Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

Mr. President:

When I last wrote to you and asked whether you had any idea of what the term “America First” means, I focused on the single issue of moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I chose that issue because it seemed to me to betray your lack of knowledge about how many billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and the broad and steadily deepening international hatred that move and our overall relationship with Israel have cost the republic. You also seemed just as ignorant of what the yield on our investment in supporting Israel has been. Well, just FYI, it has yielded nothing but a reliably disloyal, domestic Jewish-American fifth column; a sophisticated Israeli intelligence network that suborns Americans to steal or sell secret U.S. military, industrial, and technological data for Israel’s use or for it to sell to our enemies; and a suborned Congress that really is overwhelmingly more responsive to Israel’s monetary and political demands than it is to the needs of, say, U.S. veterans, the nation’s infrastructure, or our malnourished children. There has never been a more historically accurate analysis of the always dreadful results of American interventionism — the polar opposite of America First — than that written about our unquestioning support for Israel by America’s second greatest diplomat, George F. Kennan. On 25 April 1978, Kennan wrote in his diary that the United States had built “a fateful tie to the Israelis from which we have, in contradistinction to the Israelis, everything to lose and nothing to gain.” (1)

George Kennan, Mr. President, was a late-comer to America First, but come he did, and so there may yet be hope for you. But that hope, Sir, can only be nourished by you beginning to think for yourself, trusting your instincts, and either ignoring or shedding yourself of the Neocons-in-U.S.-nationalist-clothing that surround you, people like McMaster; Tillerson — each time his mouth opens out comes Condoleeza Rice’s voice, Niki Hailey, who eagerly whores for Israel at the UN, but refuses to protect the symbols of American tradition and history in South Carolina; and a host of other military officers, appointed officials, retired generals, and civil servants who are either acolytes or paid shills of the Globalists, Neocons, or Israel Firsters. You have a lot of fish to fry, Mr. President, but the easiest road to America First in the foreign-affairs realm is a policy based on quiet observation from afar and resolute non-interventionism. The national government’s consistent abstention from involvement in international events that do not threaten U.S. survival, together with the building of an insurmountable wall along the Mexican border, would bring the greatest degree of genuine national security Americans have experienced since Wilson unnecessarily took the republic to war in 1917 because his personal “ideals” were offended.

But let me move past Israel. With respect, Mr. President, many of your recent foreign-policy decisions could have been authored by commonsense-less, Wilsonians like Obama, either Bush, or the Clintons. For example,

• Ukraine: The media report that the national government recently sent high-powered weaponry to the Ukrainian government’s military. Why, Mr. President? The problem in Ukraine is not Putin and Russia, but the EU and U.S. democracy mongers and media who overthrew a pro-Russia government and installed an increasingly fascist regime that wants EU and NATO membership. When the EU, the BBC, the UN, George Soros, and Hillary’s State Department deposed one regime for another, Putin did the right thing to protect Russia’s national security by re-annexing Crimea, which is home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. The EU, the media, Obama, and Hillary expected Putin to react to their coup in Kiev as supinely as European politicians do to the quickly proliferating plague of Muslim rapists of women and children that is inundating the EU. Instead, Putin reacted as a Russian patriot and left them — and McCain and Graham — to ally the West with a corrupt and authoritarian regime in Kiev and crazily sputtering like the eunuchs they are. Stop sending weapons to Ukraine, Mr. President, it is a policy that once again has America taking not first, but only the usual stinking hindmost, which is the EU’s desperation for American taxpayers — and perhaps blood — to get them out of the mess their hubris and dilettantism created in Ukraine.
• Iran: Mr. President the only principle that those who elected you demand you always obey is “America First”. No part of your base, or, I would presume, 80-percent of the republic’s entire population, gives a good god-damn about either who rules in Tehran or who can vote in Iran. You, Sir, apparently have succumbed to the now 40-year-old drumbeat that tells Americans that Iran is a threat to the United States. If Iran is a threat to the United States — which it is not, at least in a life-and death sense — it is the result of two actions by the national government: (a) unenforced immigration laws that have permitted Iran’s surrogate Hezbollah to establish narcotics networks and urban-based, Islamic, no-go zones in, at least, New York, Florida, California, Michigan, Illinois, and Texas, and (b) the unnecessary U.S. military intervention in Iraq — which you have prolonged — that placed U.S. troops in the Arab world’s heartland where they are, with a minimum of effort, easy pickings to be killed by Iran’s forces and surrogates. Stop talking about the unrest in Iran, Mr. President, and let the Iranians work out their own future, even if it requires a bloodbath. The best your intervention can do in Iran, Sir, is to produce a nearly identical nightmare to that generated by the Obama-Hillary-EU campaign supporting the “Arab Spring”; namely, tens of thousands of dead Muslims, more Muslim authoritarianism, more support for radical Islamism, more Muslim refugees, and less U.S. security. Get a grip, Mr. President, your job is to defend the American republic. Let the Iranians go their own way, stop Tillerson’s State Department from surreptitiously stirring up dissent in Iran, and henceforth focus on saving the republic through the only means now remaining — restoring the rule of law and equality before the law.
• Afghanistan: When you were running your company, Mr. Trump, did you often turn for advice to other businessmen and companies that had been completely unsuccessful because they had blindly followed what they believed to be a sacrosanct business model for more than 50 years? Since you ran a successful company, I presume you did not. But as president you are now following the advice of generals who belong to — now that the Cubs have won a World Series — the losingest organization in the United States, the republic’s general officer corps. The Afghan War, Sir, was lost because these men and women have no idea of how to fight a war. They lost in Afghanistan — and Iraq — to an enemy that has been in the field since 1979, has no air cover or navy, no secure bases, no heavy artillery, almost no armor, and which wields a hodgepodge of arms that run the gamut from top-of-the-line Kalashnikovs to 19^th Century Lee-Enfields. Your, generals, Mr. President, could not beat the Islamists in 2001, and they will lose to them again in 2018 or 2019, especially as Islamic State fighters are steadily moving into Afghanistan from Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. Take it from me, Mr. President, I have worked on Afghanistan since 1985 and I can recognize a botched and irretrievably lost foreign invasion of that country when I see one. Pull all U.S. forces — military, intelligence, and civil — out of Afghanistan now, provide no additional financial aid (use the savings for the border wall), and forcibly retire the generals who gave their countrymen this now 17-year-old deathtrap and money pit. Afghanistan, after all, poses no national security threat to the republic, and Americans, rightly so, do not give a hoot who rules in Kabul. Our immediate withdrawal will save military lives and limbs, free up money for domestic purposes or debt pay-down, and, best of all, leave Russia and China to bleed and spend in what will ultimately be a failed mutual effort to prevent their life-and-death national interests from being attacked by the Islamist forces now assembling in Afghanistan. Get out, Mr. President, while the getting is good The mas of commonsense-driven Americans are ready to overwhelmingly approve and applaud the withdrawal.
• Pakistan: Dear God, Mr. President, as a businessman did you expect other businessmen to do things to help you that would ruin their reputations and/or companies if you simply slipped them a few boxes of cash? I, again, presume that this is not a business model on which you would hang your hat. But Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Cheney, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their — now your —generals eagerly did so. One of the greatest and most consistent failures of U.S. presidents, strategists, and generals is to assume that all countries will do things we want done for a bribe, more commonly known as “foreign aid” and/or “foreign military aid”. That foreign regimes will always take the money is a truism; that they will do things that hurt their nation’s genuine interests or their hold on power in return for money is seldom true. Pakistan was an exception. Under President Musharraf, the Pakistani military and intelligence services captured several dozen senior al-Qaeda leaders and turned them over to us; stood aside and let us destroy the Taliban regime that they had labored mightily to help build; allowed the U.S. State Department to oversee the emplacement of a strong Indian presence in Kabul and along Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan; and, finally staged aggressive military offensives into the country’s border provinces that brought Pakistan to the edge of civil war, where it still hangs. In short, Musharraf’s Pakistan did more than any other U.S. ally in Afghanistan to assist the United States fight its war. But U.S. leaders wanted — then and now — Pakistan to win the war for America, although commonsense should have made this a momentary delusion, not a dominating, two-decade dogma. There was never a chance that Pakistan would do all what we wanted. Why? Because Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were not enemies of Pakistan until Musharraf made them so at our behest; because no Pakistani regime that helped kill or capture bin Laden could survive in a state whose population and military/intelligent services are increasingly militant in their Islamic faith; and because no Pakistani regime can ever permit its national security and even survival to be permanently endangered by creation of a pro-Western, pro-Indian, non-Islamist, and ambivalent-toward-Iran regime in Kabul. Clear you head, Mr. President, and recognize that America has lost in Afghanistan because it was unwilling to do its own heavy lifting and because of its mad adherence to the daft and basically Pakistan-and-Afghanistan-ignorant policy of trying to buy victory with foreign aid. Lasting victory has never been achievable in Afghanistan for non-Sunni Muslims, Mr. President, so get out of there, leave the Pakistanis — like the Afghans — with no U.S. aid; chalk up the evacuation as another fulfilled campaign promise; forcibly retire more generals; and turn the mess over to Russia and China, both of which are non-Muslim countries that will be ultimately defeated there.

In closing, Mr. President, let me add that there is some urgency to complete the above-mentioned easy tasks. Get them off America’s plate, Sir, as two far worse foreign-affairs problems are just around the corner. First, Iraq and Syria are near the edge of a Sunni-Shia sectarian war, within which smaller wars between and among local tribes and ethnic groups will thrive, and the Islamic State and al-Qaeda will begin clawing back power. (NB: And do not listen to your advisers on this issue. The massive U.S. reconstruction aid they will urge you to spend to prevent the coming chaos will neither slow nor stop its advent and progress.) Second, in North Africa, while U.S. and the EU officials and experts have rejoiced in the Islamic State’s loss of the Libyan city of Surt, IS and al-Qaeda have regrouped in southern Libya and are already spreading their forces from there into western, eastern, and southern Africa, with enough leftover to begin rekindling the jihad in northern Libya. The Islamists concentration in southern Libya, moreover, also allows them to reinforce the Sinai Peninsula with men and arms, a condition which may lead to more Egyptian military defeats there and even an Islamist rebellion in Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt proper. Face facts on this one, Mr. President, Egyptian President al-Sisi’s days are numbered.

There is nothing sane that an American president can do to short-circuit the occurrence of these approaching disasters, so it is best that you get the easily solved problems of Ukraine, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan out of the way. Thereafter, Sir, prepare yourself to resist the intense pressure from Necons, Globalists, Israel-Firsters, Congress, the generals, and much of the media that will be loosed on you when the Islamists’ African campaign gathers pace and the usual war-mongering subjects in the United States slither out from under their rocks begin to clamor for a war to “liberate Africa”.

As you buckle on your armor for that fight, Mr. President, you should always remember, that non-interventionism is a concept dearly beloved by non-elite Americans, working men and women who see no reason to spend their taxes and children’s lives on always fractious foreigners who hate the United States but love its money. Tax cuts are swell, Mr. President, but non-killed soldier-children are endlessly better. Those same people, Sir, also recall that you sold yourself to them as the champion of a non-interventionism, and can only believe that, to date, you have been close to an utter sham on that score. Words to the wise.

Endnotes:

1. Frank Costigliola, (Ed.). The Kennan Diaries. New York: W.W. Norton, 2014, Entry for 31 July 1978, p. 509

Mr. President:

Your decision on Jerusalem, and the speech in which you announced it, are as far from any form of an America First foreign policy as it is possible to be. Your speech was a grab-bag of tired rhetoric, earnest platitudes, and wishful thinking, much like your earlier speech on Afghanistan. Your citing of the Congress’s near-unanimous support for moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, moreover, suggests we elected the wrong man to go after and eliminate the corruption that has engulfed the national government. The near-unanimity of Congress, as you must know, is bought by the bribes disguised as campaign contributions paid to the so-called representatives of the citizenry by the disloyal political, social, and financial leaders of the Jewish-American community, and their enforcers in propaganda outlets such as Commentary, the Weekly Standard, Forward, and others.

When you were thinking through the decision, Mr. President, did you ask yourself the question, “What does the United States get from taking this action?” If so, what did you identify as the advantage accruing to the United States? In your statement, you specifically said that the decision to move the embassy was in the interest of the American people. Well, how will it benefit them? You seemed to indicate that moving the embassy would aid the peace process. Mr. President, there is no peace process. The religious war between Israeli Jews and Muslims will continue until one or the other is wiped out. Happily, a quick look at the map will tell you that neither outcome would hurt U.S. interests nor degrade the nation’s security.

As always, Mr. President, you surely have at hand more information than any of your critics, and so your decision might be supported by what is often too loosely termed intelligence. What it is not informed by, sir, is common sense.

Mr. President, the United States has been involved in a “religious war” with Islam since Osama bin Laden declared war on the republic in 1996; that is, for more than 21 years. For all of those years, your predecessors and now you have railed against that reality, preaching nonsense about the war having “nothing to do with religion,” that the Islamists have bastardized Islam and it is really a “religion of peace,” and that the Islamists should not be considered anything but cowards, nihilists, bad guys, extremists, or some other term that would help hide from Americans the reality of the religious war in which the republic is mired.

This use of obfuscating terminology, Mr. President, might soothe the minds of the multiculturalists and politically correct, but they do not change the enemy’s mind about what he is fighting for, which was in 1996, and is today, to break the U.S. economy, to stop U.S. military, political, social, and economic interventionism — you know, the things that contradict any sane understanding of America First — in the Islamic world, to end the rule of Arab tyrants, to destroy Israel, and then to annihilate the Shia. If your senior advisers and generals have not explained this to you, and you believe that you are fighting pseudo-religious gangsters and winning, you are simply wrong on both counts.

Almost everything you have done in the Muslim world since your inauguration, Mr. President, has reinforced the Islamists’ motivation and helped strengthen and spread their message. Indeed, you have not been different than Obama, Bush, and Clinton, and like them, you have opened the door for more war with the Islamists. In this religious war, Mr. President, your administration’s actions have

• Reinforced the hatred of the Islamists — and Muslims generally — for U.S. military intervention. From the cruise-missile strike in Syria, to the “mother-of-bombs” in Afghanistan, to sending additional troops to Iraq, Afghanistan, and — for the first time — Syria to intensifying drone strikes in several locations in Africa, America’s reputation for having no regard “for Muslim Blood” has been amplified. The formula is simple, Mr. President, more intervention = confirmation of the mujahideen’s narrative = greater traction for the Islamists among Muslim youth = an unending religious war that is helping to break the U.S. economy.
• Reinforced the Muslim world’s belief that the U.S. national government wants them to be ruled by tyrants. Your cordial visit to and subsequent consistent praise and support for the current and future Saudi tyrants; your very public efforts to build a strong relationship with the Egyptian tyrant-president, installed by an Obama/Hillary Clinton supported military coup; and your well-publicized support for the Philippine President Duterte’s martial-law-backed war with Islamists associated with the Islamic State have all been pitch-perfect in harmonizing Bin Laden’s declaration of war and the stated positions of the Islamic State.
• Reinforced the Muslim world’s accurate view that much of the U.S. national government, Congress, and media have been suborned by wealthy and influential Jewish-Americans working for Israel and against genuine U.S. national security interests, which do not include never-ending war with Islam and the need to ensure Israel’s survival. Your administration’s decision to permanently base U.S. troops in Israel and move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — Islam’s third holiest site — is simply more proof for radical, militant, and nominal Muslims that Israel directs U.S. policy in the Muslim world and that there is no way to change this reality other than war.
• Reinforced the reality first established by George W. Bush and Barack Obama that the United States has sided with Shia Iran and other Shia Muslims to promote Shia expansionism in the Middle East; to subordinate Sunni Muslims in Iraq and Syria to Shia regimes; and to turn a blind eye to the murderous retributions being exacted against Sunnis by the Shia regimes, their police and military forces, and their militias.

Overall, Mr. President, instead of keeping the Sunni Islamists on their back foot after the temporary destruction of their Caliphate, the announcement of your decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem has given them a base from which to start to rebuild their fortunes, as well as an issue that will have broad and enduring traction across the Sunni Muslim, especially among military-age males.

None of the foregoing is to say that the U.S. war with Islam is America’s “fault.” Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, and so they needed to be annihilated. The military you command, Mr. President, has utterly failed to do that, and today is celebrating the defeat of the caliphate, which is, at best, a transient victory that returns the Islamic State to what it does best, which is insurgency.

What the foregoing is meant to say, Sir, is that your decision on Jerusalem and the other actions of your administration noted above are fully consistent with those of Obama, Bush, and Clinton, all of which tenaciously, if wrongheadedly, worked to strengthen the motivation and media appeal of the Islamists, and to spread the international jihad to new areas of the world. Did any of your advisers, for example, tell you to expect an IS-associated Islamist organization in the Philippines to be strong enough to capture and hold the city of Marawi for more than a hundred days? I doubt it.

The time has come, Mr. President, to — as the saying goes — shit or get off the pot. America First means that foreign policy decisions — especially ones dealing with war — are made by answering the single question “Is this in the interests of the American people.” Taking America to war is always the correct choice if the republic’s survival is at risk, otherwise, it is never the right choice. Today, Israel’s survival, the survival of Arab tyrants, the expansion of Shia territory and power, or the survival of European governments that have signed their own peoples’ death warrants by welcoming Muslim immigration and allowing the return of foreign fighters, are not life-or-death interests of the United States. None are worth American blood or dollars.

If you are truly dedicated or at least interested in America First foreign policies, Mr. President, please realize that they begin at home. Begin by (a) squaring with Americans by telling them that the United States is engaged in a religious war that was caused by the Islamists, but that much of the oxygen it needs to thrive is supplied by U.S. interventionism in the Muslim world, which has been the status quo U.S. policy since the presidency of the first Bush; (b) by building the southern border wall immediately as a national-security emergency; (c) by dumping the amnesty-wanting head of DHS that you just appointed and appointing Sheriff David Clark to the post; (d) by immediately designating AIPAC and other Jewish-American organizations as what they are, agents of a foreign power; (e) by beginning to apply the Logan act to all public officials — elected and appointed — who take money from or work on behalf of those organizations; (f) by withdrawing from NATO so as to avoid involvement in Europe’s approaching civil wars, as citizens seek to regain their natural rights from the authoritarian EU and its dedication to imposing Muslim privilege over the native born; (f) by halting all foreign economic and military aid and apply the savings to border control and the large-scale deportation of illegal aliens; and (g) by enforcing all the laws equally against all offending citizens.

This is important, Republic-saving stuff, Mr. President, and you have gotten it all wrong so far. It is time for you to get on the stick and make America First a reality, rather than a vote-gathering throwaway line.

The swirl of events continues, and so I thought I would comment on a couple of them.

The first deals with some media coverage of Judge Roy Moore, but my focus has nothing to do with the sexual-misconduct allegations now being directed at him. What I noticed was a clip from MSNBC in which its correspondent Chuck Todd, after Moore had won the Republican primary, expressed astonishment that Judge Moore believed that each person’s rights — his natural rights — come from God and not from the government. Now, I have written before that most of the Americans I have heard speak in the public square are more or less ignorant of U.S. history, and especially of the period from the Puritans’ arrival in New England through the decades of the early republic. Mr. Todd, however, in his ruminations about Judge Moore and the concept of natural rights, drove home for me how thoroughly ignorant so many U.S. political and media personalities are of the republic’s history and character.

Where, I wonder, does Mr. Todd think his rights come from? From the national government, the UN, George Soros, or some combination thereof? No, that cannot be it, even a bulb as dim as Mr. Todd surely must see that all three of those entities have been laboring for decades to limit and ultimately remove the natural rights of Americans. But, then again, maybe he cannot see that fact as he is part of a media world that supports all three of those rights-removing entities. The Founders — say from John Winthrop’s arrival, through John Quincy Adams’ death — believed that the natural rights of man came from God, and that it was the citizenry’s duty to ensure that the political system they devised to govern themselves did not try to amend, abridge, or abolish those rights. Jefferson, widely but mistakenly said to be irreligious, wrote this into the Declaration of Independence, and John Adams, after studying the Constitution said that no people could be governed by it who were not religious, surely meaning that the Constitution would work only for Christians and Jews.

The role of government, then, is not to create rights — it cannot do so, as the Creator completed that task long ago — but to ensure that the rights with which Americans are born are fully protected by those who govern them. In turn, the role of citizens is to jealously guard their natural rights and, if they are found to be under attack by the national government, to destroy that government and form another that will respect and defend their natural rights. In short, the founding generations believed that God gave man human rights, and governments — if not held to account by the citizenry — tended to gradually destroy them. Come, Mr. Todd, this is such an elementary piece of knowledge about American history. Have you forgotten what you learned in grammar and high school, or did you go to an Ivy League university, where the reality of natural rights is hated and mocked? No matter, sooner or later those politicians who seek to deny citizens their natural rights end up at the business end of a rifle or a rope and are accompanied there by their supporters and apologists.

Next comes Saudi Arabia and its sudden burst of turmoil fomented by the actions of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS). A good deal of the media coverage of this event has portrayed the developments as the first breath of Western-style “progressive reform.” The clever al-Saud royals, of course, earlier set the stage for this sophomoric interpretation by issuing the earth-shaking order that women will be permitted to drive automobiles. Western governments and much of the media identified this order as the opening of a second “Arab Spring,” one in which Riyadh will eventually become Las Vegas east. The al-Sauds surely caught some heat from the Saudi religious establishment over this, but they will throw a couple of extra billions to the senior Islamic scholars and bit more control over education. The scholars will continue to publicly complain about the action, but this is not a break point between the al-Sauds and the religious establishment.

The key question is, I think, whether this will be a break point for Saudi Arabia? If past is prologue, the soon-to-be-king is not do-gooding for a future progressive, more secular kingdom, but rather is making a play to get rid of those — and there are many — whose oxes will be gored when he succeeds to the throne. MBS must get them out of the way, and permanently so, either via exiling them or something more definitive. All this said, the king-in-waiting will still be faced with a country that is terminally corrupt from top to bottom, a religious establishment that has not been tamed and still sees the late Osama bin Laden as a nearly perfect Islamic man, and a younger generation of Salafi and Wahhabi males that are more attuned to the Islamic State’s behavior than to al-Qaeda’s. A large number of the later, moreover, have been trained by one or the other group and have considerable combat experience.

The bottom line may well be that MBS finds that, even after he rounds-up and eliminates his foes, takes their money, and ascends to the throne, his only option to try to preserve the kingdom is to turn Saudi youths, as many IS and AQ fighters as can be enlisted, and as much as possible of the young Sunni Muslim world against Shia Iran. The ensuing war would tear up the region in a prolonged and bloody sectarian war to settle scores that are now more than a millennium old. It is hard to think of a better scenario for improving U.S. security as there is nothing that commonsense would permit us to do other than get out of the way watch. That is, if there is enough commonsense at hand at the time the events unfold.

Finally, as worthless a human being as is the politician John McCain, he recently performed an unwitting but enormous service to his country. Addressing the Naval Academy’s Brigade of Midshipmen on 30 October 2017, McCain, in entirely predictable and self-righteous words, said that

the American example and American leadership are indispensable to securing a peaceful and prosperous future. Our failure to remain engaged in Europe and enforce the hard-won peace of 1918 had made that clear. There could be no more isolationism, no more tired resignation — no more ‘America First.’ … (1)

McCain is, of course, a historical ignoramus or a lair. The United States had no interest at stake in World War 1 and should never have entered a war that cost America about 100,000 lives. Indeed, save for the many billions of dollars U.S. banks had lent to France and Britain, the offended personal “ideals” of Woodrow Wilson, and Wilson’s pro-Allies propaganda ministry led by George Creel, the United States would not have entered the war. In regard to what McCain calls “[o]ur failure to remain engaged in Europe,” that must be deemed the U.S. government’s only wise decision after America entered the war in 1917. The marvelous “failure to remain engaged in Europe” was the result of the work of able and stubborn Republicans senators — Henry Cabot Lodge, George W. Norris, William Borah, Robert La Follette, Hiram Johnson, and a dozen others — who successfully blocked Wilson’s eagerness to sacrifice the republic’s sovereignty and independence by joining the League of Nations. The Republicans’ success also blocked Wilson’s willingness to abide by the League covenant’s Article X — which is like, but more much expansive than the NATO Treaty — which was unconstitutional in that it removed the decision to declare war from the Congress. (2)

Adding to the nonsensical nature of McCain’s assertion is the fact that the European allies — with Wilson’s help — imposed a Carthaginian peace settlement on Germany that played a major role in creating the political environment which allowed Hitler’s rise to power. As long as that settlement stood, a more active U.S. role in Europe would have meant nothing. (3)

Senator McCain then moved on to tell the Midshipmen that their first responsibility was not to America, its citizens, and the commander-in-chief, but rather to the internationalists and interventionists who built a post-1945 world that has featured endless unnecessary wars and has bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. McCain warned his audience that today

the associations, rules, values and aspirations that comprise the international order we have superintended for three-quarters of a century are under gathering attack from regimes that desire a world less just and less free and more corrupt. And they are under attack from forces within liberal democracies themselves, parties that preach resentful nationalism rather than enlightened self-interest, nativism rather than equal justice.

It’s time to wake up.

I believe in Americans. We’re capable of better. I’ve seen it. We’re hopeful, compassionate people. And we still have leaders who will uphold the values that made America great, and a beacon to the oppressed.

But I don’t take that for granted. We have to fight. We have to fight against propaganda and crackpot conspiracy theories. We have to fight isolationism, protectionism, and nativism. We have to defeat those who would worsen our divisions. We have to remind our sons and daughters that we became the most powerful nation on earth by tearing down walls, not building them.

But that isn’t your job. Not directly. It belongs to those of us who hold office and are responsible for making sure you’re sent where you’re needed and equipped and ready for your missions.

You will be asked to defend America’s interests overseas, and thereby to defend the ideals that encompass and transcend those interests. You will protect the international order that American politics, with all its inefficiencies and human frailties, has done so much to create. (4)

McCain’s guidance may not be treason, but it is more of the pure, mindless, and nation-killing hooey that has and will continue to produce unnecessary interventionist wars, dead U.S. military personnel, and staggering national debt. No intelligent nation fights for its ideals anywhere but at home. What it fights for overseas is to protect its genuine national security interests. Those interests are always material or geographical in nature, and they always present the nation with a life-or-death choice. These interests are never, ever trumped by what McCain says are “ideals that encompass and transcend those interests.” (5)

McCain is at the head of the bipartisan pack of interventionists who care nothing about the welfare of Americans, let alone the maintenance of their ideals, which are spelled out with indelible clarity in the U.S. Constitution, not in the UN Charter or any other internationalist document. That McCain and his like are a feral breed is shown by their refusal to put health-care on a sound-footing; reduce the national debt; lessen taxes; stop the ongoing destruction of the 1st and 4th Amendments; halt the production of laws that are moving the nation to minority rule; demand the arrest, trial, and incarceration of the leaders of what is a thoroughly lawless political elite; end illegal immigration; and stop seeking wars against those who threaten, not the United States, but the motley group of the breed’s paymasters, who are to be found in the banking and pharmaceutical industries, Israel, the Jewish-American community, and the Saudi and other Arab tyrannies.

Near the speech’s end, McCain’s told the Midshipmen that it will be their job “to protect the international order that American politics, with all its inefficiencies and human frailties, has done so much to create.”(6) The truth is, however, that if the U.S. military is commanded by those who agree with McCain, the American republic and its Constitution will find themselves murdered by a stab in the back from internationalists, interventionists, and New-World-Order authoritarians. Abiding by McCain’s advice can only mean a last-ditch effort to save the republic by civil war will have to occur.

Endnotes:

1. The full text of McCain’s speech can be found at, http://time.com/5003525/john-mccain-naval-academy-speech/
2. The text of Article X of the League’s covenant reads as follows: “The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.” See, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/parti.asp
3. World War I is the first 20th century example of the disasters that befall those who wage wars that are left unwon. The German army was not defeated when the Armistice was declared in November, 1918, and yet the allies imposed a peace settlement that treated Germany as if it had been defeated in the manner Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan found themselves beaten in 1945; that is, utterly destroyed militarily. The Allies’ failure to win decisively would later allow Hitler and others to claim that Germany had been defeated by domestic forces — communists and Jews — that stabbed the nation in the back. In the long run, the lack of a decisive win led to World War II and the Holocaust.
4. http://time.com/5003525/john-mccain-naval-academy-speech/
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.

There have been so many noteworthy events occurring in the world that it has been hard to decide which to focus on, and so I have written nothing. It is still not clear, at least to me, which are most important, so I thought it best to look at a few. Here goes.

Niger

The ambush of U.S. Special Forces (SF) in Niger — in which four soldiers were killed — was a small, deadly, and lamentable incident. The deaths have aroused a lot of debate and finger-pointing about why the SF unit was ambushed. Those involved in that debate — the Pentagon spokesmen, the media, senators, and congressmen — are all playing a game in which the goal is find a palatable lie to tell the American people about why their soldiers were sent into a trap in which they died. There is no need for an investigation, there is no mystery. The simple fact, which the president should share with the citizenry, is that the United States has no reliable ally anywhere in the Islamic world. U.S. Marines and soldiers will be killed in all Muslim countries where they are serving by the Islamists they are fighting, as well as by the Islamists who are members of the military and police forces they are sent to “train and assist.” In addition, the local mujahideen in that country will be helped in planning their operations against U.S. forces by Islamists in the military, police, and intelligence services, in the civil service, as well as by private citizens and their Islamic clerics and scholars. The bottom line? U.S. forces in Muslim countries — in Africa and all other regions — will be killed by those they are fighting, by those they are training and assisting, and by the growing numbers of Muslims who hate the presence of U.S. forces in their country, a hatred that will increase and take more tangible and lethal forms the longer U.S. forces remain in their country. This is a fact that is hard to lie about, but the effort will be made by any number of U.S. officials and generals.

Las Vegas

Fifty-eight dead and more than five-hundred wounded in an attack on a country-music concert. The consensus in the media is that this was pro-Trump crowd, and the underlying tone of their pieces is the dead and wounded got what they deserved for electing Trump. That such reporting merits bloody payback for its reporters goes without saying, but lets lay aside for now a discussion of how to exact retribution. What merits intense focus is the FBI’s deceit about what occurred. These days, no matter what happens, FBI leaders grab the same well-thumbed script from the shelf and then recite, mantra-like, that: there was only one shooter; he had no help; a heroic employee stopped the attack; we are examining the shooter’s house, employment history, cars, wallet, mobile phone, bank records, and — in this case — brain tissue; and we cannot find a motive. In Las Vegas, the FBI spokesmen then walk away, showing they are deathly afraid of the casino owners’ willingness to kill them if the truth comes out, that they are determined to keep local cops intimidated and quiet, and that they will see to it that their shills in the media will drop the story. As all this occurred, the FBI looked the other way as the Hispanic non-security guard was hustled to Mexico for hiding and, if necessary, execution. Dear FBI: This drama is unnecessary. No one gives a dead rat’s ass about what you think the motivations of shooters were — yes, dear lawmen, many more than one — because the motive is clear to all, namely, the shooters wanted to kill as many as possible of those they believed were Trump supporters.

Now, G-Men, no one cares about your ballistic tests, your yellow crime-scene tapes, your syrupy pleas for the public’s help, or even about you as fellow human beings, given that you have sold out and no longer enforce the law against elite criminals. We have all seen you at your very best for the past nine years in protecting GPS Fusion and Democrat-Russian cooperation; ignoring Hillary’s innumerable felonies and Comey’s facilitating of them; the spying Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power conducted on Trump’s campaign organization and incoming administration; the Obama approved, Eric Holder-protected, and Lois Lerner-led IRS persecution of conservatives; the play-for-pay game Hillary and her husband and daughter conducted with Russia over U.S. uranium and other matters; Holder’s lethal Fast-and-Furious program and refusal to prosecute the Black Panthers’ for voter intimidation; Loretta Lynch’s tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton and her refusal to prosecute BLM, BAM, or George Soros; and the blind-eye you have turned to greatest non-prosecuted financial crime in the republic’s history, the one that the Clintons and their entourage committed through the illegal-from-the-start Clinton Foundation. I fear, dear FBI badge-wearers, that if you do not soon tell Americans what really happened in Las Vegas, and then round-up the vermin responsible, those in the citizenry who still respect law and revere truth will act to get the answers you already have and are hiding. Time is tick, tocking toward the civil war you are encouraging, or at least toward the point where armed, law-abiding citizens will have no choice but to do your job for you by eliminating those criminals and America-destroyers the FBI cannot even identify, let alone arrest and incarcerate.

Islam is the problem

First, I must admit that I am tempted never to write on this topic again as I have written about it ad nauseam inside the government, when I worked for CIA, and publicly since late 2004. But the media’s coverage of the 31 October 2017 Islamist attack in New York City is so deliberately deceitful that I thought it best to give it another go, using a focus that provides the obvious keys to prevailing against the Islamists. Four points will suffice:

1. Whenever you hear the word “radicalization” you are being duped. What happens to individual Muslims who move into the parts of Islamic theology known as Salafism and Wahhabism — both of which are valid and respected schools of that theology — is best described as “conversion;” that is moving from one valid school to another valid school of the Islamic faith. This conversion does not “radicalize” Muslims, but rather “warriorizes” them and brings them as mujahideen or, “holy warriors,” into Islamic forces. These forces, in turn, draw support, funds, prayers, and manpower from Muslims belonging to all the schools of Islam. They are waging a religious war against the United States, especially its military interventionism; its now nearly defeated European states; Israel; and the U.S./NATO-protected Arab tyrants. For the U.S. and its allies to eternally deny they are engaged in a religious war is both politically correct and fatal.
2. The expensive U.S. and European “de-radicalization” programs have been utter failures and will never work. The programs are simply a cash-rich gravy train for university professors, psychologists, Protestant and Catholic do-gooders, and other chronic losers to draw from and enrich themselves. Any dependence on de-radicalization programs will yield only two results: (a) no reduction in Islamist manpower, and (b) more dead Americans. A British cabinet minister’s recent announcement that the UK will expand the government’s de-radicalization programs — which will include counseling, housing, and job support, but, apparently, no incarceration — to cope with jihadis returning from Syria and Iraq, should be seen for what it is, Great Britain’s death knell. (NB: A UK foreign-ministry official got it right when he said the returning jihadis should just be executed, but he was shouted down by the multiculturalists and the diversifiers) Wisdom begins with an acceptance of the fact that no de-radicalizer is ever going to talk a mujahid out of his faith, or what that faith tells him he needs to do please Allah, protect Islam, and earn salvation.
3. The U.S. government has lied to the American people at every step of the way since Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in August, 1996. The now two-decade old war against the mujahideen is preeminently a religious war, and, as noted above, it will remain so no matter how often and vociferously the national government denies its existence All of the asininities that U.S. government officials and the media believe and broadcast on this issue — “Islam is a religion of peace,” “the mujahideen are not part of Islam,” “few Muslims support the Islamist fighters,” “Muslim immigrants are not dangerous to U.S. security,” etc. — are irrelevant. Islamist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and increasing numbers of the Muslim world’s younger generations are, and have often said they are, fighting a religious war against the United States. The U.S. government is simply denying reality and, in so doing, is ensuring the non-ending slaughter of Americans and the republic’s eventual move into a martial law status to defend itself. There is no way to create a domestic environment in which the U.S. law-enforcement community can begin to adequately defend America until (a.) the southern border is shut tight; (b.) all immigration from Muslim countries is stopped (the Constitution does not forbid this action; indeed, it would be a return to long-used procedures in which republic picked the countries from which its immigrants would come); and (c) all Muslims who are in the United States illegally are rapidly hunted down and deported.
4. In all future anti-Islamist military engagements overseas, U.S. forces should operate under both Old Glory and a plain Black Flag, the latter simply meaning that no surrenders will be accepted and no prisoners will be taken on the battlefield. To be in a position that forces the adoption of such a deadly policy is a tough business, but it is the predictable cost that must be paid for the national government’s multitude of unnecessary, interventionist, and always lost wars.

Last weekend’s attack in Las Vegas — probably conducted by people attached to the Democratic Party and inspired by the mainstream media — has, not surprisingly, sparked the usual tear-filled, moronic debate on the supposed need for gun control.

The issue on which Democrats and some Republicans have fixed their tyrannical goal is something called a bump-stock, which is a gadget that is said to accelerate the rate of fire from a semi-automatic rifle. With the vast amount of firepower that the increasingly tyrannical U.S. national government can potentially turn on its citizenry, this device is a god-send for gun-owning Americans. Banning this device — like banning machine guns in the 1930s — is a clear “infringement” of the 2nd Amendment, as it limits the citizen’s right to defend himself against domestic tyrants to the extent he desires to do so. It is, as well, another step toward what the Founders believed must never be allowed, a national government monopoly on the tools of violence.

Now, both the Democratic and Republican parties, the establishments of each, and the mainstream media have worked to strengthen centralized tyranny for at least three decades. Today, it is clear they have succeeded to a significant extent.

• Criminal politicians walk the streets, kill opponents, ignore the Constitution, and grow rich from corruption, graft, and theft because they are above the law. Examples? Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, and Eric Holder, to name only a few.
• Leaders and their followers in both parties have knowingly bankrupted this country; used federal agencies to persecute political opponents, started unconstitutional and unnecessary wars that never end; and refused to enforce legitimate laws passed by the national legislature.
• Democrats have demanded the end of any place whatsoever for Christianity in the public square, and on most occasions Republicans have either acquiesced or failed to undo the Democrats’ damage to 1st Amendment guarantees after they win power.
• Both parties have allowed the country to be overrun by unwanted, unneeded, and uneducated illegal aliens, people have shattered and criminalized American society and now staff the Democratic party’s terrorist organizations— like Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and By Any Means — as well as much of the federal civil service and the ranks of domestic Islamist organizations.
• The republic is ruled by the nine, unelected, arrogant, and unaccountable tyrants who sit on the Supreme Court, men and women who stick their noses into every facet of American life. These paragons of injustice have facilitated the suppression of the Christian faith in America; the murder of 60-plus million unborn Americans by calling it a “right”; and empowered Democrat-favored minority groups that are obviously unable to govern themselves let alone the nation. The Founders never intended the Supreme Court to become the absolute monarchy it is today, and so left Congress the constitutional ability to limit its purview, as well as that of all other federal courts. Neither party is willing to rein in the federal courts, apparently hoping at some point to make it a complete dictatorship from the right or the left.

The foregoing realities are among the reasons the Founders gave us the 2nd Amendment. They also are the reason the Founders specifically forbid the “infringements’ to it that they knew would be advocated by would-be political tyrants seeking to incrementally erase the citizen’s right to own arms to kill tyrants. The 2nd Amendment is the most important of all the amendments to the Constitution because it is the only one that ensures Americans will always have the option of killing the politicians that are trying to eliminate the God-given rights that are embedded in and protected by the Bill of Rights, as well as those in several of the other amendments adopted subsequent to it.

After the Democrats’ highly lethal and well-planned terrorist operation in Las Vegas — with those they ran in Charlottesville and Berkeley — they and some Republicans are breathlessly eager to lawlessly infringe on the 2nd Amendment to further limit the ability of Americans to defend themselves. One can only assume that these would-be tyrants believe they govern a citizenry that has no stomach for defending their rights and faith, and will do anything to avoid a civil war. On this point, they may want to think twice.

Almost from the arrival of the first Protestant English setters in New England, the grounding of American freedom has been based on the knowledge that neither God nor legitimate law require a people to live their lives passively, silently, and submissively under the arbitrary power of either an absolute monarch or a tyrannical oligarchy wielding the same kind of arbitrary power. In January, 1750, Johnathan Mayhew, the Congregationalist pastor of Boston’s West Church, preached a sermon that explicitly made this point. The tyrant that Mayhew spoke of was England’s King Charles I, whose tyrannical behavior provoked Parliament and its supporters to overthrow and behead him. In the sermon, Mayhew defended those who removed and executed the king and, in so doing, explained that their actions offended neither the law nor the Lord.

Till people find themselves greatly abused and oppressed by their governors, they are not apt to complain; and whenever they do, in fact, find themselves thus abused and oppressed, they must be stupid not to complain. To say that subjects in general are not proper judges when their governors oppress them, and play the tyrant; and when they defend their rights, administer justice impartially, and promote the public welfare, is as great treason as ever man uttered;—’tis treason,—not against one single man, but the state—against the whole body politic;—’tis treason against mankind;—’tis treason against common sense;—’tis treason against God. And this impious principle lays the foundation for justifying all the tyranny and oppression that ever any prince was guilty of. The people know for what end they set up, and maintain, their governors; and they are the proper judges when they execute their trust as they ought to do it;—when their prince exercises an equitable and paternal authority over them;—when from a prince and common father, he exalts himself into a tyrant—when from subjects and children, he degrades them into the class of slaves;—plunders them, makes them his prey, and unnaturally sports himself with their lives and fortunes. … For a nation thus abused to arise unanimously, and to resist their prince, even to the dethroning him, is not criminal; but a reasonable way of indicating their liberties and just rights; it is making use of the means, and the only means, which God has put into their power, for mutual and self-defense. And it would be highly criminal in them, not to make use of this means. It would be stupid tameness, and unaccountable folly, for whole nations to suffer one unreasonable, ambitious and cruel man, to wanton and riot in their misery. And in such a case it would, of the two, be more rational to suppose, that they that did NOT resist, than that they who did, would receive to themselves damnation. (1)

I previously have quoted from Reverend Mayhew’s sermon and other works, and have earned some scoffing-at for claiming that Mayhew’s words could have any pertinence to contemporary America. I think that criticism is quite wrong. The good pastor used his words to describe the tyrannical rule of Charles I, but without much modification they could be used to describe the tyrannical, eight-year rule of Barack Obama and his lieutenants. The same words, without question, eventually could have been used to describe the tyranny that Hillary Clinton and her mad-feminist clique would have installed had she succeeded to Obama’s throne. In addition, Mayhew’s words are timeless in their description of the proper popular response to a tyrant.

The three people just mentioned constitute a trio of tyrants that no people would be required by God or law to forego overthrowing and executing. So far, sadly, only one member of the tyrant trio has received his just comeuppance. The other two, their party, and their Republican acolytes, given their post-election behavior, rhetoric, and funding for riots meant to kill Americans, may yet get their just deserts. To crib from what Pastor Mayhew said of Charles I, it seems fair to say that Obama and Clinton and their entourages “are black with guilt and laden with iniquity.”(2) Because the result of voting no longer seems to bring the republic tranquility and order, but rather chaos, violence, and corpses, it would be well if Mayhew’s assessment that the citizenry is bound by its duty to God and country to eliminate tyrants becomes fixed in the minds of contemporary Americans, and perhaps be acted upon before long.

As to Mayhew’s credibility, John Adams testimony out to be sufficient. Mayhew, Adams said, was “transcendent genius … who threw all the weight of his great fame into the scale of the country in 1761, and maintained it there with zeal and ardor till his death. … If the Orators on the 4th. of July, really wish to investigate the principles and Feelings which produced the Revolution .., they ought to study Dr. Mayhew’s Sermon on Passive Obedience and Non Resistance.”(3) Later, Adams would write,

Another gentleman, who had great influence in the commencement of the Revolution, was Doctor Jonathan Mayhew…. This divine had raised a great reputation both in Europe and America, by the publication of a volume of seven sermons in the reign of King George the Second, 1749, and by many other writings, particularly a sermon in 1750, on the 30th of January, on the subject of passive obedience and non-resistance, in which the saintship and martyrdom of King Charles the First are considered, seasoned with wit and satire superior to any in [Jonathan] Swift or [Benjamin] Franklin. It was read by everybody; celebrated by friends, and abused by enemies. … Mayhew seemed to be raised up to revive all their animosities against tyranny, in church and state, and at the same time to destroy their bigotry, fanaticism, and inconsistency.(4)

Then, in 1818, Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson that he had read Mayhew’s 1750 sermon “a year before I entered Harvard Colledge and I read it, til the Substance of it was incorporated into my Nature and indelibly engraved on my memory.”(5)

If that sermon’s words had such a profound and enduring impact on a man like John Adams, Mayhew’s admonitions are clearly pertinent to those Americans who still prize liberty and hate tyranny, people who are, not coincidentally, the most jealous guardians of the 2nd Amendment. (6)

Endnotes

1. Jonathan Mayhew, “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers,” 30 January 1750, See, http://www1.cbn.com/churchandministry/a-discourse-concerning-unlimited-submission-and-non-resistance-to-the-higher-powers%2C-1750
2. Ibid.
3. https://books.google.com/books?id=fWt3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=john+adams+%22zeal+and+ardor+till+his+death%22&source=bl&ots=Y94zDxy1BL&sig=acluWgIDy-437ei1t_-pkL-mlKo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjizJTK9NvWAhUFOiYKHeliAPMQ6AEINzAD#v=onepage&q=john%20adams%20%22zeal%20and%20ardor%20till%20his%20death%22&f=false andJohn Adams to William Tudor, Sr., 5 April 1818, at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6880
4. John Adams to H. Niles, 18 February 1818, at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/john-adams-to-h-niles/
5. John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 18 July 1818, at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6933
6. The five foregoing endnotes are meant to give readers fairly easy access to the cited sources. Fortunately, however, there is now available a new, superb, and beautifully written and argued biography of Jonathan Mayhew that covers all the material in this piece and much more. The book restores Reverend Mayhew — after centuries of near total neglect — to his rightful place as a key founder of the American republic. It also places his writings where they rightfully belong, which is alongside those of the authors whose writings were most influential in convincing and inspiring Americans to shed themselves of British tyranny, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and John Dickinson. Following is the citation for this wonderful book: J. Patrick Mullins. Father of Liberty. Jonathan Mayhew and the Principles of the American Revolution. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2017.

No matter what more is learned in terms of specifics about the Las Vegas attack, the need for the American citizenry to be well armed has never been greater. The Las Vegas shootings should give Americans pause to look beyond the contradictory “facts” and the whining, scripted, and sentimental political blather the event produced, and consider the following obvious points, which, when taken together, seem to merit setting aside a bit more of the monthly budget for protective weaponry.

First, it is clear that the U.S. law-enforcement system at all levels cannot protect Americans. The governing elite’s decades of pro-criminal laws; the legislative and judicial bans that prevent police to profile the suspicious and dangerous; our open borders and the elite’s refusal to enforce immigration laws; the national government’s cultivation of intensifying international hatred with unnecessary interventionist wars; the mainstream media’s complete failure to report the increasing numbers of murders and other major crimes that destroy the myth of a multicultural-diversity-unlimited-immigration route to utopia, all of which have combined to make law enforcement’s job an impossibility. Americans are going to have help the police if they are to be defended, and may well have to do so alone if politicians keep ordering the police to stand down when the left riots.

Second, the bipartisan governing elite clearly has a deep-seated hatred for the views, ambitions, and beliefs of hard-working Americans. Split away Trump, the Freedom Caucus in the House, and Senators Paul, Cruz, Lee, and, pray God, Moore, in the Senate, and the other members of both parties are eminently expendable. What does that mean? Well, it means that if the remainder do not begin to do their jobs or are not soon removed by the ballot, they will have to be removed by the bullet and the bayonet. Why? Look at Europe. The European governing elite has for thirty-years and more incrementally imposed socialism on the continent from globalist-dominated Brussels. It also has deliberately inundated the continent with many millions of the Muslim enemies of equality, rule-of-law, ordered liberty, parliamentary democracy, and Christianity. Europe’s elite has abandoned the political, economic, and social glories that long were Europe’s pride, in favor of a rapidly growing and thoroughly mongrelized population from which society’s scum is encouraged to be pampered, above-the-law slackers, rapists, terrorists, criminals, and torturers who feed like scurvy scavengers upon those who are the natives and taxpayers in Europe’s nations. Except for the band of U.S. liberty-lovers noted above, the rest of the elected representatives from both U.S. political parties — especially the Democrats — want nothing more than to make to make Americans into passive and obedient automatons modeled on the cringing, submissive, unarmed, and resigned-to-slavery natives being bred by the EU regime in Europe’s fading nation-states.

Third, the hate-filled Democratic reaction to the Las Vegas shootings, with a pro-Hillary CBS vice-president saying those killed and wounded deserved their fate because they were listening to country music; a known trait of Trump voters, she said. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and other worthless Democrats, and I suspect more than few Republicans, moved before the last Las-Vegas wound was staunched to demand the neutering of the 2nd Amendment and the ruin of the NRA. History and contemporary America and Europe show that the governing class that wants to disarm its citizenry is the one that knows that citizens hate it to core for what it has done to them and their country, and for what citizens suspect the elite intends to do to it and them in the future. If the U.S. disarmers have their way, Americans know that they will be treated just as the Spanish National Police treated peaceful and unarmed Catalan secessionist voters and their children last Sunday. That is, like animals that needed to be beaten and otherwise brutalized, terrorized, and abused to teach them to obey and unquestioningly serve their betters. Had the Catalans been armed, there would be a state funeral in Madrid later this week for scores of Spanish National Police who died truly well-merited deaths. Americans must always remained armed to the teeth so that such a funeral can be held in Washington if the U.S. governing elite, its media acolytes, and its armed, college-age henchmen try to make them into effete, unarmed, and submissive Europeans. What tyrant and pro-tyranny journalist, general, or civil servant, after all, would not look infinitely better when fixed squirming to a wall by a bayonet driven through his/her belly?

These then are the much-needed, post-Las Vegas reflections and realizations. Simply put, much of the existing U.S. national government is the mortal enemy of the citizenry, liberty, and the republic. If the national government does not quickly shape up and begin to do the citizenry’s bidding, its members will have to go, violently if necessary. The 2nd Amendment, as the Founders intended, makes that perfectly possible.

In a necessary war, metrics like body counts, cities taken, factories dem0lished, and tanks/ships/planes destroyed are nice to have but not needed. A necessary war — one in which America’s survival is at stake — requires the relentless annihilation of all of the enemy’s human and material assets, and success is clear only in his unconditional surrender or disappearance from earth’s face. In an unnecessary war, these kinds of metrics are the only ones that can be used to temporarily hide the certainty of U.S. defeat from American citizens. Not surprisingly, Americans hear very little about the unnecessary war their national government is waging in Syria and Iraq save data about fallen cities, the number of Islamic State (IS) fighters killed, and IS vehicles, weapons factories, warehouses, and caches destroyed.

The reason for the irrelevancies that the citizenry is being told about the Syrian-Iraq war lies in the simple reality that the conflict has become uncontrollable and will inevitably become what Hobbes described as a war of all against all. Once again, Americans are seeing both their government’s usual defeat in unnecessary wars, and the always accelerating human and monetary costs of interventionism.

So where do the wars in Iraq and Syria stand? Well, in the 37 months since President Obama restarted America’s participation in the Iraq war those two countries have become a morass of insanity and death in which two longstanding nation-states are now probably beyond restoration. Although these wars have all but disappeared from the U.S. and Western media, the Muslim world’s media and some Arabic papers in Europe have continued to follow the downward spiral occurring in both countries. Many Western media outlets regard Third World media as not up to their standards (?) but the picture that emerges from their coverage is a bit different than the themes found in the sparse Western coverage. Consider:

• The Arab press claims that Syria — and especially Asaad’s power-holding Alawite sect — has been just about bled white by the war, which suggests that Syria, led by Asaad or anyone else who is not an Islamist, will not be able to govern the country without substantial foreign economic, political, and, especially, military power. In other words, the presence of Russian, Iranian, and Lebanese Hizballah forces will garrison the country, thereby ensuring the Islamists will continue fighting there and drawing volunteers from around the world.
• The claims of the casualties inflicted on the Islamic State and other Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq are absurd. Because the Western press has done little to cover the war on the ground, the main sources available for casualties are the state-owned media in Syria, Russia, Iran, and Iraq. Those entities’ claims, if totaled, would show that each Islamist fighter in Syria and Iraq has been killed at least three times over. The other source for Islamist casualties is the U.S. military, and that seems to involve the use of a wonderous formula that calculates how many of the enemy should have been killed by the ordnance that was dropped on them. Needless to say, there may be some room for error in such calculations. The formula may amount to a measure of military progress against IS and other Islamist organizations that is just as valid in as the “body count,” that spectacularly accurate indicator of the U.S. military’s approaching victory in Vietnam.
• IS’s loss of the territory on which it established a Caliphate in the heart of Arab world is a grievous, but not a final defeat. Bin Laden’s guidance that you win one day and lose the next, as God wills, is shared by all Islamist forces. For nearly two years, the U.S. and its allies have breathlessly chalked up the fall of Syrian and Iraqi cities — Aleppo, Palmyra, Fallujah, Mosul, Raqqa, etc. — counting them as sure signs of victory, as if Eisenhower was again progressing from Normandy to the Rhine in 1944. The Islamic State’s forces, however, have fought on and on and on. IS fighters held each of the cities for periods ranging from about 15o to 250 days against the regular ground forces of Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Russia, as well as Lebanese Hizballah and large Shia militias from Iraq and Iran. In addition, the anti-IS ground forces were supported by continuous attacks from the U.S., Russian, many Arab, Iranian, and NATO air forces, and the U.S. and Russian navies. In other words, the paltry accomplishments produced by the overwhelming military power and advantages of IS’s enemies — a dozen wrecked cities for which Western taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill to rebuild — has proven either the incompetence of the anti-IS generals running the war, or the mettle, steadfastness, and faith of the Islamists. Bet on the latter.
• In Iraq and Syria, IS leaders have traded land and lives, for time to execute a planned realignment. As IS’s urban garrisons held off defeat for as long as possible, the group’s leaders redeployed forces and ordnance to the rugged mountains and trackless deserts of Iraq and Syria to prepare to do what IS does best, fight a renewed guerilla war. Because a guerrilla war requires far fewer men than does the building of a Caliphate, IS leaders sent some of their surplus fighters to reinforce the IS presence in Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, the Sinai Peninsula, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Europe, Palestine, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Those reinforcements — valuable more for their combat experience than their numbers — have allowed IS to expand its presence throughout Afghanistan; to make the Sinai Peninsula a death trap for Egypt’s military and police forces; to return to the outskirts of Surt in Libya, and to build strength in western and southern Libya, as well as Mali, Chad, and Niger; and to help the Philippine Islamists hold the city of Marawi for more than 1oo days against the full weight of the Philippine military.

As noted, there is no gainsaying that IS has suffered a severe military, political, and economic defeat. But what of the victor’s fortunes? Is there light at the end of the tunnel? Hardly.

• First, the gaggle of nations that have been militarily beating on IS for two years has won multiple ruined cities not a war, and, the fools will argue, responsibility for rebuilding two shattered nations. The anti-Islamist nations will now be drawn into an ever deeper military intervention to try to defeat the coming IS and al-Qaeda insurgencies, while trying to nation-rebuild, keep Shias and Sunnis from each other’s throats, thwart Iranian effort to solidify its presence and increase its control of the Iraqi regime, cope with IS’s expanding international jihad, and contest Russia’s determination to keep Asaad’s regime in power. It will be a lasting source of mirth to recall that while the West was rattling the sabres of war over Iran’s nuclear intentions, it was simultaneously facilitating its imperial and martial expansion.
• The United States, the Arab and NATO countries, and Russia have provided air- and ground-cover for the expansion of Iran’s power and political influence from Tehran’s western border to Syria’s border with Jordan. This reality — praise God — increases the likelihood of a regional Shia-Sunni war, but it also places substantial Iranian military capabilities closer to Israel than they have ever been before; this at a time when IS forces in the Sinai present a gradually growing threat to the Suez Canal and western Israel and Palestine. As always, the Jewish-American- sponsored, interventionist, and Neocon war against Saddam continues to close the Muslim noose around the neck of their country of first loyalty.
• The topper on this mess, of course, occurred this week when the Iraqi Kurds voted by a majority of about 90-percent for the creation of an independent Kurdish state; some Kurds outside Iraq also voted in the poll. The result of the vote was never in doubt, and that is why Iran and Turkey issued a torrent of statements demanding that Kurdish leaders delay the vote in words that moved from a barely disguised mailed fist to outright military and economic threats. The U.S. and NATO governments — being historically ignorant of the Kurds’ story and eager to have them do their fighting and dying — have allied themselves with the Kurds to fight the Islamic State, and have armed them to the teeth. While the Kurds have fought well, the Western aid and uneducated sympathy for the Kurds have made them a considerable player in the northern areas of a chaotic battlefield that now stretches from Syria’s borders with none-too-stable Jordan and Lebanon to the Iran-Iraq border. Tehran, Damascus, and Baghdad will not permit an independent Kurdish state to survive, and Turkey and Iraq already have interrupted foreign air travel to Kurdistan, and the Baghdad regime has given the Kurds three days to surrender control of its airfields to Iraqi officials. In the near-to-medium term, the region’s anti-Kurd regimes have only to block attempts by the Kurds’s to export their aspirational nation’s utterly landlocked oil resources to kill it. Surely, this would bring on a new humanitarian disaster, one that starts the travel of yet another wave of angry Muslim refugees toward the welcoming and Europe-killing arms of Mama Merkel and the dying German nation.

Saddam and Mubarak stand as the only political leaders who told the world the obvious truth in late 2002, namely, that s U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would open the gates of hell. Today, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Rice, Blair, and the mainstream media’s pundits continue to claim that the problems caused by their personal, for-Israel, Iraq war, while lamentable, are simply unpredictable consequences. These are the statements of men and women who are either liars, historical illiterates, or people whose sanity is maintained only by finding shelter in a plausible-sounding excuse for the ramifications of an unnecessary and unconstitutional war that has wrecked much of the Arab world, globalized the Islamist insurgency, killed and maimed tens of thousands of U.S. Marines and soldiers, bankrupted the U.S. Treasury, and killed and maimed more Syrian and Iraqi men, women, and children than Asaad and Saddam could have killed if both lived to be a thousand years old.

Now that the lethal Kurdish shoe has dropped, the gates of the hell that Bush’s war opened wide will soon heat up even further and emerge as a full-scale Hobbesian war. In the name of God, President Trump, enough is enough. Evict the Neocon generals from your White House and get all Americans out of Iraq and Syria, Then free your campaign’s non-intervention/America First placard from mothballs and speak to the nation on this issue, using a speech written by your own hand. Put that placard nearby as you speak and tell Americans that we are done fighting unnecessary wars, reinforcing defeat in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and allowing our foreign policy to be shaped by war-lovers like McCain and Graham, disloyal Jewish-Americans, and the media-supported, anti-American ideologues who champion multiculturalism, diversity, and women’s rights.

You can do this off your own hook, Mr. President, and it is an action for which future generations of your countrymen will call you blessed. That’s not a bad way to be remembered.

On 15 September 2017, Islamist fighters again attacked a London subway car. There were close to two dozen casualties, but so far there have been no deaths. Britons and Prime Minister Theresa May’s government were fortunate, as the bomber’s explosive device only partially detonated.

President Trump responded to the attack with twitter messages supportive of May’s hapless government. His words, however, apparently angered Mrs. May and Scotland Yard. They interpreted Trump’s tweets as insulting to their performance as the lawful and only protectors of the native British population against the violence and other depredations of the Muslim immigrants — legal and illegal — the government so obviously prefers, champions, and kowtows to.

Can you imagine that? Do they think no one sees their abject dereliction of duty? British officialdom is angry because Trump hit the nerve, dead-on, that leads directly to their certain but never-spoken knowledge that they are completely responsible for enabling the Islamists’ Friday attack, as well as all other Islamist bombings, acid-throws, rapes, stabbings, frauds, kidnappings, and thefts over the past decade. Indeed, British prime ministers, Parliaments, and media have done everything possible during those years to make sure the attacks keep occurring. Most recently, they have defied the electorate by prolonging the UK’s exit from the EU, as well as by depending on costly deradicalization programs that are still proliferating even though they have manifestly failed in every country in the world, leaving no lessening of Islamism and its always attendant violence and cruelty, but enriching the crackpot university professors who peddle the programs.

It is, without question, the British government — under the Tories and Labor — that has put the United Kingdom on the precipice of internal war with its near-fascist implementation of the EU’s policies of unchecked internal movement and open-immigration laws; its savage implementation of multicultural and diversity laws that apply to and destroy only non-elite, native-born Brits; and its hounding and persecution of all persons who dare mention in public or on social media the irrefutable reality that the foregoing policies and laws are destroying British citizens, society, history, and culture. If Britons had not allowed themselves to be disarmed, all the prime ministers after Lady Thatcher would have found their rightful and thoroughly merited rewards by twisting in mid-air at the end of a rope.

The fact is that only elite Brits, educated at the country’s elite universities, could believe that the violent and lawless Muslim rabble they have welcomed willy nilly into the UK is ever going to assimilate and become law-abiding citizens. Some will, most will not, and those who will not will always abet the Islamist killers. Most of them will remain on the dole while native Britons pay for them until they are killed by the Muslims their government and police are pampering and supporting.

These marauding Muslims also will continue to assiduously “groom” — meaning sexually attack without fear of prosecution — young, white British girls and women, run narcotics, and establish armed, urban enclaves into which British police will not dare enter. It is a lucky thing, therefore, that the oh-so-sensitive British police can keep themselves busy — and avoid the risks involved in rooting out and killing the Islamists — by prosecuting the citizens who are manly enough to rhetorically attack May’s government, and the socialist, Islamophile clowns leading the Labor Party, for protecting, supporting, and favoring Muslim killers. It currently appears that the Tories and Labor are intent on doing so until the native Brits who speak their mind, work hard, and pay taxes are all killed by the violent, British-hating, on-the-dole Islamists their government and police coddle.

Watching these events in Britain, and knowing America might be only one presidential election away from a similar internal war, leads to the inevitable conclusion that armed civilian opposition to the government and its favored, out-for-blood Muslims probably is the only option for Britons. Brits and Americans come from a common heritage, one that has ever held that the first and most important duty of government is to protect and preserve the lives and property of the law-abiding citizenry. When a government deliberately refrains from performing that duty, its usefulness is at an end and it must be eliminated either by an election or — more likely — destroyed, along with its acolytes and favored groups, by armed citizens.

One prays that at least a few British men are quietly developing ways to surreptitiously bring weapons and ammunition into the UK to arm those being attacked by their government and its beloved Muslim rabble. If there are, I hope they will look to private Americans — who still have the right to bear arms we inherited from our English ancestors — for the financial, manpower, and ordnance help we can surely provide.

I believe that I have written in this space on each of the last decade’s 9/11 anniversaries. This will be the last of my last 9/11-anniversary pieces, as the occasion has become meaningless for much of the citizenry; a cynical excuse for the bipartisan governing elite to prolong and start more unnecessary wars; and a day for the mainstream media to cover the only issue they can cover professionally; namely, the faux sentiment and grief of media-coverage seeking celebrities and politicians. I also have taken the chance here to briefly comment on two other troubling issues.

The utter meaninglessness of the 9/11 anniversary

If there is life after death, the 9/11 dead are able to see that the U. S. national government has done next to nothing to ensure that date and its casualties “will never be forgotten”. By now the 9/11 casualties know, through his own words, that President Clinton had the chance to kill Osama bin Laden on multiple occasions — and likely prevent 9/11 — but refused to do so because he feared that his elite friends at home and abroad would think he was no better than bin Laden. As I have said here before, Bill Clinton never has, in his life, drawn a single breath when he was a better man than bin Laden. All of those who were killed or wounded on 9/11 are a butcher’s bill that belongs solely to Bill Clinton. Those people are now forgotten and unavenged, and all of the U.S. military personnel who have been killed, wounded, or maimed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen since 9/11 are the wasteful consequence of three things: (1) Bill Clinton’s narcissism and moral cowardice; (2) a war-loving, bipartisan governing elite that has used, and will use 9/11 as an excuse for unnecessary wars; and (3) a set of U.S. general officers who are too political and timid to achieve victory, and too historically ignorant to recognize irretrievable defeat when they see it. Again, the only remaining use of 9/11 anniversaries is the pernicious one of to keeping unnecessary wars going and finding new ones to wage. For that reason, the national government’s silence toward those it allowed to be killed on 9/11 is perhaps the only way to let them rest in peace.

Why is it okay for Jewish-American Senators to claim an individual’s Christian beliefs disqualify them for federal posts?

We have now had the geriatric Senators Bernie Sanders and Diane Feinstein publicly and viciously attack two Christian-American nominees to national government posts because of their faith. Well, what’s good for the goose is always good for the gander. From this point forward it must be seen as fair game for members of Congress to assume that any Jewish-American nominee for a national government post is disqualified simply because of his or her Jewish beliefs. If Jewish-American senators can now freely attack a Christian-American nominee’s 1st Amendment rights by seeking to deny him or her employment because of their religious beliefs, it is time for Christian-Americans to stop turning the other cheek and treat Jewish-Americans with the same kind of public contempt, denigration, and blatant violation of constitutional rights. The 1st Amendment, after all, says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” not “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except for Christian believers;”. If the 1st Amendment retains any meaning and force in this lawless age, the Senate must harshly censure Feinstein and Sanders for their public display of illegal religious bigotry and thereby begin to put the 1st amendment back on an even keel. If the Senate does not take punitive action against those two white Jewish supremacists, Americans of all faiths will know that the powerful Jewish-American elite controls far more than just the republic’s foreign policy.

Were the Protestants right about Papists?

I have been a member of the Church of Rome for all of the 64 years since my baptism. Trained as historian of the British Empire, I also know that for more than two hundred years Catholics in America and elsewhere in that empire were, because of their faith, severely discriminated against socially, politically, and in terms of employment. Such discrimination in America was based on several factors, but the central issue for non-Catholic citizens was whether Catholics — aka: Papists — were citizens who would obey the republic’s laws or who would instead truckle to the dictates of their Pope. (NB: This question remained an issue in the Kennedy-Nixon election in 1960.) Over the past two centuries, American Catholics slowly climbed a very steep ladder — some rungs of which lead to their murder — to social, economic, and political acceptance through hard manual-and-menial work, distinguished service in the U.S. military and America’s wars, educational achievement, and a vigorous, die-hard kind of patriotism. But regression now seems the order of the day. Pope Francis has condemned Americans for wanting to end illegal immigration; for electing President Trump — the only American president pledged to stop abortion; for defending its interests militarily; and for not paupering the republic by mindlessly agreeing to fund the European socialist elite’s climate-change scam. Pope Francis also has told Americans that they can save themselves politically only by abandoning the republic and joining the plans afoot for an authoritarian and murderous world government. This week, U.S. Catholic bishops joined the Pope in beginning to reinvigorate the idea that American Catholics may be more loyal to the Pope than to their country. Terming President Trump’s termination of Obama’s clearly unconstitutional DACA Executive Order “reprehensible,” the bishops wrote,

“Today, our nation has done the opposite of how Scripture calls us to respond. It is a step back from the progress that we need to make as a country … [it is a] heart-breaking moment in our history that shows the absence of mercy and goodwill, and a short-sighted vision of the future.” (3)

The bishops and their hapless, Marxist Pope apparently believe that Americans will be safer, happier, and more prosperous in a country that is overwhelmed with illegal aliens, ruled by would-be tyrants like Obama, devoid of the rule of law, and governed under a Constitution no longer worth the paper is written on. Instead of this reprehensible intervention in American affairs, the Catholic bishops and their Pope ought to try to repair the wreckage of their ethically and morally crippled church, and let Americans decide by what means their republic is to survive. If the Pope and his bishops decide to hoe their own row, they would do well — at long last — to start by annihilating the plague of pedophilia that seems to infest the Church of Rome at all levels, makes mock of Christ’s message, and destroys the lives of children. Failure to do so, as the bishops might say, will “show the absence of mercy and goodwill, and a short-sighted vision of the future.” It also will alarmingly suggest that perhaps the Protestants have been correct all along in fearing that a despicable and dangerous scourge lay in the heart of Catholicism.

Endnotes

1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-bernie-sanders-kass-met-20170621-column.html
2. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dianne-feinstein-and-the-left-revive-religious-tests/article/2633777
3. Arlington [VA] Catholic Herald, 7-13 September, p. 3

One must wonder if there is a depth-limit to how far the Democrat-owned American teaching profession at all levels can sink into idiocy, ignorance, racism, and inciting insurrection. It seems apparent, at least to me, that these teachers — especially those who teach U.S. history and other of what used to called the liberal arts — have no interest in truth, but every interest in leftist/socialist political indoctrination, the most powerful agent of which is projecting the present upon the past.

In the United States, the prime and most damaging example of the teaching method of indoctrination is found on subject of slavery. Our children’s understanding of the past seems to be based not on understanding things as they were in a particular historical period, but rather on what today’s teachers, media personalities, bipartisan political elite, and racists believe they should have been. Not only is this an ahistorical approach to teaching and learning, but it is narcissistic in the extreme. In its determination to damn all earlier humans for the strongest beliefs and commonplace practices of their times, today’s teachers and their allies are certain that they know more about every conceivable subject than any previous generation, and that it is their duty to rewrite the human record to fit their contemporary beliefs and ideologies and then damn all who disagree with the fantasies they have promulgated.

American slavery was built not only on economic necessity — slaves were needed for growing profitable agricultural products in semi-tropical climates — but also on the tenets of widely accepted science, religion, history, international law, and some political, philosophical, and sociological theories, all of which supported the idea that blacks were inferior human beings. This belief was reinforced by the fact that those who became black slaves invariably had been enslaved in Africa by other blacks before they were sold to the slave traders who bought them, sailed westward, and sold them to buyers in North and — mostly — South America and the Caribbean.

In other words, most Americans in the period of legal slavery in the United States behaved precisely as the best available objective data, philosophies, and theories advised. To damn them for this behavior is unintelligent, unfair, and absurd. Even more, to feel guilt, anger, or a barbaric thirst for monetary recompense for their behavior is the reaction of deeply and deliberately mis-educated individuals. To find the legal slavery system repugnant is every contemporary citizen’s absolute right, but only because of the vast changes and revisions that have occurred in the objective data and philosophies vis-a-vis blacks and slavery that Americans of the legal-slavery period relied on.

But it also should be deemed the absolute right of every U.S. citizen to understand — or at least to be afforded the opportunity to understand — that the phenomenon of American slavery took place in a far different age and context than their own, and that the body of knowledge that was available to shape the thoughts and actions of the people alive at that time, and had to deal with slavery, fully supported their behavior. Today we may regret that behavior, but there is no basis on which to condemn our ancestors for acting according to their best lights, let alone to try to exact some kind of revenge or reparations from their descendants. Any American who feels the slightest bit of guilt and/or responsibility for the existence of slavery in the United States 152 years ago can only be the victim of brainwashing by the Democrats’ teachers, a maudlin sob sister, or simply a damned fool.

Today’s Americans, however, are taught by their teachers-in-name-only that because their ancestors did not think as they do, they must be judged evil, must be maligned, and must have their lives erased from history. In addition, their descendants must be made to pay both via the Nazi-like practice known as “white shaming” and the government’s theft of some portion of their property to be turned over to the descendants of black slaves. (NB: I must say, as an aside, that if the day comes where the national government demands monetary reparations from me for the descendants of slaves, I will be delighted to pay the collectors … in lead.)

In the contemporary U.S. educational system, however, there apparently is no effort being made to teach students that American slavery existed because of what was known economically, scientifically, religiously, legally, and often philosophically at the time. What is taught to students is that their ancestors were not smart or moral enough to base their actions on the knowledge that is available in the second decade of the 21st century and so live and act as many of the people alive today would want them to.

Black slavery, of course, ended in 1865 with the Union army’s military victories across the Confederacy, the great moral courage of Robert E. Lee’s decision to prevent what would have been an endless insurgency, and the adoption of multiple amendments to the U.S. Constitution. There was, however, no way to quickly and magically end the preponderance of knowledge that held that blacks to be inferior to whites. This accomplishment needed time to occur, as well as the knowledge that was gradually brought to bear by new scientific discoveries, and altered philosophical, legal, and biblical interpretations. Perhaps as important, it depended on blacks and whites learning to live and work together as fellow fallen human beings and fellow citizens. Even with favorable advances on each of these fronts, a good deal of time and patience also were needed.

And there were favorable — if often incremental — advances made on most of these fronts, but on the front of amiable and tolerant human interaction that alone could produce enduring racial amity, internal peace, and national unity, those who were the champions of slavery since 1787 relentlessly sought to deny the republic a chance to fully attain any of those goals from that day to this.

Concentrated almost entirely in the Democratic party, these former-slave owners and white supremacists built the Ku Klux Klan; established Jim Crow laws; specialized in castrations and lynchings; happily lit matches to ignite cross, church, and synagogue burnings; used physical intimidation on election days; imposed poll taxes; legalized segregation; and, in 1912, elected a president who was more of a racist than any of the Founders, a man named Woodrow Wilson. Thereafter, the Democrats fiercely fought against ending these racist institutions, still finding the Democrat-founded Klan useful in 2017 when they pitted rented Klan members against the party’s other well-paid terrorist arm, Antifa, in Charlottesville, Virginia. If American history was taught accurately, the story of the eternally racist Democratic Party, from its inception to today, would be simply and understandably taught by identifying it as the party of the four S’s — slavery, secession, segregation, and, today, socialism.

Given this reality, it is no wonder that the Democratic Party has supported every effort by teachers, professors, and media pundits to blacken, rewrite, distort, and destroy American history, as well as to paint the contemporary American South and its history, traditions, and statues as the source of the racial problems that the white Democrat elites have deliberately created. In turn, it is no wonder that the teachers’ unions are the prized pets of the Democratic Party. It is the teachers, after all, who are best positioned to prevent students from learning the truth, which is that American slavery and the post-Civil War travails of Black Americans were caused by, and are still overwhelmingly the responsibility of, the Democratic Party and its white supremacist elite.

To show that the leopard never changes its spots, it is worth noting that it is the current white Democratic elites:

• Who are are supporting the secession of California in order to make it a socialist political system
• Who are reestablishing segregation by putting many campuses and other public venues off limits to whites, as well as to conservatives of all colors.
• Who have again become slavemasters by allowing unlimited numbers of Third Worlders into the country. These people are unschooled in living under a republican system of government, and can be enticed into serving in permanent slavery on the Democrats’ s plantations, as long as they mindlessly vote for today’s Democratic Simon Legrees. This they will do in return for welfare payments, food stamps, job quotas, and legal preferences that are funded by the taxes of those on whom the Democratic Party intends to impose segregation, secession, and socialism.
• Who are demonstrating their devotion to socialism by seeking to overthrow the result of a legitimate presidential election; by using a lying and omitting mainstream media that is as loyal to Democrats as the Soviet press was to Stalin; and by training and paying Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and By Any Means Necessary terrorists to attack those Americans who refused to vote for deranged gangster/traitor the Democrats ran for president in 2016. (NB: So uneducated and just plain stupid are these faux warriors for racial equality that they do not see they are the expendable pawns of the American party of slavery and a guy who once made his living by helping to round up Jews for Hitler’s ovens.)

White Democratic elitists have historically been America’s most devoted and ardent slavers, and they remain so today. The main difference between the legal-slavery era and today lies in the fact that the current Democrats are seeking to make slaves of all those who oppose them, not just blacks. These white Democrat slavers must be made to stop what they are doing; leave the country, as they so often have pledged to do; or accept that their days are numbered and that their actions — combined with the refusal of DOJ, the FBI, and many police organizations to protect the people Democrat terrorists attack — will yield an enraged, patriotic, and well-armed force that will eliminate, root and branch, the target-rich environment of violent expendables that the Democratic slavers have created. Sadly, very few of the expendables are worth the cost of a round ammunition, but the time is nearing when it will be joy to overpay.