manager for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and he increasingly looks like the source that leaked the Podesta e-mails to Julian Assange. While Rich’s assassin has not been identified, the DNC’s fingerprints appear to be all over the assassination. Someone, for example, stopped the DC police investigation into Rich’s death. As a result, the owner and patrons of the last bar he was in before being killed were not interviewed, and the film from multiple closed-circuit, security video-cameras in the area of the assassination were not collected and examined by the police. In addition, another young man was killed after serving legal papers to the DNC, and a Democratic congresswoman, the former head of the DNC, was taped threatening the chief of the Capitol Police with “consequences” if he did not return a computer from her office that appears to part of a so far undefined criminal investigation. Soon after this threat of “consequences,” a Federal prosecutor was found dead from a head wound on a beach in the congresswoman’s home district in Florida, which happens to be the district in which she and the DNC are being sued for manipulating the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential primary elections to ensure no other candidate could defeat Hillary Clinton. In addition, the dead prosecutor’s body was found not far from the home of the judge that is overseeing the DNC lawsuit. These incidents, and law-enforcement’s studied and probably corrupt disinterest in finding Rich’s killers, appears to leave the citizenry with just one way to negate their lawlessness and provide at least a rough kind of justice for the deceased.

Erasing history to placate swine

In the past two weeks, the New Orleans’ city government removed the statues of four leaders of the Southern Confederacy — including Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee — to satisfy the hate-filled, baying of herds of uneducated millennial shitbirds. If this is the correct manner in which Americans are to treat their nation’s history, it is more than likely that city councils across the nation long ago would have been petitioned to remove the statues of any Black who fomented civil violence; those of any hero of sexual perversion or abortion, and, most of all, any honoring American Indians for their unparalleled craftsmanship in scalping men and women, kidnapping children, smashing babies’ heads against trees and rocks, and, their specialties, burning captives at the stake or burying them in ant hills, but only deep enough to ensure they were alive while being consumed.

But since no nation can proceed in this history-erasing manner and survive, let us hold our petitioning pens and take a look at General Lee’s enormous contributions to the republic, while never forgetting that he fought for — and nearly achieved — the Confederacy’s secession from it. During the U.S.-Mexican War, Lee repeatedly undertook life-risking reconnaissance operations for General Winfield Scott’s army, and without fail found the positions of Mexican forces and sketched routes by which they could be most effectively approached and attacked by the smaller American army. After that war, Scott described Lee as the best soldier he had ever served with; indeed, Scott and Lincoln offered Lee the command of the Union armies on the eve of the rebellion. Later, after the Civil War, Lee, while serving as the president of what is now Washington and Lee University, acted in a manner that reverberated loudly and tellingly across the society of the postwar south, when he walked up to the altar and knelt alongside a Black man to take communion, this when no one else in the congregation would do so.

But what all Americans should most remember and treasure about Robert E. Lee is what he did to ensure that the United States had a chance to survive and reconcile after the civil war. On the morning of 9 April 1865, near a small Virginia town called Appomattox, Confederate Brigadier Edward Porter Alexander sought to dissuade Lee from surrendering the Army of Northern Virginia to Grant. In this conversation, Alexander pleaded with Lee not to surrender the army to Grant, but rather to send his troops to their home states and have them continue the fight there in the fashion of guerrillas and partisans. Lee responded in the following manner.

[A]s Christian men, Gen. Alexander, you and I have no right to think for one moment of our personal feelings or affairs. We must consider only the effect which our action will have upon the country at large.

Suppose I should take your suggestion & order the army to disperse & and make their way to their homes. The men would have no rations & would be under no discipline. They are already demoralized by four years of war. They would have to plunder and rob to procure subsistence. The country would be full of lawless bands in every part, & a state of society would ensue from which it would take the country years to recover. Then the enemy’s cavalry would pursue in the hopes of catching the principal officers, & wherever they went there would be fresh rapine & destruction.

And as for myself, while you young men might afford to go to bushwhacking, the only proper and dignified course for me would be to surrender myself & take the consequences of my actions.

But it is still in the early spring, & if the men can be quietly & quickly returned to their homes there is time to plant crops & begin to repair the ravages of war. That is what I must now try to bring about. I expect to meet General Grant at ten this morning in the rear of the army and to surrender this army to him. [2]

Thus, Lee made a decision that likely saved the Union from a guerrilla war that might have dragged on for years, caused untold numbers of human deaths and much more property destruction, and certainly would have made national reconciliation a very distant and perhaps unattainable goal. In his memoirs, Alexander also recalls his immediate reaction to Lee’s republic-mending decision.

Then I thought I had never half known before what a big heart & brain our general had. I was so ashamed of having proposed to him such a foolish and wild cat scheme as my suggestion had been that I felt like begging him to forget that he had ever heard it. … It seemed now an inestimable privilege to serve under him to the very last moment & that no scene in the life of the Army of Northern Virginia would be more honorable than the one which was now to close its record. [3]

Watching the crane removing Lee’s statue in New Orleans, it seemed clear that the New Orleans city council that ordered its removal, the crane operator and crew that undertook the task, the media covering the process, and the rabid uneducated fools, and their Democratic enablers, who demanded the action, knew little or nothing about General Lee, the wars in which he fought, or the debt all Americans owe him. Particularly reprehensible was the ignorant rabble that expressed such hatred for Lee, and through him for all of the contemporary South, the republic’s history, and the honored Civil War dead on both sides. These people blithely lit yet another fuse that will earn them — when the patience of Americans runs out — the fury of their fellow countrymen, whom they take such great joy in wickedly and recklessly abusing.

In a post-bellum song called “I’m a Good Old Rebel,” a Confederate soldier laments that “300,000 Yankees lay dead in Southern dust. We got 300,000 before they conquered us. They died of Southern fever, and Southern steel and shot. I wish it was 3 million instead of what we got.” If necessary, and God willing, that rebel may yet get his wish.

Endnotes

1. John Milton, “Defence of the People of England,” 1651
2. Gary W. Gallagher, (Ed.). Fighting for the Confederacy. The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1989, pp. 532-533
3. Ibid., p.533

Mr. President:

Half-measures surely are one of the most vicious forms of self-destruction. As you said this week, Obama’s deal with Iran was rotten and far too costly to the United States. You were right to kill it.

The deal, moreover, was unconstitutional. Obama, as a person who was temporarily the U.S. president, concluded an agreement with Iran and several other parties. He treated it as if it was a binding and constitutionally concluded treaty. It was not. The deal was between Barack Obama and the other parties, and he knew — or should have known — that it would remain valid after he was gone only as long as his successor pretended it was a treaty and binding. Obama’s agreement was an execrable mix of cynicism and probably venality on his part, as well as that of John Kerry. After all, there was plenty of cold, hard cash on those pallets for all involved.

Those two points would have been a full measure, as well as logically and constitutionally sufficient to get the United States out from under the senseless and demeaning burden of always being ready-to-pounce militarily on Iran, a country that Israel and its well-bribed congressional and U.S. media lackeys hate and fear, but one that poses no threat to the United States, unless you are dumb enough to believe that the “Death to America” chants and burning of U.S. flags –common actions on the campuses of U.S. universities — are anything more than old, tiresome, and now meaningless actions, no matter how many Iranians use them in Iran’s parliament or the regime-staged marches in Tehran. Given that both are also trademarks of the Democratic Party, you might have usefully compared the authoritarian and brutal mullahs to Democrat leaders and their paramilitary terrorists in Antifa, BLM, BAM, and other groups, yet to be heard from.

A more melodious melding of the three foregoing paragraphs would have made your announcement briefer, irrefutably valid in terms of the Constitution, commonsense, and genuine U.S. national security interests. Best of all, it would have been a clear sign that the United States was leaving the Iran problem to those who hate and fear it; namely, the region’s Sunni states, Israel, and the charlatans now posing as EU leaders, each of whom wields a decrepit military and is facing escalating domestic social strife. Iran is their problem not — so long as our nuclear forces are potent and capable of quick, precise application — America’s.

With those points made, the clear takeaway from your statement, Mr. President, would have been that a proper definition of an American First foreign policy is one in which there is no room for the United States waging war against scheming Shia Muslim foreigners on behalf of other scheming foreigners in Europe and Israel, Sunni Muslims, the American Jewish community, and the suborned, probably dual-passported Congress, the latter group intending a war that will only cost Iranian lives and U.S. blood and treasure.

But no, being a smart, fair-minded, and tough American-First president, ready to do his best for Americans and their interests, was not enough for you. Indeed, on balance, you may have made matters a bit worse for the United States. You withdrew from the lousy accord, but then you let it appear that you did so on the orders of Netanyahu, who militarily attacked Iranian assets just as soon as you finished speaking. Then you declared that economic sanctions would be re-imposed on Iran in 90 days. As always, sanctions are quiet acts of war that bring conflict closer, and hurt the inhabitants of the country on which they are imposed, but not the Iranian elite nor their long-term strategic ambitions. The sanctions, Mr. President, keep the United States securely locked in the unstoppable downward drift of the war-of-all-against-all in the Near East, the place that you have so often and so correctly identified as a morass that has unnecessarily devoured tens of thousands of the lives and limbs of U.S. military personnel and over seven trillion taxpayer dollars.

And while some pundits and experts have said your decision to scrap the Iraq deal also was meant to send a message to the North Koreans that they better toe the peace line, the two situations are apples and oranges. North Korea was and is isolated, economically broken, and friendless, save for wishy washy China. Kim Jong Un saw that no cavalry was going to come over the hill and that your nuclear button was far more formidable than his. It seems unlikely that his decision needed reinforcement. Iran, on the other hand, is not isolated — even with sanctions — as China, Russia, and, at least implicitly, the EU have already taken the side of Iran against the United States.

Perhaps most worrying, the words you spoke near your statement’s end are an exact repetition of the bipartisan American governing elite’s demented belief that the United States must the “leader of the free world” and an “exceptional” country that is duty bound to bring democracy to all of the world. These words are particular favorites of the Neocons and the Israel-Firsters, as well as your adviser John Bolton, a senior member of both of those anti-American organizations. They use the words as a blind to hide their love of war, their utter loyalty to Israel, and their complete lack of concern about the welfare of Americans and their republic.

Face facts, Mr. President, most Americans have no intention of standing side-by-side with the Iranians or any other people if it means war, dead soldier-children, and massive and wasteful expenditures of their taxes. Face the even more important fact, Mr. President, that you currently hold the presidency of this decaying republic, and you have done much to rehabilitate the luster and dignity of that office and to begin rebuilding some small feeling of affection between the citizenry and their national government.

But, Sir, neither you nor any other president can find in the Constitution any authority to spend American lives and taxes for the interests of other nations or individuals, to spread democracy and secularism abroad, or to intervene in other peoples’ affairs simply because their political circumstances, forms of government, or economic circumstances are not to the U.S. governing elite’s liking.

The roles of being the leader of the free world and that of being the American president are in no way compatible; indeed, the former role makes the president the patsy and bankroller of anti-Americans at home and abroad and thereby negates the aspects of the latter that are the most important to Americans, ensuring low taxes, jobs, rehabilitated infrastructure, a family oriented culture, limited government, border control, and peace. The steady, perhaps irreversible physical and spiritual disintegration of our republic and Union began in 1945 with the creation of the UN and the anointing of America’s Ivy League-educated governing elite as the leaders of the free world.

This deliberately destructive process continues today, Mr. President. It is your preeminent constitutional responsibility to destroy those who are its facilitators, Sir, and there is not a lot of time left to preserve the republic and the Union. With respect, Sir, get your butt in gear, get cracking, and eradicate the elite-induced cancer that is killing the republic.

It is never within man’s abilities to be perfect. That said, French President Emmanuel Macron came fairly close to perfection in his description of the world he envisions and wants to be imposed on the United States. It is a vision that, undoubtedly, will nauseate, infuriate, and worry those Americans who believe — as President Trump’s claims to — in an “America First,” non-interventionist foreign policy.

What is wrong with Macron? Macron demonstrated that he is either supremely arrogant and believes his vision — more properly the EU’s vision — is brilliant, unquestionably right, supremely moral, and cannot be challenged, or his intelligence services have utterly failed to provide him the data necessary to understand that Trump was not elected to conduct a steady-as-she-goes foreign policy. In his arrogance or ignorance, Macron reminded the pro-Trump citizenry of the hell that awaits them, their money, their republic, and their children’s lives if the Macron-voiced-vision of the internationalists’ “21st-century world order” carries the day. Only a moron, it seems to me, would be uninformed about how much contemporary Americans hate a politician peddling the creation of a new “world order” of any type.

Several passages from Macron’s speech¹ merit comment:

“In recent years, our nations have suffered wrenching losses simply because of our values and our taste for freedom. Because these values are the very ones those terrorists precisely hate. … That is why we stand together in Syria and in the Sahel today, to fight together against these terrorist groups who seek to destroy everything for which we stand.”

This is the key falsehood for Western and U.S. leaders: The Islamists have nothing to with Islam, and simply hate Western values and freedom. This lie has blocked from view, for most in the West, the fact that the Islamists are waging war against the West because it routinely and mindlessly intervenes militarily in the Muslim world and so has earned a religious-powered response and opposition. (NB: If the Islamists fight has anything to with the West’s values, it is with the utter lack of values in the debauched and ever-more licentious West.) Macron praises U.S. military forces in Syria and the Sahel, the former long a sphere of influence for France, and, the latter, the source of most of the uranium used in France’s large nuclear energy industry. Macon simply wants American kids and money doing France’s fighting.

“This is an urgent reminder indeed. Because now, going beyond our bilateral ties, beyond our very special relationship, Europe and the United States must face together the global challenges of this century. And we cannot take for granted our transatlantic history and bonds. At the core, our Western values themselves are at risk.”

Macron and his EU partners have long rejected what he calls “Western values,” which traditionally have included natural rights, Christianity, rule of law, equality before the law, civil liberties, and nationalism. A short review of the manner in which EU countries are governed today will show, for example, that most EU regimes deny natural rights, damn and seek to eradicate Christianity, use laws to protect illegal non-citizens who rape, murder, kidnap, and knife native-born citizens, and treat the idea of nationalism as even worse than the idea of the right-to-life, and we all know the sheer joy they take in murdering the unborn.

“But we bear another responsibility inherited from our collective history. Today, the international community needs to step up our game and build the 21st-century world order, based on the perennial principles we established together after World War II.”

Both Bushes, both Clintons, Obama, Blair, Scowcroft, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Biden, Cameron, and Merkel could not have said it better. What Macron is calling for is the continuation of the post-1945 U.S.-Western campaign to wage interventionist wars designed to remake the world in the West’s savagely secular, anti-democratic, and minority-rule image. The EU elite does not have the resources to do this on its own and wants American manpower and money to fuel the worldwide project. Macron seems to think his speech’s loathsome flattery of the United States will be enough to keep the U.S. interventionist elite onboard in supporting the EU’s goal of a world government. Sadly, Macron may be correct.

“Together with our international allies and partners, we are facing inequalities created by globalization; threats to the planet, our common good; attacks on democracies through the rise of illiberalism; and the destabilization of our international community by new powers and criminal states. All these risks aggrieve our citizens. Both in the United States and in Europe we are living in a time of anger and fear, because of these current global threats.” But these feelings do not build anything. You can play with fears and anger for a time. But they do not construct anything. Anger only freezes and weakens us. And, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt said during his first inaugural speech, ‘the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.’”

This is deliberately misleading. U.S. and EU citizens are primarily aggrieved not by world affairs or the greed-driven climate-change myth. They are aggrieved, angry, and fearful because their governments are attacking their civil rights; flooding their lands with unwanted, often violent immigrants who are favored legally, socially, and economically; waging endless and always losing foreign interventionist wars; crippling the current and future generations with unpayable debt; and destroying their cultures, histories, and traditions. Macron and his EU colleagues ought to worry that their peoples’ grievances, anger, and fear will soon be acted on violently by massacring their respective and execution-deserving governing elite.

“Therefore, let me say we have two possible ways ahead. We can choose isolationism, withdrawal, and nationalism. This is an option. It can be tempting to us as a temporary remedy to our fears. But closing the door to the world will not stop the evolution of the world. It will not douse, but inflame, the fears of our citizens. We have to keep our eyes wide open to the new risks, right in front of us. I am convinced that if we decide to open our eyes wider, we will be stronger. We will overcome the dangers. We will not let the rampaging work of extreme nationalism shake a world full of hopes for greater prosperity. It is a critical moment. If we do not act with urgency as a global community, I am convinced that the international institutions, including the United Nations and NATO, will no longer be able to exercise their mandate and stabilizing influence. We would then inevitably and severely undermine the liberal order we built after World War II.”

What can be said about this nonsense? No one in the United States is proposing anything that can remotely be termed isolationism. Macron uses it as an easy strawman to knock down, as well as a slur against Trump and most Americans. Macron’s stated fears of seeing the end of “the liberal order we built after World War II” surely must be a sign of his early-onset dementia. The so-called “liberal post-war era,” and its sadly prolonged existence by George H.W. Bush and posse of his one-worlders, may have helped the Europeans, but it has cost America dearly. The post-war liberal order’s yield primarily was wasteful, constant, and unnecessary wars; enormous amounts of foreign aid paid to gangsters dictators and their Swiss bank accounts; high numbers of U.S. military casualties; repeated surrenders of U.S. sovereignty and independence; and proliferating international organizations that deliberately undermined the United States economically and politically, and consistently maligned it rhetorically. For the United States, the sooner the world order that Macron and his EU colleagues adore is demolished, the sooner the American people will thrive, rebuild their country, and — as it should be — let others fend for themselves.

“Therefore, distinguished members of Congress, let us push them aside, write our own history and birth the future we want. We have to shape our common answers to the global threats that we are facing. The only option then is to strengthen our cooperation. We can build the 21st-century world order, based on a new breed of multilateralism. Based on a more effective, accountable, and results-oriented multilateralism. A strong multilateralism.”

Here, Macron is simply calling for more of the same, more failure, wasted resources, and lost wars. The post-war period’s sole success was the fact that the United States maintained a nuclear-deterrent force too strong for the Soviet Union to challenge without committing national suicide, and vice-versa. The end of the Cold War with the defeat of the USSR was not a triumph delivered by the championship of Western values, but by the military and economic power of the United States, and, of course, the arrival of Ronald Reagan in the White House in the nick of time to make that power stick.

“This [see the foregoing quote] requires more than ever the United States’ involvement, as your role was decisive for creating and safeguarding today’s free world. The United States invented this multilateralism. You are the one now who has to help to preserve and reinvent it.”

Pure, self-interested flattery from the manipulating Frenchman. The smartest Frenchman — Alexis de Tocqueville — was singularly unimpressed with the quality of the U.S. congressmen he met, and not much more by the senators. He found them badly educated, avaricious, and easy to manipulate. Being that is still the case, Macron took a page from Democracy in America and laid it on thick, and, before he left the chamber, he knew his ruse had succeeded as he won a three-minute standing ovation. From the 1830s to 2018, some things in the Congress seem never to change.

“This strong multilateralism will not outshine our national cultures and national identities. It is exactly the other way around. A strong multilateralism will allow our cultures and identities to be respected, to be protected and to flourish freely together. Why? Because precisely our own culture is based, on both sides of the Atlantic, on this unique taste for freedom, on this unique attachment to liberty and peace. This strong multilateralism is the unique option compatible with our nations, our cultures, our identities. With the US President, with the support of every 535 members of this joint session, representing the whole American nation, we can actively contribute together to building the 21st-century world order, for our people.”

This is such a ridiculous assertion that a single question makes a mockery of it. If Macron’s statement “strong multilateralism will not outshine our national cultures and national identities. It is exactly the other way around” is true, why are Macron, most of his EU peers, and the U.S. Democratic party working to destroy their respective nation’s history, nationalism, identity, traditional ethnic make-up, and traditional culture? Macron is a two-bit, lying bastard who, with his elite colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic, intend nothing less than the destruction of the nation-state and their dictatorship over the detritus of once splendid nations and peoples.

“We are experiencing the positive impact of our current economic globalization, with innovation, with job creation. We see, however, the abuses of globalized capitalism, and digital disruptions, which jeopardize the stability of our economies and democracies. I believe facing these challenges requires the opposite of massive deregulation and extreme nationalism. I believe we can build the right answers to legitimate concerns regarding trade imbalances, excesses, and overcapacities, by negotiating through the World Trade Organization and building cooperative solutions. We wrote these rules; we should follow them.”

Macron directly attacks Trump and his supporters by setting up two more ludicrous strawmen to knock down. There has been no “massive deregulation and extreme nationalism” in the United States, indeed, God willing, Trump has barely begun such measures but they are already succeeding. Macron’s own words have proven that he, like Obama, the Clintons, and other Western elitists, are never the advocates of “change” that will help Western nations and their citizens. The only change these people ever demand is found in measures that will expand their own power and wealth, strengthen international organizations, cause wars, and continue the dissolution of nation-states. Americans are done with being the reliable patsies who fill the money trough out of which Europeans and Third Worlders have gluttonously drunk for nearly seventy years.

“Some people think that securing current industries — and their jobs — is more urgent than transforming our economies to meet the global challenge of climate change. I hear these concerns, but we must find a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy. Because what is the meaning of our life, really, if we work and live destroying the planet while sacrificing the future of our children? What is the meaning of our life if our decision, our conscious decision, is to reduce the opportunities for our children and grandchildren?”

Macron cannot stand that the fact that the “some people” he refers to are absolutely and eternally correct regarding the climate-change fraud. Atheists like Macron and much of the U.S. and European governing elites have adopted climate-change as a secular religion that is more fanatic and less fact-based than the one the Islamists hold. Macron, et. al., have ordered their governmental environmental agencies to manufacture false data to support the climate-change argument, and have used generous grants to universities and scientific publications to keep the world’s lying climate scientists on board. And please, Macron, have the common decency not to speak of the children that you and your lust to kill when unborn, at birth, and — as this week in Britain — after they are born.

“To protect our democracies, we have to fight against the ever-growing virus of fake news, which exposes our people to irrational fear and imaginary risks. And let me attribute the fair copyright for this expression “fake news,” especially here. Without reason, without truth, there is no real democracy — because democracy is about true choices and rational decisions. The corruption of information is an attempt to corrode the very spirit of our democracies.”

Macron’s reference to “fake news” is meant to indicate, and ultimately ban, the conservative and populist alternative media, those outlets that were key in electing Trump and re-embedding “America First” in the minds of Americans. Macron and his like on both sides of the Atlantic are the people who are — with the enthusiastic assistance of the BBC, Deutsche Welle, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. — the authoritarian masters of “fake news.” Macron’s brazen call for destroying the alternative media outlets that have relentlessly detailed their corruption, authoritarianism, power-hunger, greed, and — in some — depravity is no surprise. After all, those media outlets are paving a smooth road for Macron and all Trans-Atlantic globalists to trod on their way to the gallows they so richly merit.

Source:

1. All the passages quoted above were taken from the transcript of Macron’s speech found at Transcription du discours du Président de la République, Emmanuel Macron, devant le congrès des États-Unis d’Amérique

The U.S.-led attack on Syria was reckless, unnecessary, and self-defeating, but most of all it is clear testimony to the fact that the republic and its Constitution are nearly dead. Simply put, President Trump acted in the same matter as his four immediate predecessors; that is, as an elected dictator defying the Constitution and knowing that the supine Congress will do nothing to recover its sole and non-delegable constitutional prerogative to authorize the United States to go to war.

After eight years of war in Syria, not one genuine U.S. national interest — economic, military, or any other — has been damaged even slightly. The only American lives or limbs lost there were aid workers and journalists who knowingly put themselves in harm’s way, and several U.S. troops who were sent to Syria unconstitutionally and died there uselessly and wastefully. In other words, whether 35 of 3,500 Syrians were killed by gas at Douma, that attack — like all others in Syria over the since 2011 — was irrelevant to genuine U.S. national security concerns, not matter how severely they offend the sensibilities of some Americans.

Indeed, genuine U.S. national interests have benefited from the Syrian war. Russian President Putin threw his geopolitical dice and lost. As a result, he has been steadily spending his military’s lives, equipment, and monetary resources on a secondary Islamist threat to Russia, while the priority Islamist threat to Russia and its Commonwealth of Independent States is emanating from Afghanistan.

Islamist forces in Afghanistan, especially those of the Islamic State (IS), have substantially increased in number, and they are gradually solidifying their presence in the northern Afghan provinces that border Central Asia. Putin’s military will soon be mired and bleeding in both Syria and Afghanistan, thereby further reducing Russia’s ability and desire to antagonize the United States. This benefit, of course, would be greatly enhanced if the U.S. military was withdrawn from Afghanistan, after sewing salt or otherwise poisoning all heroin-growing land and destroying all military material and facilities that cannot be removed with the departing troops.

Geopolitical realities aside, Trump’s decision to join Britain and France to strike myriad targets in Syria is fundamentally a decision that would be made only by an Neocon or a hostage being threatened with death. Think about it, three nuclear powers attack a fourth and its ally because c. 35 Syrians were killed by poison gas that was dropped on them by what possibly was an Israel-run, false-flag operation. Under the morally indignant mantra “Assad gassed his own people!” Trump, Britain’s Theresa May, and France’s Emmanuel Macron launched missiles to chastise the foul Arab fiend and his Russian protector. Western morality and might again save the world.

Well, wait a minute. Trump leads a nation that has killed more than 60-plus millions of its own children; abolished majority rule in favor of rule by a motley, violent, and badly educated mix of racial, sexually deviant, and fascist minority groups; and has made the rule of law and the Bill of Rights quaint things of the past. Might not these depravities merit attack and destruction by some other nation or nations under the banner of morality and saving innocent Americans? Turn-about, after all, is fair play.

And what of Trump’s partners in this premeditated military intervention in Syria? Well, both May and Macron have been and are still attacking and killing their own people, and ruining their national economies, with the violent Muslim and African immigrants they have allowed to flood their countries. Their attacks are as bad or worse than Assad’s. He at least leads a sovereign government trying to save a moderate independent nation-state from Islamist forces. May and Macron, on the other hand, are deliberately trying to kill the sovereign states they were elected to protect, as well as the civil liberties of those who voted for them.

In Britain and France, unwanted, unneeded, and dole-supported immigrants are shooting, raping, robbing, kidnapping, knifing, and acid-dousing native-born citizen. Police often take days to respond to such attacks, and then tend to arrest the victims, and those who defend them, for “hate speech” if they damn their attackers publicly or on social media. It would not be a surprise to learn that the governments of May and Macron are facilitating the murder-by-immigrant of twelve of their own citizens each day. May and Macron make Assad look like a commonsense Syrian patriot, and they merit ending up hanging from the gallows, and soon.

Back to Trump. The president, in this attack, has made himself at least the temporary enemy of every man and woman who voted for him and against the continuation of their national government’s half-century of unconstitutional, interventionist, and unnecessary wars. In a single night, Trump forfeited his status as a symbol of hope and courage by knowingly descending into the swamp to attach himself to a long, stinking, and blood-stained line of lying U.S. presidents, a war-mongering brotherhood of average-American-hating men. Can he or, perhaps more accurately, does he want to get a grip and drag himself out of the sewer in which he decided to swim? We’ll see.

Finally, the military interventionism of Trump and his generals, as well as those of his predecessors and their generals, must be seen for what it is; namely, proof that there is absolutely no such thing as “American Exceptionalism”. Since 1945, most U.S. presidents, both political parties, and the governing elite have hewed closely to history’s well-trodden path of war-making rulers who do not give a damn about the welfare or desires of their citizens. This kind of behavior is unbearable by itself. But it becomes shameful, deranged and murderous when it is gussied up in the silken robes and diadem of “American Exceptionalism” and claims to be seeking to make the world safe for democracy as the bayonet’s point is pressed hard against the bellies of foreign peoples. The interventionists, since V-J Day, have used America’s young as cannon fodder abroad, and treated citizens at home as simple-minded workers from whom every last dollar in taxes must be wrung to pay for more war and war-industries.

America’s Founders, to their everlasting glory, knew that there was nothing exceptional about Americans. Those men believed that they and their fellow citizens were part of the common-run of mankind, fallen creatures of God who were capable of great good and despicable evil. The only exceptionalism the Founders saw in their countrymen and new republic was three-fold: (a) the citizens’ birthright to English liberties; (b) the republic’s location on the astoundingly well-watered, fertile, and natural resource-rich North American continent, and (c) the remoteness of that continent from the rest of the world, and especially those states and empires that wanted no republic to survive.

To nurture English liberties, take advantage of America’s geographical exceptionalism, and avoid all but necessary wars, the Founders crafted a foreign policy based on commonsense, neutrality, and non-intervention. Though they did not call their handy-work an “America First” policy, that is what it was, and it guided the republic’s international conduct for most of the 140 years that preceded the 1912 election of Woodrow Wilson, the first high and sanctimonious priest of American Exceptionalism. Since Wilson intervened unnecessarily in Latin America, the European War of 1914-18, and the Russian revolution and its aftermath, U.S. presidents have sought to bury the successful record of Founders’ America First policy and replace it with gangsterish military interventionism, clad in faux moralistic rhetoric, we see and hear today.

At least six notable men have stood up and defied the interventionists since 1917: Senator Robert M. La Follette, Brigadier-General Charles Lindbergh, Patrick J. Buchanan. Dr. Ron Paul, Dr. Rand Paul, and Donald Trump.

• Senator Robert M. La Follette was a Republican from Wisconsin who supported Woodrow Wilson’s re-election in 1916 because that charlatan was still advocating American neutrality in the Great War. When Wilson showed his interventionist intentions, La Follette adamantly opposed America’s entry into World War I, and, after the war, he labored publicly and in the Senate — with other non-interventionists — to successfully stop the surrender of U.S. sovereignty and independence required by the Treaty of Versailles and U.S. membership in the League of Nations.
• Building on La Follette’s work, and the anti-interventionism of his own father, Brigadier-General Lindbergh was the heart of the “America First” movement in the late 1930s. He was, as well, the greatest American hero of the 20^th century. The price Lindbergh paid for trying to keep America out of a then-unnecessary war was to have his reputation permanently ruined by the label “anti-Semite,” which was indelibly attached to him by British government and Jewish-American leaders, media, and organizations. To this day, the latter U.S.-based groups have maintained and periodically refreshed this libeling of Lindbergh, even through the work of prominent novelists and biographers.
• Mr. Buchanan and the two Dr. Pauls resuscitated the fading embers of Lindbergh’s America First blaze. They were consistently targeted and tarred in the same manner as Lindbergh, but courageously persevered and not only successfully kept the fire lit, but kept it slowly growing for decades.
• Mr. Trump came onto the scene promising to out-Lindbergh Lindbergh on the issue of America First. So far that promise has been a black lie, which, for me, is a lie that not only seems to display a person’s mendacity but offends the commonsense of Americans, especially that of the parents who have lost sons and daughters in their presidents’ unnecessary and always lost interventionist wars.

It is up to you, now, Mr. Trump. Did you come to praise and save the republic, or to finish it off and bury it? For now, at least, the sound of shovels digging a grave seems to be coming from the White House.

I am by nature, upbringing, education, and professional experience a law-and-order guy. In this space, I have often said that the rule of law and equality before the law are the sine qua non of American liberty and the republic’s social cohesion. I still believe this, but am beginning to think that to save both, we can no longer tolerate a Department of Justice and FBI that are clearly engaged in a lawless attempt to overthrow a legitimately elected U.S. president.

Both institutions are apparently thoroughly corrupt and politically motivated across the country, and at all levels of the organizations. We must utterly reject the crap-filled mantra that there are only a “few bad guys” in both DoJ and the FBI. Anyone familiar with federal bureaucracies knows that grand poohbahs like Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller, his prosecutors, Wray, Comey, and McCabe never do their own legwork, and so require the services of dozens — if not hundreds — of lower-level officials to do the grunt work, men and women who can be reliably counted on to have no objection to being involved in their seniors’ crimes. When the time comes, the process of elimination in both organizations will have to be wide, deep, and utterly final.

For me, Monday’s savage, 6^th Amendment-violating, Stasi-like FBI raid on Michael Cohen’s — President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer — law office, home, and apartment broke the camel’s back. The raiders’ thug-like seizure of all documents and computers in Cohen’s professional and living quarters apparently included all paper and electronic communications between Cohen and Mr. Trump — including those that long predated Mr. Trump’s declaration of a presidential run — and so destroyed any pretense of there being a constitutionally protected lawyer-client privilege for any individual the gangsters at FBI and DoJ intend to destroy, even if the client involved is the president of the United States.

While this unconstitutional DoJ-FBI vendetta unfolds unimpeded, there still has not been a single legitimate investigation, indictment, or arrest in

1.  The case of Wasserman-Schultz and the Awan brothers in what is one of the biggest espionage catastrophes in the republic’s history.
2.  The case of Hillary Clinton’s deliberate broadcasting of highly classified U.S. security information to any U.S. enemy who had a savvy teenager on the payroll who could download an unsecured e-mail server.
3.  The case of the involvement of the Clintons, their hangers-on, and other leading U.S. politicians in Jeffrey Epstein’s island home for the pedophile frolics of the U.S. governing elite.
4.  The case of nearly half-a-hundred murders by the Clinton team which can be dated back four decades from its murder of Seth Rich.
5.  The case of the Clinton Foundation and its various appendages which stole most of the massive donations made to help Haitian earthquake victims; peddled diluted HIV serum, probably quickening the deaths of the recipients; and sold 20-percent of America’s uranium to Russia for a c. $150 million bribe to the Foundation.

How many of the homes or law offices related to those five crimes — all of which, unlike Trump’s case, has a credible legal predicate that merits investigation — have been raided? How many of that unfathomably scurvy cast of DoJ-FBI characters have been indicted? How many DoJ and FBI officials — especially Comey and Muellar — have been indicted for illegally leaking information and for covering up the Clintons’ multiple, massive, murderous, and perhaps treasonable crimes? The answer in each case is precisely none. What have the DoJ and FBI had time to do lately, aside from unconstitutionally tormenting Trump? They are investigating the massive threat to U.S. national security present in a number of two-bit corruption cases involving college basketball.

Enough is enough. The path back to the rule of law, and equality for all before the law, lies, I fear, in the destructive extra-legal activity Jefferson and his colleagues recommended in the Declaration of Independence for use only in instances when the republic’s liberty and laws are in extremis. There is little reason for any American to think his or her voice — unless that voice emanates from a rich liberal, a sexual deviant, a movie star, a well-scripted, adolescent tech giant, or an ANTIFA or BLM terrorist — has any traction whatsoever with the federal bureaucracy, the bipartisan political establishment, or the media.

Clearly, the administration of justice in the United States is now entirely in the hands of a non-elected junta of law-enforcement officials, lawyers, and judges who have seized the absolute monarch-like power of choosing who should be president of the United States, and of removing any candidate who, by some miracle, escapes their pre-election traps and corrupt electoral system and becomes president.

In addition to this astonishing lawlessness, this same gang of people, whose crimes have never been fairly and thoroughly investigated, are also waging war against the 1^st Amendment — they praise major social-media providers for censoring conservatives and citizen reporters — and the 2^nd Amendment, seeking to make sure they take the tools of rebellion from Americans and thereby nullify Jefferson’s guidance to overthrow by any means necessary any U.S government that is, in reality, a tyranny.

If the advice of Jefferson and his colleagues in the Continental Congress falls a bit short of adequate guidance for those who love the republic and perceive its approaching demise, a quick prayer to the Lord — found in an eternal source of inspiration and resolve — will buck them up and prepare them for the worst. In the 144^th Pslam, we find the following petition to the divinity, one in which the Pslamist, seeking support for his efforts, writes,

Blessed Be the Lord, My Rock

Blessed be the Lord my God, who teacheth my hands to fight, and my fingers to war.

My mercy, and my refuge: my support, and my deliverer: My protector, and I have hoped in him: who subdueth my people under me.

Lord, what is man, that thou art made known to him? or the son of man, that thou makest account of him?

Man is like to vanity: his days pass away like a shadow.

Lord, bow down thy heavens and descend: touch the mountains and they shall smoke.

Send forth lightning, and thou shalt scatter them: shoot out thy arrows, and thou shalt trouble them.

Put forth thy hand from on high, take me out, and deliver me from many waters: from the hand of strange children:

Whose mouth hath spoken vanity: and their right hand is the right hand of iniquity.

No blessing ever seems to arrive in a manner that allows it to be appreciated and lingered over. In the case of President Trump’s stated intention to soon withdraw all U.S. forces from Syria, the beauty of that announcement is marred by the dangerous and ongoing insanity of the aggression of the Trump administration and NATO against Russia for defending itself against unwarranted, Western interventionist, regime-change operations in the Ukraine.

• Syria: Well, it seems too good to be true. President Trump has said that all U.S. military forces will be leaving Syria in the near term. He has been saying such things since he sent additional troops there, but not with such firmness. Could he be starting to understand what America First means in terms of conducting a non-interventionist foreign policy? I suppose we will see, but it would certainly prompt smiles and a sigh of relief among the base of his supporters — especially among the wavering — and would get us out of there before Syria and Iraq inevitably dissolve into a savage, all-out sectarian war. There seems to have been no push-back against Trump from the Pentagon, and the strong objections from Senator Graham and the Saudi Crown Prince — two reliable anti-Americans — suggests that they genuinely fear Trump will withdraw all U.S. ground troops and air assets. Getting out of Syria might well justify a modest Independence Day parade, throw in a quick departure from Afghanistan and that would call for a large parade celebrating the saving of lives, limbs and enormous expenditures. It also would mark a great strategic success for the republic by making Sunni and Shia Muslims free to kill each other to their hearts content, and perhaps even motivating the Russians and Chinese to get more deeply involved in the coming regional catastrophe.
• Russia: “I learned to hate the Russians all through my whole life, if another war comes, it’s them we must fight, to hate them and fear them, to run and to hide, and accept it all bravely with God on my side.”^[1] Bob Dylan wrote those lyrics for a song called “With God on Our Side”, published in 1963. At the height of the Cold War, Dylan’s lyrics precisely portrayed his own, my, and our classmates’ grammar school experience, which was, indeed, replete with practice air-raid sirens, scary films about the Communists, and hiding in school basements — well-stocked with surplus U.S. military rations and barrels of water — and under classroom desks. And it seems that Dylan’s analysis is more current today than I think he would like, thanks to its championing by the remaining and largely stinking detritus of my own generation’s elite — Graham, McCain, senior British Tories, the Neocons, the Israel-Firsters, the mainstream media, and the media’s Soros-paid strategic analysts — none of whom can possibly have God on their side.

It must be remembered that the grounding of the current confrontation with Russia was the successful efforts of the BBC, the EU, and Obama and Hillary to overthrow the pro-Russian Ukraine government. In response to that attack on Russia’s historical defensive periphery, Putin re-annexed Crimea, the home base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. This action was completely justifiable in terms of Russia’s life-and-death national security interests — which for all nations must always trump international agreements — and likely would have been taken by any Russian ruler facing the same situation. Since that annexation, the deeply embarrassed and terminally adolescent West has sought to bring Putin and his country to daggers drawn by: (a) imposing economic sanctions on Russia because Putin did his patriotic duty in Crimea; (b) damning him and Russia for defending the West by killing much of the Islamic State that was defeating the West at home and abroad; and, now, by (c) expelling Russian diplomats on the basis of “lethal nerve gas attack” in Salisbury, England, one in which the British government said forty people were gassed but no one died; about which the area’s medical director said only three people were hurt and that there was no nerve gas involved; and for which the British government has not released a jot of evidence and has ridiculed Moscow for requesting such material. Russia is a nuclear-armed, Great Power, a nation proud of its history, and one that looks on Ukraine as part of its sphere of influence and a key to Russia’s defense. The West is playing with fire, and ought to be grateful for Putin’s patience — which will not last forever. It probably is pointless to think that Western leaders will suddenly become adults and stop seeking conflict with Russia, and so it is well to remember the last stanza of Dylan’s song: “So now as I’m leavin,’ I’m weary as Hell, The confusion I’m feelin’, Ain’t no tongue can tell, The words fill my head, And fall to the floor, If God’s on our side, He’ll stop the next war.”^[2] Let us hope He saves us from the nefarious activities of the dying and so desperate and war-wanting Western elites.

It also is worth noting that Britain’s Tory government — whose prime minister, Theresa May, wants to avoid implementing the electorate’s decision that the UK leave the EU — and those of France and Germany are seeking to find a means to not only prevent the now accelerating collapse of the EU, but also to neutralize what appears to be the rising strength of populism, which is focused on each nation reclaiming its national sovereignty and a continent-wide halt to Muslim immigration before it yields civil wars in most EU states. The EU leaders, as a kind of last gasp option, are trying to frighten all Europeans by resuscitating the Cold War’s Bolshevik-menace meme at a time when Putin’s Russia is proud and defiant, but does not have an economic pot to piss in. The Europeans, with the Trump administration’s support, are running a con on all Europeans and Americans that is meant to save the EU from a thoroughly merited demise. The United States should be ashamed and called out for assisting the EU in this ignoble, war-threatening, and anti-democratic operation.

Endnotes

1. Bob Dylan “With God on our side,” 1963, lyrics at https://bobdylan.com/songs/god-our-side/
2. Ibid.

Mr. President:

I hope you will forgive my damning you, but, sadly, you fully merit the condemnation, not only from me, but from the tens of millions who voted for you because you championed an America First policy that would stop the killing and maiming of their soldier-children in unnecessary, interventionist, and bankrupting wars. John Bolton, Mr. President, has been an advocate and architect of many of those always lost wars, he has supported them all, he will kill as many of our kids and spend as many of our dollars as are necessary to serve Israeli interests, he will leak our most classified information to the Israelis, and he will favor unnecessary wars over non-intervention in every situation he confronts. Plainly, Mr. President, Bolton is an anti-American shit-bird.

About ten days ago a reader of this space asked what I thought about the rumor of John Bolton being in line to replace H.R. McMaster as the National Security Adviser. My wife just got in the door and told me that exactly that disaster had come to pass.

Let me start by printing here the answer I provided to the above-mentioned question.

“Thank you for writing. I cannot imagine a worse choice for MacMaster’s replacement than Bolton. He is the walking talking epitome of an Israel-firster shill, and he would transfer any secret data he is privy to the Mossad station chief in Washington. He is a neoconservative war-monger and, as far as I can tell, hasn’t had a new idea for as long as I have heard him on FOX. Even before the anchor finishes his question, I almost always know nearly verbatim what that ass is going to say in response. I don’t know why savvy guys like Lou Dobbs, Cavouto, and Brett Baier give him the time of day. Trump used him as a potential nominee for secretary of state and national security adviser after the inauguration, but threw him back into the gutter in which he dwells and chose someone else. I hope and pray that recent history will repeat itself.”

MFS

Mr. President, you are involved in two losing wars — in Afghanistan and Iraq — and Bolton will want more U.S. participation in each. Although the U.S. and Western media are not covering the wars, the truth is that the non-defeated Islamic State (IS) has moved into the southern suburbs of Damascus; IS and the Taliban are expanding their control in Afghanistan; after 17 years the U.S. military and its useless allies cannot even secure Kabul; Iraqi Shias are merrily murdering mounting numbers of Sunnis; and IS conducts ambushes and bombings in Iraq whenever and wherever it wishes. Your senior CIA, Defense, and political advisers, Mr. President, have given you nothing in Afghanistan or Iraq save opportunities to be mired in each until you have to flee as they fled from Saigon. Bolton is a loser and he will back those losers to the hilt, and so more of our kids and dollars will be wasted. Burned up in the waste of those two wars will be young American men, women, and dollars that could be used to control the border, build the wall, and rid the republic of dole-sucking illegal alien felons. And because he is more loyal to Israel than to America, Bolton will look for opportunities to cause trouble with Russia, which is always a priority of Israel First.

Where has your commonsense gone, Mr. President? That characteristic was manifest on the campaign trail, but it has now ebbed away to a barely visible shadow. You could have, Sir, picked a better national security adviser than Bolton from a group of Marine gunnery sergeants. The country as whole — and most especially middle America, which provides the troops your generals and advisers use like cannon fodder — are sick of the unnecessary, interventionist wars that Bolton, the Neocons, and the Israel-Firsters love to start.

Again, Mr. President, God-damn you for choosing that war-loving, anti-American bastard Bolton.

“To find pleasure in the calamities of other nations would be criminal; but to benefit ourselves by opening an asylum to those who suffer in consequence of them is as justifiable as it is politic.”

Alexander Hamilton, Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 5 December 1791[1]

For decades, Americans have listened to Democrats, establishment Republicans, and the mainstream media lecture them about why they have a moral responsibility to welcome, financially support, and give legal preference to arriving legal and illegal immigrants who are very often the dregs of the societies they are leaving. The result has been an ocean of illiterate, dole-loving, unskilled, and often violent foreigners who guzzle down all the money the American taxpayer can provide, refuse to assimilate, vote blindly for America-hating American politicians — read Democrats — and generally constitute a potent acid that is dissolving the republic’s social cohesiveness. It is time for a change.

If we must have more legal immigration into America, there is one way we can make sure the new entrants will be worth having. I would suggest that for the next three years we have a program that gives exclusive access to applications for immigration only to those individuals whose governments are either killing them or refusing to protect them against violent minorities, especially against violent Muslims. To keep this program small and focused — so as to be able to assess its value at the end of three years — I would recommend that we take in only white South Africans and white Europeans from a limited number of EU countries. Why? Because native-born whites in both regions currently are threatened with increasingly violent attacks that are conducted with either their government’s support or their government’s indifference to their safety.

South Africa: Since the West — stupefied by multiculturalism and diversity — forced white South Africans to turn over the country to the communist/terrorist Mandela and his rainbow coalition of moronic white liberals and violent Black communists, the result has been an unmitigated economic, social, and human disaster for the Republic of South Africa. What was once the economic powerhouse of the African continent is now approaching the status that characterizes most other African states: an ill-governed, economically sinking, lawless, and increasingly violent shithole. But no matter, the turnover of power is complete, and South Africa is probably beyond saving with anything short of divine intervention.

So we should let the South African communist-gangsters drown, while killing one another, in their own poisonous juices. But we can take in as many white South Africans as we can, especially the rural-based ones who are reported to grow up to 70-percent of the country’s food crops. This section of the population is now seeing its property seized without payment by the Black communists who run the national government. These officials also have turned a resolutely blind eye toward — and may be arming — Black gunmen who are killing white South African farmers, their wives, and their children simply for the racist fun of that genocidal endeavor. These white South African targets of the Black communist murderers are a sturdy lot. Their ancestors tamed a savage wilderness, built a powerful economy, nearly defeated the British Empire in the Boer wars, and aligned themselves with the Western allies’ during both world wars. In addition, most speak English; are Christians, self-reliant, and familiar with weapons; bring some applicable skills with them; and would repay an eventual grant of U.S. citizenship with loyalty to the republic, a strong sense of community, thoughtful voting, and hard work. They would be a first step toward beginning to dilute the utter worthlessness of that great ocean of human refuse that Obama and his party brought in — legally and illegally — to mindlessly vote Democrat and assist that party’s ongoing effort to destroy the United States.

Europe: The United States now stand in a ridiculous situation in regard to its relations with the NATO and EU countries. With few exceptions — Poland, Hungary, and other states in Eastern Europe — the member states of these two organizations, each claiming to be bound by democratic tenets, have become willing oppressors of their own native-born populations. Blinded by the multiculturalism-and-diversity disease, Europe’s political leaders have inundated much of the continent with the same kind of human refuse that Obama brought to America. Now faced with ten million or more of these illiterate, unassimilable, violence-prone, and mostly military-age young men from the Arab world and Africa, European governments have turned their backs on such concepts as equality before the law, free speech, majority rule, effective and fair performance of duty by police and judges, and law-and order regimes that protect all citizens. These increasingly authoritarian governments and their socialist EU parliament are in the process of stripping their native citizens — especially if they are white and Christian — of their civil liberties and allowing them to be the unprotected-by-police targets of Muslim immigrant violence.

From Norway south to Sicily, the native-born — especially white women and children — are being molested, raped, physically beaten, “groomed” from childhood for future use as revenue-raising prostitutes, and doused with acid. Their attackers are seldom arrested, and when arrested and sent to trial are often let off the hook by judges who claim they were only doing things consistent with the culture from which they came, which, while true, ought not to protect them from the rule of law. In addition, if the raped, beaten, acid scarred, and molested victims, or their family members, dare to publicly condemn the governments’ that allowed them to be physically attacked, they are at times arrested and always publicly damned as racist for voicing the simple fact that they had been attacked by identifiable Muslim immigrants who are the prize pets of their government.

With many of Europe’s governments having decided to become the allies and abettors of their native-born citizens’ lethal Muslim enemies and tormentors, many white, Christian Europeans may find a chance to emigrate to the United States to be an attractive option. And, certainly, our republic would benefit from white, Christian immigrants who brought with them an education, English-language capability, pertinent work skills and experience, and a willingness to assimilate.

I am not suggesting here that would-be immigrants from these two regions should be accepted in huge numbers nor — as did Obama — that they be accepted without ensuring they would serve U.S. national interests and not threaten internal security. They would, for example, have to pass stringent security vetting; ought to be relatively young, say not more than thirty-five; have a high- or vocational-school education; display at least a working-level knowledge of English; possess work experience that roughly matches known employment openings in the United States; enjoy generally good health, with no serious communicable diseases; and display an ability to use in-door plumbing.

Overall, white immigrants from Europe and South Africa, the latter now bound for genocide, would be the first groups of immigrants in decades — save for Asians — that could be counted on to make a positive and near-term contribution to the republic’s social cohesion and economy. Such an immigration policy also would show — at long last — an understanding of the Founders’ intent that the national government did not have to accept immigrants if they appeared unassimilable or otherwise harmful to the republic. Indeed, because the Constitution was written to serve American interests, and so offers no protections for foreigners located outside the United States, the national government has both the lawful right and the moral responsibility to facilitate the legal entry of only those immigrants who can be expected to benefit the United States.

Endnote:

1. Donald R. Hickey and Connie D. Clark, (Eds). Citizen Hamilton. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, 2006, p. 74