Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

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.

Mr. President, your ghastly Afghanistan address on 21 August 2017 contained the same old nonsense of your predecessors, such as the mujahideen are thugs and losers who have nothing to with Islam, and Pakistan is the key to Afghanistan. It also contained a death sentence for more of our soldiers and Marines, and the utter double crossing of those non-interventionists who voted for you.

You obviously talked to no American who knows something about Afghanistan, and listened to generals who have lost the Iraq and Afghan wars, and are members of a brotherhood of general officers that has not won a single one of America’s wars — almost all unnecessary — since 1945. You also displayed unwarranted respect for these also-rans by making sure that the word “Islam” never once appeared in a speech specifically discussing the republic’s war with Islam. This is not an “America First” position, Mr. President, it is the position of a man who ignored his reliable instincts, and allowed himself to be seduced by the siren song of be-starred bureaucrats masquerading as component general officers.

Good God, man, where were your wits? Did you even bother to ask the generals why, in nearly seventeen years, they have not been able to secure the Afghan capital of Kabul? Or why, in nearly seventeen years, they have not been able to train an Afghan military capable of protecting anything without U.S. advisers and air power? Did you ask them how they were going to win with 12,000 or 15,000 troops against an enemy stronger and more numerous than it was in 2001, when they shamefully failed to do so earlier with 120,000 troops? Did you ask them how they expect to win now by slapping around Pakistan, when they failed to win when Pakistan’s Musharraf was doing more to help us than any of our other allies, even bringing his country to the edge of civil war? Did you ask them if it is sound military doctrine to reinforce their nearly seventeen-year record of failure and defeat in Afghanistan with more lives, limbs, dollars, and, without doubt, more defeat?

And what, pray tell, Mr. President, did these generals tell you? Did they tell you that the combination of kicking around Pakistan and buddying-up with India greatly increases the risk of nuclear war in South Asia, especially since tensions between those nations are already rising over the Kashmir dispute? Did they tell you that Hindus, because they are polytheists, are despised by Sunni Muslims, and that if we work with them against the mujahideen we will — after already helping the heretical Shia to hold Iraq and Syria — re-validate for the world’s Sunni Muslims the belief that America is seeking to destroy Sunni Islam and will ally with anyone who has the same intent?

Did they tell you that China is building a road and railway system from its western border, across Central Asia and parts of Afghanistan, to Turkey, as well as similar facilities from its western border, southward through Pakistan, to the Pakistani port of Gwadar on the Indian Ocean, which Beijing built and controls. Did they tell you that this project — called One Belt, One Road — will be a magnet for the mujahideen, and so China will have to fight, first, to get it built and, second, to protect and enable the system’s economic viability against an Islamic insurgency? Did they tell you that if the United States simply gets out of the way in Afghanistan, the Chinese will soon be tied down there, wasting lives and money until they realize that they are defeated?

Did they tell you that Russia is working successfully to reestablish its military presence across the USSR’s former Central Asian republics because it fears the growing numbers of mujahideen — Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other Islamist groups — that are basing in northern Afghanistan along the Russian Federation’s border, an Islamist presence which is sure to expand northward? Did they tell you that if we get out of Afghanistan, the Russians would eventually have to fight the Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other Islamist groups along the Afghanistan-Central Asia border, and surely in northern Afghanistan as well? Did they tell you that, if the United States leaves Afghanistan, there is every chance that China and Russia will, before long, contain themselves by becoming militarily tied down in an intractable Islamist insurgency in Central Asia and Afghanistan, thereby steadily wasting lives and money, limiting their ability to cause trouble elsewhere in the world, and increasing the already existing Islamist unrest in Central Asia and western China?

If you did not ask the questions mentioned above, shame on you? If your generals did not explain the above-noted factors to you, fire them and send them off to the heaven they crave, be it to the board of Raytheon,, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, or some other lethal enemy of the American taxpayer. Then get yourself some combat-experienced Lieutenant-Colonels, Colonels, and Brigadiers to take their place, as well as the Marine Corps’ senior Gunnery Sergeant to keep an eye on them and to always tell you the truth.

You are the last shot for America First, Mr. President; that is an enormous responsibility but one you sought. Your performance is likely to determine the fate of the republic, and you were elected because the citizenry sensed that and trusted your rhetoric and your instincts. Now get to work and depend on your commonsense, not the advice of generals who never have and never will win anything.

While there is nothing funny about the number of casualties in and nearby Barcelona — currently 14 dead and 100 wounded — the public and governmental reactions to the Islamists’ attacks induce spasms of nearly uncontrollable laughter in anyone who has even minimal commonsense.

First, of course, we see the mandatory appearance of heaping mounds of handwritten sympathy notes from publicity-seeking strangers, dying flowers, guttering candles, and meaningless photographs accumulating near the attack sites. Second, we have the EU, the United States, and numerous other governments expressing their “condemnation” of the attacks; declaring their determination to stand “shoulder-to-shoulder” with Spain against the Islamists; and reciting the now tiresome and quite obviously untrue mantra about eventually defeating the Islamists — as in, “bringing them to justice” — who are said, as always, to have nothing to do with Islam.

In that set of activities, most Western citizens and their governments have done all they intend to do about this week’s attacks. That is, they intend to do nothing effective in preventing future attacks, nothing that will halt inflow of the Muslim immigrants who are destroying Europe, and — most important, — nothing rhetorical that might offend the highly sensitive and terrorist-enabling Muslims already living in Spain and Europe.

The foregoing is the well-established pattern of post Islamist-attack actions in Europe that was first used after the July, 2007, Islamist attacks in London. The actions are now nauseatingly familiar and serve no useful purpose except to dispense cheap sympathy and meaningless bravado. They amount to a sick sort of joke that for some reason Europeans seem to find pleasing and comforting after each time they are run-over, shot-up, knifed, raped, kidnapped, or blown-up by the Islamists they regard as illiterate, primitive, irreligious, and inferior human beings, especially in comparison to their superior, sophisticated, and well-educated selves.

You must, I think, see the hilarity engendered in those with a bit commonsense by these feckless “death festival” reactions to Europe’s numerous military defeats, and the casualties inflicted therein, by the clearly tougher, militarily superior, more devote, and not-so-illiterate Islamists.

If the real humor here is not readily apparent to all, perhaps the following two points may help:

• Almost all of the Barcelona dead and wounded surely voted for one or another of the multiple Spanish governments that have failed to protect Spain’s citizens and their children since Osama bin Laden declared the Islamists’ war against the U.S. and Europe 21 years ago this month.
• Most of these casualties probably also supported the Spanish and EU governments’ mindless ideological adherence to open borders, their admission of unlimited numbers of unvetted Muslim refugees, their Hitlerian application of multiculturalism and diversity policies, and their constriction of free speech to protect the sensitivities of Spain’s — and those of the rest of the EU — Islamist-aiding Muslim population.

Simply put, then, the reality of the Barcelona attacks is that, while the Islamists did the killing and wounding, they were able did so because multiple Spanish governments preferred both ideological purity to the murderously moronic theories of multiculturalism and diversity, and to playing the obsequious lick-spittle to Muslims, instead of providing security, controlled borders, and rule-of-law to Spain and its native citizenry. In the parlance of the FBI, the past twenty-plus years of Spanish governments are — as are all of the EU’s so-called governments — clearly guilty of “material support to terrorism.”

The above-referenced hilarity, I suppose, may still be not apparent to all, so stop and think about the reality that Barcelona’s dead, wounded, and maimed supported, voted for, and obeyed the mad societal theories of both their cowardly government and their EU enslavers. They also long ago let their government take away their weapons, so they cannot defend themselves, kill their attackers, or kill all of their much-in-need-of-killing, Islamist-abetting politicians. Spaniards and Europeans are, in essence, sitting ducks who have voted for governments who will not defend them and protect their children. They would be better off being governed by the Marx Brothers.

To be fair, though, those in the EU — and the U.S. — who constantly vote for their own demise, and allow themselves to be disarmed by authoritarian regimes, surely are entitled to die in the manner their votes endorsed. Sometimes you do get what you deserve.

There is something approaching biblical justice in the U.S.-North Korean confrontation now before us. President Truman’s 1950 decision to go to war against the North Korean communists’ invasion of the south was the first and so precedent-setting instance of the unnecessary U.S. interventionist wars that have become the national government’s foreign-policy trademark since 1945.

Truman’s action was unconstitutional in that he had no authorization from Congress. Like Obama in Libya, he took the republic into an unnecessary war in the name of the United Nations and in the space of three years wasted the lives of 36,574 American troops and maimed and wounded 103,284. (1) In addition, the allegedly thrifty Truman squandered $341 billion in 2011 dollars. (2)

Wasted lives, limbs, and dollars are three of the main characteristics of the U.S. government’s military interventionism overseas. Truman’s illegal adventure in Korea also manifested five other traits that have become both the indelible signatures of U.S. interventionism, and unrelenting threats to U.S. national security.

Thou shalt not use commonsense, Part 1: Truman entered the war without asking himself or his generals the main question: “In terms of genuine U.S. national interests, do we care who rules on the Korean Peninsula?” The answer in 1950 — and today, save for our troops marooned there — is that we do not care, it is no skin off our noses. If asked and honestly answered, that question would have saved Americans the lives and dollars that have been wasted since the Korean War in such unnecessary interventionist wars as Vietnam, Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen.

Thou shalt not win: Truman did not win the Korean war; he decided to lose it. There is never any use in entering a war that you do not intend to win. All of the human and financial wealth that Truman expended in Korea was wasted, and the failure to win set another interventionist trait in stone: The U.S. government never wins unnecessary interventionist wars.

Thou shalt allow foreign leaders to send America to war: Truman covered his refusal to win in Korea by publicly warning of a larger war — perhaps a nuclear war — after China intervened with Moscow’s approval. His subsequent actions, and the deals that were agreed to conclude an armistice both confirmed the U.S. defeat and and left the republic holding the bag. Truman and the UN-coalition agreed to create a cease-fire/boundary line at the 38th parallel that left the South Korean capital of Seoul in perpetual jeopardy, as it sat only 35 miles away from the North Korean military. U.S. troops were then stationed along that line near the demilitarized zone so they would be chopped up if North Korea again attacked, and so justify renewed U.S. intervention. Truman, his Congress, and the UN thus set another rigid trait of unnecessary U.S. interventionist wars, namely: The abrogation of U.S. independence and sovereignty in making a decision for war, in the case of Korea, by deliberately leaving that decision solely in the hands of the communist leader-of-the-day in Pyongyang. (NB: Today, we face the same in regard to Israel, the NATO countries, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

Thou shalt lie and say UN efforts and multinational sanctions will end the problem: Truman had started an unconstitutional war, wasted American lives and money, refused to win, and made a mockery of U.S. independence and sovereignty over the decision for war. Then, each of his successors in the White House — with congressional approval — played Americans for dupes by claiming the UN would reconcile the two Koreas, thereby allowing the United States to get out of the war-trap Truman had left behind. The UN, of course, did nothing for the next 65 years except to join with Western states to alternate between periods of strong sanctions, periods of humanitarian pandering to the North Korean communists, and then a return to the former. The pandering periods saved the North Koreans from food and energy famines and provided them with the technology that allowed the creation of their nuclear weapons. The only things more useless than the UN and its actions are those leaders who put their trust in them.

Thou shalt not use commonsense, Part 2: The United States and its European allies have conducted their post-1945 sanctions policies with an arrogance and ignorance that precisely reflects the intellectual bankruptcy of the educational systems they have created. The overriding, indeed, sacrosanct idea behind sanctions is that the United States and its allies can apply increasingly harsh, even barbaric sanctions against any country and never pay any price for doing so. Now, anyone who went to grammar school before teaching turned into political indoctrination, will have learned at recess that pushing a classmate will be responded to in kind. The supposedly well-educated Western elite that so frequently applies sanctions seems to have no knowledge of this simple and invaluable life-lesson. Meanwhile, Western sanctions never hurt the bad guy, be he the miscreant Gaddafi, Saddam, or Kim Jong Un. Their impact falls on people who have little money, inadequate food and medicine, and no information but what the state issues to them. North Koreans surely believe that they and their children have been oppressed by U.S., UN, and Western sanctions for decades, and that those sanctions multiplied the misery imposed by their rulers. Sanctions do nothing but rally the oppressed to their oppressors if conflict comes.

Thou shalt close your embassy: When the United States and its allies saw that nothing they had done — war, sanctions, and name-calling — had solved the North Korea problem, they decided to make things worse for themselves by closing their embassies in Pyongyang. This has become a common practice that the national government uses in the capitals of those countries it considers enemies, as well as ones that it simply does not like. This practice is closely akin to shoving a bayonet through your chest. Without an embassy in an enemy country, all agencies of the U.S. intelligence community are denied an on-the-ground presence that allows the collection of human intelligence, close-in signals intelligence, and multiple forms of other kinds of technical intelligence. This knowing presidential blinding of the U.S. intelligence community denies those charged with defending the republic, and assisting the military to do so, with one of the very best intelligence collection platforms, an on-the-ground presence in the enemy country. Currently, for example, we have no embassy in Syria, Iran, North Korea, and for years before 9/11 we had no embassy in Afghanistan. The decision to close an embassy in an enemy country — or any country, for that matter — invariably hurts, and never aids U.S. national security. Embassies ought never be closed as a signal of anger at or distaste for a regime. They should be kept open until the host country demands their withdrawal.

Today’s confrontation with North Korea began in 1950 with an unconstitutional military intervention launched by President Truman into a place which was meaningless to U.S. national-security interests. That action created a problem that has festered for almost 65 years, one that has been kicked down the road by all succeeding presidents and now rests with President Trump. His main decision is not based on whether Kim Jong Un will back down and go quiet for a few years, but rather will he join the damnable can-kickers and allow a future president and all Americans to be faced with a North Korean leader armed with a more sophisticated first-strike nuclear capability.

Trump and his national-security team face a direct and demonstrable nuclear threat to the United States that is of his predecessors making. He has drawn the short straw and must end this problem here and now or knowingly endanger our posterity by allowing the North Korea’s nuclear capability to grow. There are only two ways to do the right thing for today and for the future: (a) reach an agreement that will allow U.S. forces and nuclear experts to enter North Korea and dismantle and destroy North Korea’s nuclear facilities, ballistic missiles, and stockpiles of fissile material, or (b) direct U.S. forces to annihilate all of North Korea’s nuclear and military capabilities and armed forces.

The existence of only two rotten choices is tough luck for President Trump, but he has the con. He has inherited the ripest and most poisonous fruit of the nation’s bipartisan governing elite’s addiction to overseas military interventionism. That interventionism always fails, often strengthens our enemies, always kills and maims our children, massively deepens the national debt, stokes a worldwide hatred for America that creates new enemies, and now has brought us to the brink of nuclear war. Only fools, war-mongers, or domestic enemies of the republic would ever advocate another unnecessary interventionist war after witnessing the current and still unfolding interventionist-made disaster in North Korea.

Endnotes:

1. https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf
2. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf

What is the citizenry to do when the national government will not enforce the laws and has abandoned any intention of maintaining the rule of law and the equality of all Americans before the law?

On 3 August 2017, the media reported Special Counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a grand jury to investigate the already debunked charge that the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. In doing so, Mueller has established himself as a stinking offense to the idea of fairness and equality before the law. Mueller must have nearly a dozen conflicts of interests, any one of which should terminate his status as the special counsel. He has staffed his organization with Democratic Party-aligned attorneys, and is reported to have coached witnesses, including James Comey and Andrew McCabe, on how to testify when the time comes. As I understand them, the statutes governing a special council’s conduct requires Mueller to immediately step down because of his personal conflicts of interest, which have turned this investigation into something of which the producers of Stalin’s show trials would be proud.

Notwithstanding this fact, both parties in Congress are working together to try to pass a piece of bipartisan legislation that will protect Mueller by giving him an appeal process if he is fired for ignoring the law pertinent to his position and/or his numerous conflicts of interest. In addition, Mueller’s empaneling of a grand jury is obviously the act of a dastardly coward, which is meant to throw another obstacle in the path of executing the law and ordering his dismissal. Mueller is a disgrace to the legal profession — if that is possible —and the almost complete lack of any criticism of Mueller from within his peers surely speaks to their inherent lawlessness and political partisanship.

Now, if the lynch mob Mueller is running was the only abuse of the law that is now apparent to the citizenry, patience might be the citizens’ best response. It could be used as yet another chance for Americans to see how resolutely the governing elite ignores the law in their pursuit of power and lucre; beneficially augment their hatred for politicians; and motivate them to go to the gun shop and purchase a few hundred additional rounds of ammunition. But the time for such patience is just about past.

Americans have been extraordinarily patient in waiting for the national government to enforce the republic’s laws. Citizens have seen the Clintons rape, lie, commit espionage, murder, and sell American interests to Russia and other foreigners for personal gain. They have seen Obama illegally divert money from Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to prop up a medical care system that was intended to fail so as to produce a medical system that would be administered by bureaucrats like those who sentenced Charlie Gard to death and gloated as he lay dying. Americans also saw Obama alter congressional legislation without the approval of Congress; indeed, without the supine Congress even effectively objecting to that impeachable act. They also saw Obama and Eric Holder refuse to prosecute Black Panthers after they intimidated voters; fail to investigate IRS officials who used their power to obstruct the growth of the conservative political movement; and facilitate the illegal entry of aliens, criminals, and terrorists into the United States. In their spare time, Obama and Clinton passed weapons to Mexican narco-traffickers who later used one of them to kill a U.S. Border Patrol officer.

More recently, they have learned that Obama and a still growing number of the senior officials in his administration used the power and talents of the US intelligence community to identify (unmask) their political opponents and intercept their conversations. Obama, Holder, Susan Rice (whose security clearances H.R. McMaster is said to have continued), John Brennan, Ben Rhodes, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch, and Samantha Power are all indictable for the manner in which they deliberately and illegally abused their power for political gain; have corrupted the U.S. political system; and have undermined the incoming Trump administration they detested. There also is the authoritarian and promoted-beyond-their competency traitors like Brennan-the-communist, Clapper-the-perjurer, and the bloated buffoon Al Gore publicly encouraging a coup against a legitimately elected president, while, at the same time, the Democratic vermin who masquerade as journalists, actors, academics, and comedians call for the death of the president. Finally, there is an espionage ring of Pakistanis — who appear to have drained an ocean of security-related data from congressional computers and sold it to other nations — that was hired, overpaid, and protected by Democratic representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose apparently deliberate crimes are now being investigated by her brother.

Likewise, Americans have seen war-mongering cretins like Senators McCain and Graham work to involve the republic in other peoples’ wars, or, if none were available, to send U.S. forces to intervene in a country irrelevant to the republic’s interests and start one of their own. They also have experienced the obvious but still extraordinary fact that nearly all of our presidents, senators, and representatives have been monetarily suborned by the Israel-adoring, Jewish-American community, and the media it controls and directs, to shamelessly dance a jig to whatever tune the disloyal Israel-Firsters call. In recent months, this reality has included their extortion of $38 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars for Israel, which is a premier leach-state preying on the American treasury in the company of such other big-league leaches as NATO, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt.

There also is a pending, 1st Amendment-killing, bipartisan bill in Congress that bans Americans from economically boycotting Israel or even advocating that action. If it becomes law, it will penalize those who ignore the law’s elimination of free speech with a “minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.” (1) (NB: Readers will recall George III did not imprison Americans for boycotting British goods, as U.S. senators and representatives are now eager to do to their fellow citizens.) Finally, the Republican establishment and its congressional contingent sat like silent and useless asses for eight years while Obama shredded the constitution, facilitated the entry of criminal aliens who murdered, raped, and otherwise assaulted U.S. citizens, and launched wars that completed the globalization of Islamist insurgency. Indeed, so stupid are the Republicans that they watched Obama, after the Russian hacking story broke, display a laser-like focus on repeatedly assuring Americans that Russia had not tampered with voting machines. He obviously did so because he and his advisers did not want a thorough examination of U.S. voting machines because the inspectors would have found a large number of them rigged for Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party and George Soros.

Patience, it is said, is a blessing, but, in this case, much more than an additional bit of patience will kill the republic. Americans have watched for far too long the lawlessness of both the bipartisan governing elite and the absolute unwillingness of their elected representatives to enforce and abide by the law. As patience runs out, the question becomes what to do?

Do Americans sit back as if they are addled and neutered cattle — like the British, French, Germans, and Canadians — and let both parties continue to do as they will, bankrupting the country; eradicating Christianity; destroying American culture, history, and nationalism; starting more wars to kill and maim their children; and deliberately create a mongrel population of peasants that is devoid of thinking, self-sufficient, liberty-loving adults and is dominated by the illiterate, non-English-speaking, and government-worshiping scum of Third World?

Or, do citizens perform their duty as Mr. Jefferson, the other founders, and their 2nd Amendment defined it, and risk all in an effort to slay the hardening tyranny and its champions, a tyranny that seems to be the overriding goal of most members of both parties, their prized, pampered, favored, and often deviant minorities, the media, the lawyers, and the academy?

Perhaps now, more than ever before, the decision of whether the republic is to survive must not be left to a corrupt, lawless, and effeminate national government and its acolytes. This decision must be grasped from them by an armed citizenry that is ready, when the time comes, to administer quick and decisive justice to those who have knowingly brought the republic to this lawless and utterly intolerable pass.

North Carolina’s James Iredell, a too-little-known member of the Founding fraternity, wrote an essay in 1775 — that is,before Jefferson’s Declaration — called “To the Inhabitants of Great Britain and Principles of an American Whig.” In the essay, Iredell stated that

“government being only the means of securing freedom and happiness to the people, whenever it deviates from this end, and their freedom and happiness are in great danger of being irrevocably lost, the government is no longer entitled to their allegiance, the only consideration for which it could be justly claimed or honorably pledged being basely and tyrannically withheld.”

(2)

Iredell reviewed the totality of the baseness and tyrannical intent contained in the Crown’s policies and actions toward British North Americans, and concluded that the time was fast approaching when a rebellion by His Majesty’s subjects would be required if English liberties were to be restored. All honor to Iredell for his words and courage, but his generation of Americans did not experience anything close to the tyranny and baseness that today’s citizenry has endured for decades at the hands of their lawless bipartisan governing elite and the party establishments they have created.

What to do citizens do now? Well, stockpile additional ammunition and give Trump a little more time and see if all of the above named enemies of the republic are indicted. While waiting, it seems not only appropriate but just, for the deplorables to begin to draft lists of those who can be properly called the “expendables.” Start with those named above — if they are not indicted — and then flesh out this list of the lawless, globalist, and corrupt with others who stand out so clearly as the enemies of the rule of law and the concept of equality before the law. We all can pray that the citizenry does not have undertake its constitutional duty of rebellion to destroy tyranny, but that prayer may not be answered without a fight.

This is fair enough. After all, God helps those who both pray and help themselves. Risking life, limb, wealth, and kin to eliminate this plague of expendables — as the Founders intended, if the government they created became a tyranny — seems a necessity based on the duties that citizens owe to those who gave them this republic; to themselves, their families, and their countrymen; and to their posterity. “The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards,” Samuel Adams wrote in late 1771,

And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv’d them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas’d them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it.

Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath’d to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. — Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that “if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.” It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. (3)

It is not at all surprising that words written in 1771 to motivate resistance to tyranny can be just as pertinent, inspiring, and instructive in fighting tyranny in 2017. More evidence, I suppose, that human nature, and the politics it produces, never change for the better, and so tyranny is always just around the corner, ready to enslave those who have neither studied nor learned from history’s relentless repetitiveness.

Endnotes

1. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720, and http://gothamist.com/2017/07/19/schumer_gillibrand_co-sponsor_senat.php
2. https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion-article/james-iredell-and-the-nobility-of-fighting-for-freedom/
3. Samuel Adams, “On Liberty,” Boston Gazette, 14 December 1771.

Just when you think that you have heard all of the asinine ideas possible about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, out comes one that is so hideously ridiculous that you must assume the authors are demented and writing from a well-secured asylum.

The quote below comes from an article about the future of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan that was in the USA Today Network on 14 July 2017. The article discusses several U.S. options in Afghanistan, but the one that takes the cake is the brainchild of two champions of the war in Iraq, who — as Tucker Carlson correctly said about Max Boot — can be relied on to propose ideas that will start unnecessary and always losing wars for the republic. The article’s authors are Michael O’Hanlon, an analyst from the Brookings Institution, who was orgasmic over invading Iraq, and the former general/now-felon David Petraeus, who lost the war in Iraq and helped lose the one in Afghanistan The article refers to some recent work by these two brain-dead beauties.

“O’Hanlon also co-authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal with former CIA Director and four-star general David Petraeus that takes aim at most of the opposing views of continuing the war and argues that the U.S. must consider Afghanistan the center of a generation-long fight against extremism with no definition of ‘victory.’” (1)

Mr. Trump, these two men are war-mongering, elitist, money-grubbing idiots. There is no need for the United States to participate in “generation-long fight against extremism” that is centered in Afghanistan; indeed, there is no longer any plausible reason for America to be engaged in any war in Afghanistan. U.S. military forces have been there since October, 2001, and the security situation in the country is far more in favor of the Taliban — and increasingly the Islamic State — than it was 16 years ago, not even Kabul is secure.

In addition, the morons of U.S. foreign policy-making have been involved in only part of what is now the Afghan Islamists’ 40-plus year fight against foreign/infidel occupation, the first stirrings of which began in 1977-78 against the USSR’s puppet communist regime in Kabul. In these 40 years the Afghan Islamists and their various allies — Pakistani mujahideen, al-Qaeda, Arab volunteers, Chinese Uighurs, etc. — have worn out all foreign occupiers, even though they had no air cover and little in the way of artillery or other heavy arms. The Soviets could not win with a 120,000-man Red Army force, and U.S. and NATO generals could not win with a force of the same size and air assets far greater than the Soviets employed.

You will note in the above quote, Mr. President, that the two geniuses want you to agree to a war that has “no definition of ‘victory’.” This, Sir, is because the two authors — and most U.S. and NATO generals — are chronic losers who never want to win a war, but only to prolong it so that the taxpayer gravy-train upon which they gorge continues forever. If your generals are trying to sell such slop — and Petraeus often speaks for that lot of losers, including McMaster — pull on you businessman’s hat and recognize that these charlatans are trying to get you to sign a contract to build something that neither you nor anyone else can ever build (a stable, secular, democratic Afghanistan with an effective military); a contract that offers no hint of what the final cost will be in lives, limbs, and tax dollars; and a contract that has no completion date, and clearly states that the project may never be completed.

If your are the businessman you are reputed to be, Mr. President, you will take the republic by the hand and get it permanently out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. If the generals oppose this utterly necessary America First policy, Mr. President, cashier several hundred of them and urge them sign up to become Afghan Field Marshals and then go to glory by fighting and dying alongside the Afghan forces they have failed to train to even a minimal military proficiency over the past 16 years.

Mr. President, Afghanistan always has been America’s easiest foreign policy-problem. Several thousand years of human history have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that unless a foreign invader/occupier annihilates most Afghans and then colonizes their country, the occupier will go home the loser — if he can fight his way out. The Afghans, Sir, cannot be worn out, demoralized, or made into model secular citizens. They are, after all, fighting for their faith, their land, their tribe, and their god against non-Muslim foreign invaders/occupiers who threaten each.

Like all other human groupings, Mr. President, the Afghans — like the Imperial Japanese — can be obliterated, but they cannot be beaten by the same sort of half-hearted, undersized, and politically correct military pin-pricks that your generals have called war since 2001, nor will they ever accept the kind “compromise peace” that is so beloved by your feckless diplomats. If your military, diplomatic, and intelligence minions tell you something to the contrary, put on your best New York accent and tell them that they are a “damn bunch of full-of-shit fools,” and that your done throwing good American lives and money after bad. Then order them to get all Americans out of Afghanistan, and to do so lickety split.

Endnote

1. http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/07/14/donald-trump-afghanistan-war-bob-corker-rex-tillerson/438935001/

I hesitated to again use this space for this issue, but I thought that there would be some interest in the HULU team’s arrogant and elitist response to my recent post showing that more than 70-perecent of the “Looming Tower” television project is knowingly based on lie, a lie that is now crystal clear and increasingly well-publicized because of the unclassified Department of Justice document posted in the last piece on this issue. (NB: The earlier articles on this issue can be found here and here.)

On 19 July 2017, I received the two notes that follow from “Legendary,” which is the company that is making Lawrence Wright’s hoax-based television series and selling it to HULU.

1.) The first is the cover letter that came from Legendary. It was copied as it was received. That is, the typo is not mine for a change.

Dear Dr. Scheuer,

On behalf of Jennifer Grazier, EVP, at Legendary TV Buiness Affairs, enclosed is a letter in connection with “The Looming Tower.” Thank you.

Best — Debbie Urrutia, Interim Executive Assistant, Legendary TV — Business/Legal Affairs

2.) The second letter was attached to the cover note. Apparently the letter’s author — Executive Vice-President Jennifer Grazier — has an advanced degree in being haughty, patronizing, and treating people as her inferiors. The letter was sent as a pdf that could be neither easily copied nor printed, at least with my modest computer skills. The blurry copy below is the best I could do in terms of inserting the letter in this piece, but I have retyped much of it below the graphic.

In the opening paragraph, Ms. Grazier tells me that she is writing “on behalf of Legendary in response to your concerns.” The middle paragraph — annotated for clarity — follows in full:

“As you may know, dramatizations and docudramas are afforded a high degree of artistic latitude [Ms. Grazier means wide-ranging and deliberate dishonesty] in their portrayal of real-life events. While the series draws on meticulous research, including Lawrence Wright’s probing work [Ms. Grazier has a sense of humor or cannot read], as a basis for portraying the events leading up to the attacks of September 11, 2011, the series will ultimately employ artistic license to tell a story [Ms. Grazier means to tell a lie] with dramatic effect. A dramatization or docudrama may fictionalize dialogue, may telescope, condense, or rearrange events and may create composite or fictional characters as an expression of artistic license [Ms. Grazier means deliberate deceit]. The character about whom you express concern — Martin Schmidt — is one such fictional character [whom, Ms. Grazier is saying, we mean to knowingly defame].”

That’s a pretty good try to disguise the fact that Legendary — if its promotional materials are not lies — clearly intends to intentionally lie to Americans, mislead them, blacken the CIA in the eyes of the citizenry, and defame all of the CIA officers who pursued Usama Bin Ladin, and who had completed the bin Laden-mission assigned to them by September 1998. Of course, being a typically narcissistic liberal, Ms. Grazier tries to make this about me rather than the proven lie her company and HULU are preparing to foist on Americans as a “docudrama.”

Ms. Grazier also speaks about the “meticulous research” that has gone into the project, but ignores the primary-source document I provided in my last post on this issue, a document that makes her claim a nonsense. That document, and others that are likely available, clearly show — again if the promotional materials are not lies — that the research for this series, and, I think, much of Mr. Wright’s book, was at very best biased and half-assed, and that the core of a 10-part TV series will be knowingly based on lies that have been concocted by left-wing blackguards to promote their political agenda. In short, the Looming Tower series will be presented by Wright, his sidekicks, and two film companies, all of whom know they are perpetrating a hoax, to promote their lying left-wing political agenda in a “docudrama”. I suppose that this is because you cannot lie, defame, and pull off a hoax as easily in a straight-forward documentary. Who knows, this series may be the grandest achievement yet in the burgeoning field of fake media productions.

Ms. Grazier’s final elitist paragraph pats me on the head, tells me to be a good little boy, to make sure I watch the series, and makes it clear that I am unworthy of their concern and should shut up. Ms. Grazier writes,

“We hope this this addresses your concerns, and we encourage you to watch the series when it premieres. Please note that our failure to respond to any additional correspondence does not change our thoughts set forth herein.” [NB: I wrote no ‘letter’ to anyone, I merely sent copies of my last blog to as many of the hoaxers as I could find addresses for. I could not find an address for Legendary, and so I guess some big, brave, and deceitful author ran to mama.]

Ms. Grazier and her colleagues at Legendary, Lawrence Wright and his cohorts, and their paymasters at HULU are simply saying to me and all Americans who watch, listen, or review the coming series, “Fuck the truth, you’ll believe what we tell you to believe in our lie-based Looming Tower series.”

While our republic is pretty far gone, there still must be a legal difference between “artistic license” and an intentional decision to produce a hoax to deceive Americans, defame those who defended America, and advance the Democratic political agenda. But if Ms. Grazier and her reptilian kind are correct in their definition of “artistic license,” than HULU can henceforth use an advertising slogan akin to: “HULU happily hoaxes Americans and they can’t do a thing about it!”

That slogan would be both catchy and have the great advantage of being truthful.

See also: