Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

In terms of America’s genuine national interests, the central takeaway from the G-20 Summit in Germany has almost nothing to do with what went on in the Summit’s discussions and declarations. The Summit produced what it always produces, hot air and political posturing. President Trump, however, did what he needed to do for America and calmed down our ties with the Russians.

I read this afternoon that the fossilized commentator David Gergen said that this was the first time that America was not the leader of the Summit and the Free World. My view, for what it is worth, is that that is simply great news. Being the leader of the free world means that U.S. citizens pay the freight for Europe’s security, and the defense of numerous Arab tyrants, with their taxes, and with their children in their wars. Losing the title of “Leader of the Free World” can only mean that the United States is safer, and that “America First” can yet be made a reality. One sure way of knowing how well Mr. Trump did in defusing tensions with Russia, is to listen to the attacks launched on his meeting with Putin by FOX commentator John Bolton and Senators Graham and McCain, each a Neocon, an Israel Firster, and a war-causing, democracy monger.

More important, however, was President Trump’s speech in which he said that the most important issue at hand was whether the West was willing to save itself. This theme encompasses the key issue: Is NATO is worth a tinker’s damn to the United States?

In Hamburg, Mr. Trump saw for himself the negative answer to that question appearing in the form of violent and dissolute youth destroying property on the streets of the city. He now knows that his national-security aides have lied to him about the willingness of the EU and NATO states and their populations to defend themselves. Those states may spend more money on defense, but save — perhaps — for Britain, Poland, Hungary, and Romania, most of the other NATO and EU countries have bred out of their populations patriotism, civic duties and responsibilities, and the willingness to defend liberty. Indeed, they have created educational systems that have taught three generations of young Europeans to hate Western civilization and to be ignorant of and/or hateful toward the history of their own countries.

Overall, the EU has been the engine that has made so many of Europe’s young people barbarians — witness the condoned barbarity of Hamburg’s young — and facilitated the admission of millions of Third World barbarians to join them in destroying Europe. (NB: Americans should take no comfort in the fact that there is an ocean between themselves and Europe. Their leaders in both parties, the media, the churches, and the academy are doing the same things the EU is doing, only they are about a generation behind the EU-created nightmare that is preparatory to civil war.)

No matter how much the non-English-speaking, NATO countries increase their military spending, they will never be able to field armies capable of defending anything without U.S. conventional, nuclear, and human power. And because the U.S. military has so few ground troops to apply conventional power, only the nuclear option is pertinent. The young criminals that Americans saw on Hamburg’s streets burning cars, looting shops, and throwing potentially lethal projectiles at the police and innocent bystanders would never rally to Germany’s defense; they would more likely support those who sought to invade and occupy it. The media report that these young gangsters wounded about 400 German police officers, and the police apparently were ordered not to respond except to squirt water and pepper spray at the violent thugs every once in a while. The correct response to this kind of mass violence, which endangered the security of a major city and port, and also put its law-abiding population at risk, is to shoot-to-kill anyone seen hurling or preparing to hurl a lethal projectile, burning a car, or looting a shop. The German failure to so ensures that the next time the criminal protestors take to the streets — whether in Germany or later this week in France — the carnage will be worse.

What Mr. and Mrs. Trump saw on the streets of Europe, then, was a microcosm of the EC’s military-age population, and in it there was not a potential soldier to be seen. That there are patriotic and liberty-loving youth in the EC is certain — note those who voted for Brexit, those who cheered Trump in Poland, and those who supported Marie Le Penn — but they seem to be small in number, and are either already in the military or routinely ostracized from society as far-right wingers or even fascists. For the United States, there can be no commonsense-based expectation that the EU could field an army that would not be overrun — along with our Europe-based forces — by a multi-army Russian invasion .

This situation ought to give pause to those who claim NATO is a strong and essential part of U.S. defense strategy. NATO is a hollow and so dangerously fragile egg; it has almost no military worth without the United States protecting it. If past is prologue, the recent defense-spending increases by NATO states will dry up in a few years, and to recreate a population that is civic-minded, patriotic, nationalistic, and liberty-loving is the work of generations. In addition, Neocon claims that America and Europe share the same values is another lie. Where do you see support in the EU for Adam Smith’s freedom troika of life, liberty, and property? Here are just a few examples of the attitude of the EU and NATO and their member governments toward those key Smithian elements of freedom.

The EU and Life:

• The death sentence British and EU courts issued to a deathly ill 11-month old, by refusing him continued life-support and not allowing the baby to be brought to the United States for experimental treatment.
• The refusal of most European governments to prosecute Muslims who rape and otherwise sexually molest young children and women, and a media that does not report such attacks.

The EU and Liberty:

• The imprisonment of the eminent historian David Irving, who questions the extent of the holocaust.
• The imprisonment of native Britons — like Tommy Robinson — who oppose their government’s welcome, economic favoritism, and special legal protection for Muslim criminals and terrorists.

The EU and Property:

• The German government either seizing private property and using it to house Muslim refugees, or inundating rural towns with Muslims who outnumber their populations.
• The British government reserving a share of new houses for Muslim refugees, preventing native Britons from purchasing them.
• The German government’s tolerance for the Hamburg violence which destroyed so much private property.

NATO is death trap for the United States. A massive Russian military incursion into the EU and NATO countries would quickly crush the small NATO forces that would oppose it; that is, if those forces did not run from the Russians. At that point, the U.S. — under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which surrenders America’s sovereignty and independence — would have no option but to use nuclear weapons in the defense of nations and peoples that, with a few exceptions, will not defend themselves against either internal nor external enemies. That seems like an insane situation for the United States to be locked into, especially when the values of Europe’s governments and peoples are so clearly antithetical to those of Americans.

Americans have been faced with this automatic-war option previously. In 1919, for example, President Woodrow Wilson tried to ram the League of Nations Covenant through the U.S. Senate — then, unlike now, composed of a goodly number of adult patriots — and suffered defeat at the hands of that body’s non-interventionists. Article X of the Covenant committed the United States to go to war if another member of the League was the target of an offensive war. In other words, the great Democrat Wilson wanted to remove the decision for war from where it was vested by the Constitution — in the hands of the citizenry through its elected representatives — and deliver it into foreign hands beyond Americans’ control. NATO’s Article 5 does precisely the same thing, committing America today, in fact, to nuclear war for Europe states to whom we owe nothing and with which we have little left in terms of common values.

One of the final nails in the coffin of Wilson’s republic-killing, pro-League agenda was a speech by Idaho’s Republican Senator William E. Borah, who was a resolute non-interventionist and, that rarest of God’s creatures, a successful one. The entire speech is worth reading, but the following paragraph, in particular, is as pertinent today as it was in the debate over the League of Nations in 1919.

But your treaty does not mean peace—far, very far, from it. If we are to judge the future by the past it means war. Is there any guaranty of peace other than the guaranty which comes of the control of the war-making power by the people? Yet what great rule of democracy does the treaty leave unassailed? The people in whose keeping alone you can safely lodge the power of peace or war nowhere, at no time and in no place, have any voice in this scheme for world peace. Autocracy which has bathed the world in blood for centuries reigns supreme. Democracy is everywhere excluded. This, you say, means peace. (1)

Neither the League of Nations’ Covenant nor the NATO Treaty meant peace for the United States. The former meant the end of American sovereignty and independence, automatic war, and foreign control in 1919, and so was properly scotched by the Senate. In today’s world, the NATO Treaty means the same things, and it is time to be ushered out the door as quickly as possible.

Endnote

1. William E. Borah, “Speech on The League of Nations,” 19 November 1919, http://www.historycentral.com/documents/Borah.html

On 19 December 2015, I wrote in this space that I had been asked by the author Lawrence Wright to help him prepare a television docudrama about the years leading up to Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks for a company called HULU. (NB: After some research, I understand that HULU is widely purported to be a prolific and discerning producer of television programming.) In the above-noted 2015 article, I wrote that I had ignored Mr. Wright’s request and explained why. I have included that entire article as an appendix below.

Over the past several weeks, I ran across a number of articles on the internet that recount the actors being hired to act in Mr. Wright’s docudrama, which the HULU brains trust seem to have bought from Mr. Wright to turn into a series to air later in 2017. Several of these articles included the following synopsis of the story, apparently as it pertains to the character that plays my part; using the first initials of my first and last name, the character is called Martin Schmidt. Oddly, the other actors in the film who are mentioned in the articles appear to be using the true names of people I worked with, such as George Tenet, John O’Neil, etc. Does Mr. Wright’s decision to make up a false name for a living and easily identifiable person immunize him from the laws of libel, defamation, and slander? Perhaps it does, but we shall see. Anyway, here is a pertinent quote from one of the articles I mentioned above. (Emphasis added).

“Peter Sarsgaard will play Martin Schmidt, a CIA analyst who invariably believes he’s by far the smartest person in the room. Under orders to share intelligence with John O’Neill (Daniels) and the FBI, Schmidt opts instead to horde information under the misguided notion that the CIA is the only agency equipped to battle potential terrorist threats.” (1)

After reading this passage, I understood why Mr. Wright is calling this a docudrama, and my own wisdom in steering clear of the project. He is calling it a docudrama because at least this part of his story is a complete, utter, and easily provable lie. Now, having spoken to Mr. Wright on numerous occasions several years ago while he was drafting his book The Looming Tower — and then reading that fantasy on its publication — I am intimately familiar with Mr. Wright’s duplicity and abhorrence for truth, as well as his very selective and always anti-CIA use of public information that is available about 9/11, Osama bin Laden, and al-Qaeda. In my view, his book amply proved that nothing that Mr. Wright says, writes, or produces on these issues can be accepted without checking the facts, not least of all because, as we shall see below, he apparently never checks facts himself. In the above passage, for example, he claims “Martin Schmidt” was a “CIA analyst.”

Assuming that “Martin Schmidt” is me — and it seems it could be no one else — Mr. Wright is lying about a fact that is easily checkable. I worked at the CIA from September 1982, until November 2004. During that period, I was an analyst from September 1982, until December 1985. After December 1985, I worked on, and then managed, covert operations in the Directorate of Operations. In other words, a mere nine words into the foregoing synopsis, Mr. Wright has knowingly lied to his audience and to those paying for his film. Does anyone at HULU bother to check facts or accuracy before they buy a property?

This is a small but telling point. The bigger, more important, and history-disfiguring lie in Mr. Wright’s docudrama, however, comes at the end of the above passage.

“Under orders to share intelligence with John O’Neill (Daniels) and the FBI, Schmidt opts instead to horde information under the misguided notion that the CIA is the only agency equipped to battle potential terrorist threats.”

This is particularly important in terms of history; the citizenry’s trust in the CIA’s all-out effort, and the integrity its work against UBL, before 9/11; and, in personal, and I suppose selfish terms, what my children and grandchildren will think about me and what I did to try to defend the republic. Mr. Wright’s promotional material also claims that his docudrama “takes a controversial look at how the rivalry between the CIA and FBI inadvertently might have set the stage for the tragedy of 9/11 and the war in Iraq.” (2) That means, I assume, that my — or rather, Martin Schmidt’s — decision to “horde information” and hide it from the FBI led directly to 9/11 and the Iraq War.

Naturally, I am eager not only to defend myself, but also the officers I had the privilege to lead; our colleagues in the field who risked their lives to locate bin Laden; and the pre-Obama Agency that I dearly loved. But I am not going to do that. Instead, I will let the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ms. Mary Jo White, explain the nature and extent of my own, my unit’s, and the CIA’s cooperation and information-sharing with the D0J lawyers and FBI officers assigned to work with CIA against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

In so doing, I think, it will be apparent that Mr. Wright is nothing more than a two-bit liar and a devout Clinton acolyte when it comes to my and CIA’s pre-9/11 behavior as it has been described in the above promotional material for his docudrama. If Mr. Wright has decided to lie on these easily verifiable issues, one wonders what other lies he has built into the rest of his docudrama, or his books for that matter. HULU executives, should you not be wondering the same?

Wright’s above-mentioned lies cover the period from the creation of Alec Station in December, 1995, until I was replaced as its chief in June, 1999. The document written by Ms. White that is presented below will, I think, clearly demonstrate Mr. Wright’s intentional deceit, which appears to be the pivot for his docudrama. Mr. Wright’s lie therefore invalidates the portion of his docudrama that covers 43 of the 60 months — or almost 72-percent — of the chronological period apparently encompassed in the docudrama. Other CIA officers — former and current — are better positioned than I to know if there is any truth in the final 28-percent of the docudrama.

You do have to tip your hat to Mr. Wright for at least one reason, however. He presumably will walk away from his docudrama with a substantial paycheck derived from his scamming of HULU, its executives, and its investors, stockholders, and audience by selling them a fantasy under the the title of docudrama. I guess some television moguls are not as smart and savvy as they are cracked up to be. But do not worry, HULU brass, I will keep an eye out for more of Mr. Wright’s promotional materials. I will try to identify for you any additional lies therein, lies which you are paying for and which will be used to mislead — indeed, propagandize — HULU’s audiences. That Mr. Wright appears to be yet another leftist, fake-media shill is no surprise to me, so I may have a lot to report. It will be interesting to learn whether HULU’s management is interested in discovering, and then correcting, the manner in which they are being skinned.

Following, then, is a letter I received in May, 1999, from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ms. Mary Jo White. It clearly demonstrates, I think, that Mr. Wright’s docudrama is grounded in his deliberate, blatant, and easily proven lie, a lie that shreds his credibility and gives him a well-deserved place in the pantheon of blackguards who are recognized as iconic purveyors of fake media.

U.S.. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007

May 24, 1999

Michael F. Scheuer
Central Intelligence Agency Langley, Virginia

Dear Mike:

I write to express my profound gratitude for your outstanding work and leadership over the last four years in the investigations of Usama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, al Qaeda.

As you know, this Office began a criminal investigation into Usama Bin Laden and the al Qaeda network three years ago, working in conjunction with the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). Since the first day, you and your colleagues welcomed members of our office to participate in discussions with you and your colleagues as to how the separate but related law enforcement and intelligence investigations could coordinate to make sure that neither did anything to compromise the other and, where legal and appropriate, to enhance each other. I know from first hand knowledge that early on in the case — when the Bin Laden network was not in the public eye — the prosecutors in my office were awed both by your incredibly diligent work ethic and your determination to make your mission a successful one, as well as the efforts you made early on in the case to coordinate your work with the law enforcement effort in a manner that in my experience was unprecedented in this country’s history. It was obvious from the work of your staff who labored hard with tremendous resolve that your diligence and determination were contagious. That effort — combined with the accommodations you made at critical times to allow the evidentiary needs of law enforcement to be protected — made it possible for Usama Bin Laden to be indicted by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York in June 1998. Without your diligence, leadership and cooperation, your law enforcement partners would simply not have been able to obtain such an Indictment and for that my Office and the public will always be in your debt.

The diligence and professionalism of you and your staff, and your willingness to work hand in hand with Special Agent Daniel Coleman and the prosecutors in my office where and as appropriate, also made it possible to charge many of the suspects indicted so soon after the horrific East Africa Embassy bombings. Law enforcement had a running start on that investigation because you had been not only willing, but eager, to share information with us from the beginning. I also know that no one has logged more hours than you did to work against the Bin Laden network. I know that your prodigious labors had to take much time away you could otherwise have spent with your family. Having recently met with many of the victims’ families, rest assured that your efforts to prevent terrorist acts, and your willingness to help us hold those who carried out past attacks responsible, have had a very real impact on your fellow Americans as well as the citizens of Kenya and Tanzania and other countries. I would be honored if you would allow me to present a plaque to you at a time which would allow both you and your family to be present as they have shared in your sacrifice. We would very much like to express our appreciation to them as well.

In short, you have been a leader and a valued colleague in the fight against international terrorism. I cannot overstate the significance of your staff’s work and their dedication to the preservation of our nation’s security. As a symbolic but heartfelt memento of the effort put forth by you and your staff, I present you with one of the original warrants obtained for the arrest of Usama Bin Laden on June 10, 1998. To my Office, it represents a watershed in how the law enforcement and intelligence communities ought to cooperate and we thank you for making it possible.

Sincerely yours,

MARY JO WHITE
United States Attorney

cc: The Honorable George Tenet Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Endnotes

1. http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/827975-looming-tower-series-peter-sarsgaard
2. http://deadline.com/2017/05/alec-baldwin-george-tenet-the-looming-tower-hulu-series-1202082758

Appendix

• Hollywood to again whitewash Clinton’s culpability for the 9/11 attacks?

I have to admit that on most occasions President Trump’s tweets make my day. Aside from the fact that the tweets are absolutely necessary for him to keep in touch with the voters who elected him, the tweets demonstrate that there are very few holies for him in a contemporary American society that is being overwhelmed and intellectually paralyzed with newly invented and utterly demented holies.

President Trump’s tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump’s supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists — the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel “Here’s Trump’s Tax returns” Madow of MSNBC, for example — have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them.

Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security, as well as that of their womanish political protectors like Senator Shumer, Speaker Ryan, the Marxist moron Senator Sanders, Senator Graham., and the rest of the girly men who are so prominent in Congress. Nowadays, clowns like Mika and Joe throw rocks, and Trump, praise God, responds by throwing boulders that reduces these creatures, whose only skill is reading the news-scripts smarter people write, to a quivering state in which they whine and whimper about how unfairly the president is using the bully pulpit to attack them.

I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding “full equality” in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There’s not a lick of truth in that assertion.

Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father’s name. Mika and the noble steed she rides — I think his name is Joe––have been damning the president, his family members, anyone associated with him, and those who voted for him since long before last November’s election. Trump now chooses to respond in kind, and ol’ unhinged and stitched-up Mika is reduced to multiple on-air breakdowns, while the rest of those demanding “equality” in the public square rally to her defense because Trump had the nerve — and savvy — to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman.

Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals — and, not infrequently, as much more than equals — in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named “I can say and do what I want, but you can’t attack me because I’m a woman.”

When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL’s killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika?

But instead of these heroic, self-confident women serving as role models, we now have the great, brave, equality-seeking Mika, who is bent on being womanhood’s role model, even while she acts as a clearly aging and cowering crybaby, and is now drowning in crocodile tears because Trump thoroughly thrashed her at own game.

Likewise, we have Susan Rice — apparently the great “unmasker” — denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama’s orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she’s a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia’s evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch.

These three women are the Ms. Flotsam, Ms. Jetsam, and Grandma Detritus of a vast herd of child-like women, journalists, blacks, and minorities of all kinds who do not want equality in the public square — which requires courage, hard work, and a certain manliness — but rather want all the benefits that would accrue there to brave and well-balanced adults, while not recognizing the right of anyone they publicly hate, castigate, lie about, and dehumanize to respond in kind.

As Nathan Detroit, Sam Spade, or some other savant once said, “Dames is trouble,” and, as I say, a whining bitch remains a whining bitch until she grows up and acts like a man.

Mr. President,

Last week’s media reporting was filled with reports that you have described the House’s health care bill as “mean.” Now, if you think that bill is mean, you are not even close to being in the same ballpark as the bulk of your countrymen. There is so much meanness that has been directed toward Americans in congressional legislation and executive actions already on the books, that whatever you see in the House’s healthcare bill is no more a drop in the bucket of accumulated and deliberate national government meanness toward Americans.

In terms of healthcare, there is not much meanness in either bill — House or Senate — but rather a great deal of natural and unavoidable floundering because the national government has no business, competence, or money to be involved in any form of universal medical care, save for some assistance through Social Security for senior citizens and the disabled. As always, anything the national government gives away in healthcare services will be inordinately expensive, bankrupting, and generally ineffective.

But, I am in the minority on this issue, and so must ultimately acquiesce in the madness that contends a national healthcare program is a “right”. There is, however, a way to find funding for some of the expense of the looming healthcare debacle by identifying some of the true meanness the national government has inflicted on the citizenry, eradicating it, and using the savings to help pay for healthcare.

Let me suggest, Mr. President, that you first take to the television and tell the American people the absolute truth; namely, that the whole healthcare debate is taking place in a framework of America’s complete bankruptcy, a situation in which there is no room for new expenditures, especially of the unpredictable kind involved in healthcare. If the Congress, the Senate, and you, Mr. President, are intent on saddling our posterity with monstrous additional expenditures, perhaps that debt can be partially paid for by cutting government meanness. Let me list a few of the mean — even cruel — policies and programs of the national government that merit annihilation.

Foreign Aid: Even as the nation now sits sinking in bankruptcy, the 535 members of the Congress, with your signature, continue to give tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to foreigners. There is not one cent that is given to foreigners in economic, healthcare, educational, or military aid that could not be far better spent at home. The unutterable meanness inherent in the sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to foreigners since 1945 has been an absolute disgrace, considering the assistance that money could have rendered to Americans who are hungry, sick, unemployed, and at risk from antiquated infrastructure. That is Mr. Trump, is truly a severe and utterly premeditated form of governmental meanness.

Charitable Deductions: As you and the Congress draft a tax-reform bill, there should be major changes made in regard to what kind of charitable donations are eligible for a tax deduction. Now, no one wishes to discourage charity or to put a roadblock in the path of those want to donate, but it is an insanity to give tax deductions to people who donate to charities and other organizations that spend all or part of their income overseas. All charity deductions deny revenue to the national government, and this loss of revenue ought to be fully welcomed when those funds are spent at home to help Americans. There is, however, a spectacular meanness in the depriving the bankrupt national government of additional, desperately needed revenue by giving tax deductions to U.S. citizens who donate to foreign charities, or to domestic charities that spend their money abroad, and thereby deprive the national government of tax revenue needed to assist the republic and its citizenry. When reforming the tax code, Mr. President, do not permit charitable deductions for donations by individuals and corporations that are intended for use outside the United States. The money donated to the Catholic Church, for example, should deductible only if it is spent in the United States. The Catholic Church — and similar Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim institutions — should be made to report their total annual income and where it was spent, and deductions for donors should only be allowed for that part of their income spent in America. The same rule should be applied to donations to the World Wildlife Fund, Médecins Sans Frontières Save the Children, and any other charity, NGO, foundation, or religious institution that is based in the United States and sends funds derived from tax-deductible donations overseas. Again, a charitable deduction should be allowed to a donor only if the donation is spent entirely in the United States. Ending the ability of Americans to earn tax deductions for donating to their favorite foreign projects, causes, religions, organizations, people, and governments, Mr. President, will erase another meanness that has been imposed on Americans by their national government.

End U.S. participation in the Afghan war: This war is irretrievably lost, Mr. President, only your generals are delusional enough to think they can win a war they, Bush, and Obama never intended to win. At this point, it cannot be won by 10,000 more U.S. troops, or 500,000 more troops, for that matter. Indeed, our presence in Afghanistan accelerates it complete destabilization, and causes increased Islamic militancy there and in the region. Withdraw all of our troops Mr. President, and end all varieties of aid to the Afghan government, pullout all U.S. civilian officials and contractors, and destroy all U.S.-built military facilities there so they cannot be used by the Islamists, or by the Russians or Chinese when they inevitably move military forces into Afghanistan. There is only one task that must be accomplished before this complete evacuation. As you know, Mr. President, there is a vast hue and cry across the United States about the “Opioid epidemic,” which is, as I understand it, fueled by synthetic drugs, opium products refined from poppies, or a combination of both. Now, it is the loathsome, indefensible truth that the U.S. government and its military have occupied Afghanistan — the world’s largest producer of heroin — since late 2001 and have not permanently destroyed the Afghan heroin industry and as many of its workers, smugglers, abettors, and leaders as possible. There is no better example of the national government’s rampant and deliberate meanness towards its own citizens than to keep reinforcing — with dollars, lives, and limbs — a long-lost war, and to allow U.S. generals and diplomats to blithely refuse to, first, destroy the main producer of the heroin that is ravaging this republic, and, second, to make the ground in which the poppies are grown unusable for centuries for agriculture, just as the Romans did in Carthage.

Republic killing programs: Although the following examples of national government meanness are probably the smallest in terms of dollars spent, ending them would terminate what are perhaps the the greatest sources of deliberate meanness in the national government’s behavior — the for-profit murder of infants, lies portrayed as news, blatant ideological indoctrination, and the intentional destruction of the republic’s history, English-language primacy, culture, equal treatment under the law, and Christian faith. End this deliberate national-government meanness, Mr. President, by permanently defunding National Public Radio (NPR), the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the Department of Education, and Planned Parenthood. The allocations of taxpayer money to these organizations have largely destroyed American culture, reduced several generations of students to mindless, lazy, and leftist automatons, and murdered nearly 60,000,000 young Americans. NPR, PBS, and the Department of Education are nothing more than recruitment tools for the Democratic Party; the globalists and their fascist goals; the Nazi-like climate fanatics; the air-headed advocates of the delights and nobility of sexual perversion, and the anti-religion left and their echoes in the media. The NEA funds artists bent on attacking United States, the Christian religion, the republic’s history, the Constitution and the Union it created, and the primary importance of the rule-of-law and common decency. NEA has made a largely pornographic and racist shit-hole of depravity from what was once American art. Likewise, the NEH has help to produce an educational system that is seeking to destroy the republic and replace it with minority rule, the end of free speech and self-defense, and the absolute rule of the society-and-culture-eating maggots known as diversity and multiculturalism. Planned Parenthood, of course is nothing more then a Stalin-like butcher shop in which infants are murdered, and their parts sold for profit. The national government, Mr. President, should not be using tax revenue to fund these organizations. Their sole intent is to destroy the republic and all citizens that disagree with them. They are the very core of the national government’s meanness, and so cutting all of their funding will not only help fund healthcare, and perhaps provide our now-wounded republic with a chance to heal, it also will stop their enthusiastic breeding of uneducated, amoral, and violence-prone enemies of the republic.

Lord knows, Mr. President, that the foregoing cuts cannot fund the economically ruinous national healthcare program that is on the table. But the cuts could be used for some funding for the health program, while at the same time draining from the national government behavior some of the hallmarks of is meanness and outright cruelty toward the citizenry.

All we and you have is lemons, Mr. President, so you can only make the best of them. Go down the healthcare road if you must, but limit the debt it adds to the current $20 trillion bottomless pit. Take the funds from ending the foregoing “mean” programs and use them for healthcare. In doing so, you also will begin to cut back the immense meanness that has been inherent in the national government’s treatment of its citizens for the past half-century and more, and perhaps you might even begin to restore what the Founders argued was a key to maintaining the republic; that is, a strong sense of popular affection for the national government.

The Sanders’ Democrat who calmly shot Representative Scalise and others today is just the first installment of what the leading Democrats and their funders, George Soros and his ilk, intend to do this country until they can control all of it.

All of the violence, from the start of the 2016 presidential campaign until this day, has been conducted by Democrats, and enabled by their national leaders’ and the mainstream media’s words, suggestions, and depictions of non-Democrats as non-humans, as well as by various Democratic mayors who have prevented their police forces from protecting peaceful opponents of the Democrat Party. The Christian-hating weasel Bernie Sanders is especially responsible for this widespread violence because, as an avowed socialist, he knows that socialism cannot possibly take control of a geographically immense nation without enormous and indiscriminate street violence, which becomes even greater and more lethal and indiscriminate after the socialists take power.

Whether or not today’s shooter was acting alone or at the Democrats’ direction, you can bet your lunch money that the next step is for the leading Democrats and Soros to quickly identify a high-profile Democrat who is, from their point of view, expendable, and then have him or her killed by a hired gun. Before this murder, of course, an electronic trail will be quickly but thoroughly manufactured and put online so that it will appear that the Democrat-paid killer is a Republican, conservative, or libertarian. The human scum that run Facebook, Amazon, Google, Twitter, and Apple can surely manage this task. Naturally, the Democrats will murder their hired killer, basing this action on the reliable Clintonian doctrine that dead men tell no tales.

As noted, today’s attack is just the start of proliferating Democrat-perpetrated violence. But it is not yet time for small “r” republicans to strike back. Indeed, there must be no armed response in the name of avenging those who were wounded today by the Democrat’s rifleman at the Alexandria ball field. The time may well come for an armed response, and, if it does, it should not be conducted in a womanish, tit-for-tat manner, but as a massive and merciless armed onslaught against the Democratic Party’s leaders, organizers, violent youthful slugs, media shills, and funders. But not yet.

For now, the very best way to stem what seems likely to be a gradual increase in the level of Democrat-sponsored violence across this country — which can only lead to civil war — is for President Trump to order Attorney General Sessions to use the FBI and the Department of Justice to indict and arrest — without bail — every last Democrat for whom there is sufficient evidence of law-breaking. As noted in the last piece published on this site, this kind of well-grounded and efficient law-enforcement activity would decapitate the Democratic Party.

Such action is the only way I can think of to reassure non-Democrats that they will not be censored, harassed, beaten, or killed because of their thoughts, words, faith, or political beliefs, and that the vicious forces that Democratic leaders and the mainstream media have aligned under their party’s banner are not above the law. Indictments, bail-less arrests, trials, convictions, if guilt is proven, and incarcerations are about the last tools with which to head off another civil war.

This law-enforcement campaign must get underway now. Another attack by a Sanders-inspired or Clinton-inspired operative on one or more non-Democrats may start the now-looming civil war. The same can be said about what George Soros and his kind are almost certainly planning; namely the above-mentioned murder of a prominent Democrat, after one or more of the high-tech giants have ensured that an internet trail is in place that will pin the murder on on a non-Democrat.

So keep your powder dry, fingers off triggers, and pray and publicly demand that Trump and Sessions do their duty. If the fail to do so, there will be time, arms, and justification enough to destroy the internal enemy en masse.

James Comey admits to taking official government documents home and then giving them to the NY Times; he directly contradicts his 3 May 2017, under-oath testimony; he publicly conspires with that stooge of a Special Counsel Robert Mueller to stage-manage his testimony; he refused to tell Americans that their president was not colluding with the Russians; he coordinated his public language with Attorney General Lynch to please Clinton, protect that criminal, and fix the 2016 election; and, just after the hearing, is reported to have been offered a $10 million advance/payoff from a New York publisher for a book on Trump.

The Senate committee, almost to a man and woman, tried to aid Comey’s lie-filled, anti-republic testimony against Trump. Only Senators Risch, Cornyn, and Rubio did the enormously easy job of demonstrating that Comey is nothing but a lying, two-bit Clinton-whore. A good high-school debater would have had no problem doing the same.

Mr. Trump, God love you for what have done and are trying to do to resuscitate the republic. We need more jobs, a better stock market, no unnecessary wars, the end of government-mandated multiculturalism and diversity, rebuilt infrastructure, elimination of illegal aliens and street gangs, a border wall, lower taxes, the repeal of hate-speech laws, fairer trade, a lengthy ban on all immigration, an end to abortion, and minimal federal regulations. All of these things are indispensable.

But more urgently important than all of these needs, Mr. Trump, is for Americans to see you and Attorney General Sessions vigorously use the now unenforced law to, figuratively, draw a vast effusion of blood from the utterly lawless American elite. Both of you already have in your possessions the basis for indictments of:

• James Comey for perjury, and he and all FBI officials who conspired with him to support the Clinton campaign
• All three Clintons, both Obamas, and Loretta Lynch
• The Clinton Foundation, its leadership team, some of its contributors, and all of the State Department and other national government officials who willing aided the Foundation while Clinton was Secretary of State
• John Podesta and his DNC leadership team,
• Eric Holder and all those DoJ officials involved in Fast&Furious
• Lois Learner and the IRS officials who persecuted conservatives
• All leakers of classified information, most especially serving and former senior U.S. Intelligence Community officials
• George Soros and all U.S.-citizen, billionaire big shots who fund the violence of Democratic demonstrators
• All the Democratic operatives who have rigged voter lists and otherwise assisted the dead and illegal aliens to vote
• All of the mayors, governors, judges, police chiefs, ministers, priests, NGOs, and university leaders who establish and maintain “sanctuary” domains
• The people who killed DNC employee Seth Rich, as well those responsible for the long list of murders of people who crossed the Clintons

You must, President Trump and Judge Sessions, move quickly on the issue of enforcing the law against the bipartisan U.S. political elite and incarcerating those who are convicted — no pardons, no plea bargains, no probation, no omissions.

All the other improvements for the republic aspired to by the Trump administration are important, even essential. But none is as important than beginning to enforce the law against the gangster-dominated American elite. Legally draw their blood, gentlemen, or they will reverse whatever advances you accomplish for the republic when they rig the next election and defeat you. That result will bring on civil war.

And recall, Mr. Trump and Judge Sessions, that you are defenders of the republic and that your oaths-of-office and the Constitution require you to make sure all of the laws are enforced. The citizenry demands no more than that you do your duty.

If you fail to do so, you leave Americans only one option. Their legitimate means of eliminating the gangster-elite, when the law fails or is not applied, is provided by our Founders and the 1st and 2nd Amendments they bequeathed to their posterity.

And after all is said and done, Mr. President and Judge Sessions, if you fail to do your constitutional duty, or are prevented from doing it, the gangster-elite will quickly come to understand why the Lord allowed men of ingenuity and skill to create the AR-15.

We are halfway through May 2017, and it seems to be a month that again highlights the dearth of commonsense in the minds of most of those who are responsible for conducting the republic’s foreign and domestic affairs. On this score, one event merits special notice, namely, the arming of the Kurds.

This decision will eventually have such a widespread and disastrous impact on the Middle East region that the interventionist diplomats, media, generals, and academics who advised President Trump to arm the Kurds will have to fall back on a paraphrase of that old Iraq-War, Bush lie, “We did our best and the calamity that resulted from our decision to arm the Kurds is a case of unintended consequences.” When the worst occurs, anyone with a bit of commonsense will recognize that the failure, destabilization, and additional war that has resulted from arming the Kurds was something that (a) was perfectly and easily predictable and (b) another long step into a fatal swamp in which America has nothing at stake save the feelings, sensitivities, and ardor for lucre of the already rich American governing elite. But first, take a quick look at the two maps that follow.

Map 1

Map 2

As can be seen, there are substantial Kurdish populations in Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, and, at least in Iraq, Kurdish territories sit upon enormous oil and natural gas reserves. Each of those four nations has long feared the Kurds’ strident demands for an independent Kurdish state, their fighting abilities, and their fiery nationalism. As fear always does, the nations’ fear of the Kurds has led to their economic, social, linguistic, and — at times — military oppression by each government. In short, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran have long seen their Kurdish populations as malcontents bent on independence and so a threat to their territorial integrity.

Now along comes Uncle Sam, having been assigned by the interventionists to again stick the republic’s already badly bloodied nose into other peoples’ wars. He brings in his pack, the media report, weapons that are probably superior to any the Kurds have had in their modern history, as well as top-of-the-line military vehicles. Uncle Sam also brings Special Forces trainers/advisers, and ongoing air support from the U.S.-led, anti-Islamic State (IS) coalition. Lastly, he brings the U.S. national government’s okay for the Kurds’ military forces to advance out of the areas that they have traditionally dominated and engage IS mujahideen in areas that have little or no Kurdish population. In other words, they have the okay of the United States to occupy territory that historically, ethnically, and/or religiously belongs to non-Kurds, and there is no indication that our genius diplomats and generals have given much thought to the problem of how to affect their eviction from those territories and get them to return home when/if the battle against IS is won.

Quite obviously, this is another case of mindless U.S. interventionism running amok. Of the four states coping with restive Kurdish populations, only the Turks have publicly denounced Washington’s policy of arming and training their Kurdish enemies. It is difficult to imagine, however, that the Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian regimes are any more pleased than the Turks with the republic’s intervention in the Kurdish problem that it manifestly does not understand, and which will make a much more effective and battle-hardened military force of the separatist-minded Kurds. None of those states could possibly believe that the Kurds assistance in taking ar-Raqqaa is worth the future war it is breeding between them and the Kurds.

The question, as usual, is why do the national government’s supposedly world-class political, economic, and military brains continue to prove themselves so absolutely ignorant of the way the world works, how others live and govern, and of what genuine U.S. national interests look like. Since the start of the Arab Spring, U.S. involvement in Syria, under both parties, has been based on ignoring reality and disabling the Washington’s policy community’s commonsense function.

The unnecessary, arrogant mistake that over-arches the Syria issue was the Obama administration’s declaration — which was supported by most Republicans — that the so-called “Arab Spring” marked the success of U.S. policy in the Middle East, and the launching of an unstoppable surge of secular democracy across the region. I recall being on a FOX News panel on the day Mubarak resigned and saying that the Arab Spring could only yield a telling victory for Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the international Islamist movement. I was virtually hooted of the set by the other panelists, and this for saying something that was crystal clear to anyone but an arrogant deluded interventionist. Simply put, calling the Arab Spring a huge victory for Islamism and the mujahideen was just about the most easy and rudimentary piece of accurate analysis that can be imagined. Why, after all, would tens of millions of North African and Levantine Muslims celebrate the fall of dictators — in which they surely saw God’s hand delivering the answer to their prayers — by turning their back on a deeply held faith in the God that sustained them during decades of dictatorial rule? The argument that secular democracy was at hand because of the Arab Spring could only come from a lying interventionist or someone educated in the U.S. university system and who never challenged the leftist, anti-religious, and pacifist nonsense imparted to him as historically accurate knowledge.

The Republican-media-academy supported Obama/Clinton lie about the Arab Spring, the policies it still informs, and the implementation of those policies have produced the following:

• The U.S.-Western coalition’s knowing consignment of more than a million Syrian Alawites to annihilation if its main goal of destroying Asaad’s government is attained.
• That coalition’s false claim that non-Islamic State, Islamist insurgent groups are less radical, less bloodthirsty, and more pro-western than IS, al-Qaeda, and other mujahideen groups.
• That coalition’s decision to fund, arm, and train these supposedly “moderate” groups, which — if Russia does not save the day and Asaad’ regime is eradicated — did nothing but ensure the ultimate Islamization of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt.
• The expansion of Iran’s influence throughout Iraq and across Syria via its own military and intelligence forces and Iraq’s Shia militia force, which are now also operating in much of Syria. The “Shia Arc” the Sunni world long feared is now complete. It ranges from Iran’s border with Afghanistan all the way to Shia Hizballah’s bastion on the Mediterranean’s waters, and all built by the U.S.-Western interventionist coalition.
• The same coalition is now expanding its military presence in the Syria-Iraq theater. It is focused on capturing cities — as if it was the drive from Normandy toward Berlin — which will do nothing but free all Islamist forces to wage insurgent warfare against all of their foes. The war that the coalition generals have always said “is like no other” has turned into World War II’s European Theater, but with no plausible expectation of crippling IS and the other Islamists, let alone final victory.

It would be hard to think of another measure that could worsen the situation which has been produced by the five actions above, but the interventionists’ blanket stupidity should never be underestimated. They have now come up with such a measure by rubbing the genie’s lamp and freeing — and arming — the lethal genie of Kurdish independence-seeking and territory-grabbing, a genie that Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey have kept in check at great cost to each nation, and especially to the Turks.

Today, the U.S.-armed Kurds are advancing in several directions out of their traditional homelands and into new territory. If ar Raqqa is taken by the U.S.-led coalition, with the Kurds in the van, do our generals believe that they can simply say to the Kurdish leaders, “Thanks a lot. Now, bury your dead and go home”? That may happen, but the odds are that the only way the Kurdish genie can be put back into the lamp is if they are militarily forced into it and the lid is sealed permanently.

And if the U.S.-led coalition does not move to evict the Kurds from non-Kurd territory, and instead supports the creation of an independent Kurdish nation, do U.S. forces fight alongside the Kurds against the Syrian, Iranian, Turkish, Iraqi regimes, and most of the Islamists, none of whom will stand for an independent Kurdish state, let alone one that annexes pieces of Arab or Persian territory? If that is what our national government decides, it will also be signing on to help the Kurds conquer more territory.

Why? Take a second to again look at the maps above. Clearly an independent Kurdish nation limited to its historic territory would be landlocked. It would be sitting on huge reserves in oil and natural gas, but could never be sure that those resources would get to market because the pipelines needed to move them would be controlled by its enemies. The only possible answer to this problem would be to annex a territorial corridor — almost certainly through Syria — that would allow the Kurds to reliably move their energy resources to the Mediterranean for export.

Another war to kill U.S. Marines and soldiers for oil we do not need, anyone?

Endnotes

1. Map 1 is located at: mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com/post/54252391599/areas-with-a-majority-ethnic-kurdish-population
2. Map 2 is located at: s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5b/6f/06/5b6f0682678955727e220c582ec0fd9a.jpg

This morning’s news notes that Defense Secretary James Mattis was in Denmark and is on his way to other European capitals to talk about how to defeat “Islamic terrorism” with our NATO allies. Now, Mattis is — I hope — no one’s fool. But it would be interesting to know how he reconciles the expenditure of his time, the cost of transportation and security, and the continued misleading of Americans about the value of the NATO alliance to U.S. security, with the fact that only last Sunday the French elected yet another president who is eager to preside over, and even quicken, the suicide of the French nation as part of what is now a Europe-wide comic-opera called “Death by Muslim.”

In most NATO capitals, with the exceptions of Warsaw, Budapest, Belgrade, and, partially, London, national governments are unwilling to protect their own native-born people from Muslim immigrants, migrants, and refugees, people who neither want to, nor will be forced to assimilate. Educated with the professoriate’s recipe for creating nation-hating zombie-hood — a blend of multiculturalism, diversity, and feminism — these governments do everything they can to promote the Islamization of Europe, which, when it occurs, will find that the professors, multiculturalists, diversifiers, and feminists are the first to be executed. That will be the only, but still absolutely splendid upside of Islamization in Europe.

National suicide, of course, is a policy choice open to every nation. The French reaffirmed their devotion to the policy this past weekend, the Dutch previously, the Germans reaffirm it almost daily, and the British have withdrawn their decision for suicide, but they are likely too late. The correct response for the U.S. government to these decisions is to wish the suicidal Europeans all the best, that they rest in peace, and to simultaneously present NATO’s Secretary General with the required one-year notice that the republic is withdrawing from the alliance and closing its bases in Europe.

Why, you may ask? Well, for three pretty strong reasons. First, because NATO no longer serves U.S. national interests; it serves only the interests of weapons-makers and the war-lovers, like McCain, Graham, the Neocons, and others of that unsavory ilk. Even during the Cold War, the Alliance was mostly a military mirage, made up of countries that would not pay what they pledged for their own defense, increasingly hated the United States, and whose only defense against the USSR were the U.S., British, and French nuclear deterrents.

Since the Cold War’s end, NATO governments have spent even less on their own defense, and, militarily speaking, now stand as the hollowed-out shell of a former military cripple. So abjectly unprepared are the military forces of the alliance’s European members that they cower about a supposed threat from Vladimir Putin, a man who runs a country that does not have a pot to piss in, has far too few military-age men, and is being demographically demolished. Putin does have, however, what none of the European leaders do; namely, a willingness to defend genuine Russian national interests, sovereignty, culture, and independence, whatever the cost. The Europeans best think twice before the act as they did in the Ukraine where they arrogantly assumed that Putin would not defend a key Russian interest by retaking Crimea.

But all of this is a problem the sophisticated, well-educated, and oh-so-superior European elite can handle themselves. The duty of the United States is to avoid the fatal, double-snare posed by its continued membership in NATO. Notwithstanding recent pledges by NATO members to raise their annual defense expenditures to 2-percent of GDP, this increase is from a longstanding and chronically underfunded base that has yielded political-generals, small militaries, obsolescent weaponry, and aged technology. This negligence also reflects broadly popular sentiments of anti-militarism and anti-Americanism, which have been deliberately bred by the European media, EU leaders, and the EU bureaucracy’s educational policies and guidelines. The unavoidable consequence of this probably unfixable military disaster is that, as always since 1949, the United States is left holding the only military forces and checkbook that can defend Europe, this time against a supposed Putin-led, Russian threat which is the creation of the elder Bush’s New World Order nightmare — especially its potentially war-causing expansion of NATO — and the work in Ukraine of the EU and Obama/Clinton/McCain/Graham democracy-mongers.

Terminating the expenditure of the U.S. citizenry’s taxes on Europe’s defense, however, is not most important reason for the U.S. national government to give notice of its withdrawal from NATO. The second reason — and this one is unfixable — is that there is no reason to believe that the overwhelming majority of Europeans have any intention of defending themselves against an external enemy. The record of NATO members’ “help” in the Afghan and Iraq wars is pathetic and indicative of cowardice and a determination to let others do their fighting and dying. Just recall the Germans and Dutch sitting in their well protected Afghan compounds, drinking beer and venturing out once in a while to do some “police training”; the French hightailing it out of Afghanistan after suffering a few casualties; and the Spanish and Italians going home even faster from Iraq for the same reason. The only reason that the unnecessary and now-lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not lost sooner was because U.S., British, Canadian, and Australian forces did the fighting, with superb help — I am told — from the Poles, Romanians, and several other East European militaries.

This is a hard reality when it pertains to foreign wars, but after recent elections in The Netherlands and France it is clear that the Europeans are not even prepared to defend themselves at home. Indeed, both elections produced results that will enhance the EU’s welcome for massive inflows of Muslim refugees — mostly military-age men of the Salafi persuasion — until it becomes a death-dealing flood deeper than any seen since Noah was a bone-dry pup. Next year’s German and Swedish elections will seal the deal and drive the EU elite’s deliberate campaign to destroy and Islamicize Europe past the point of no return.

The Islamists, in Ayman al-Zawahiri’s words, originally intended to wait and conquer Europe via the always crowded Muslim cradle. No point to that now, however, and a loud and heart-felt mujahideen “Allahu Akbar!” surely must be going out to Allah for giving Islam such perfect and self-hating enemies as the multiculturalists, diversifiers, and — God love ‘em — those ignorant, moronic feminists who prance about displaying bare boobs, heads topped with vagina-shaped hats, adorned with burqas, and obviously thirsting for a new, Harridan-and-Virago-dominated world, but who actually are, praise God, blindly running toward a future of sexual use by Islamist fighters and then decapitation. But, look on the bright side, sometimes people get precisely what they deserve.

Surely — are you listening General Mattis? — the United States needs no allies who refuse to defend themselves overseas or at home. We carried the NATO Alliance — with our brother British-origin, English-speaking states — on our backs and through our purse in multiple overseas wars since 9/11. The idea of U.S. Marines and soldiers bleeding, losing limps, and dying in an urban war to clear the tens of thousands of Islamist fighters our NATO allies invited to inhabit and criminalize their cities and towns, live on the dole, and murder Europe’s identities and cultures is intolerable. Who would they shoot at? The EU and NATO’s national governments would side with Muslims and shoot the native-born. Would we join them to shoot at people who simply want their country back and the criminal and non-assimilable seized and deported? Or, in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, would our forces join the EU and NATO governments and their beloved Muslims and mow down the native-born patriots? No, America wants no part of the madness that the Europeans have knowingly unleashed upon themselves; let them wallow in the bloodshed they have so richly earned.

The third reason for getting out of NATO, if another is needed, is that Europe has yet to experience either the full impact of veteran mujahideen returning from fighting abroad, or the trained fighters that will be blending into Western Europe from the Islamists’ enclaves — helpfully created by the EU and Bill Clinton — in Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, and elsewhere in the Balkans. Thanks to Mrs. Merkel, the Islamists’ main force already is in Europe in the form of tens of thousands of military-age male refugees. The latter have made their presence felt by staging, or helping to stage, attacks in, at least, France, Belgium, Germany, and Sweden. But, for the most part, these supporters of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are not well-trained, thus the limited number of casualties caused in many of the attacks. Once the combat-experienced, Europe-origin mujahideen return home in higher numbers, and more veteran Islamist fighters arrive from the Balkans, and begin imparting military and explosives training to the refugees, Europe’s domestic security services — which have long lacked the manpower to effectively surveil the untrained Islamists — will be unable to cope with the resulting frequency and level violence.

At this stage in its history, the bankrupt American republic and its citizens require fewer not additional overseas political and military obligations. This is especially true in Europe, where the enormous, continent-wide hatred for Trump — and so for nationalism, sovereignty, hard-work, independence, faith, and self-reliance — makes it clear that, like Hillary Clinton, they consider half of Americans to be “deplorables”. It would be the act of a true American cur to continue to commit U.S. military personnel — most of whom are from what Hillary called “deplorable” families, locales, and blue-collar backgrounds — to wage war on behalf of the Europeans who hate them, their way of life, and their faith.

Save for some of the British, moreover, most Americans have little in common with Europeans. The result of recent elections, for example, makes it clear that most Europeans want to be ruled by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels; to be led by men and women intent on destroying the last vestiges of Europe’s nationalisms, unique cultures, and history; and to grovel before laws that empower new, unwanted, and Europe-hating immigrant minorities to dominate native Europeans and impose on them their alien and often-criminal cultures.

General Mattis, then, ought to come back from NATO-land and advise the president that the republic is tied to Europe by a treaty that is severely and perhaps fatally detrimental to U.S. national security. He should tell the president that today Europe is a continent that will not defend itself at home or abroad, and is led by people who are transforming Europe into a borderless, peasant-filled, violent, crime-ridden, and third-world non-civilization, just as Obama tried to do to America. It is a place, General Mattis can tell the president, where the scum of the earth — the EU’s globalist elite and their violent, dole-loving immigrants, refugees, and migrants — dictate every aspect of personal conduct and thought to men and women who are the descendants of ancestors who created one of the greatest, most accomplished, and freest civilizations ever known to man. NATO has, General Mattis can conclude, fatally overdosed on diversity, multiculturalism, feminism, love of ease, and anti-Americanism, and so the United States must end every obligation it has under the NATO Treaty that would oblige it to send the republic’s Marines and soldiers to Europe to risk life and limb in a hopeless attempt to save the servile and self-hating Europeans from themselves.

‘If anyone likes to play rough, we can play rough too.”

W.S. Churchill, Speech to Canada’s Parliament, 31 December 1941

Six months after Mr. Trump’s election, the Republican and Democratic establishments, most of the media, the academy, the bipartisan elite, the climate charlatans, the Neocons, the Israel-Firsters, and the near-zombies all of them have produced in the country’s student bodies and minority groups continue to think, behave (at times violently), and “resist” as if the election was illegitimate and President Trump will be removed from office.

Until the inauguration, this phenomenon seemed simply a combination of absurd whining about the defeat of the left’s favorite criminal, Hillary Clinton, and a chance for students to miss classes and the minorities and women to skip work. Since 20 January 2017, and Trump’s magnificent speech on that overcast day, however, the child-like behavior of the pre-inauguration weeks has turned into more or less criminality, and a pervasive belief in the anti-Trump ranks that holds neither Trump nor his supporters — and the ideas and aspirations of each — can possibly be held by genuine human beings and respectable U.S. citizens, and that only the anti-Trumpers are human beings and respectable citizens. There is, moreover, no sign, or even a hint, that this literally murderous attitude among that anti-American multitude is going to do anything but harden.

Now, as readers of this space will suspect, I have a strong case of heart-burn over Trump’s military intervention in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The result of these delusional exercises in reinforcing defeat will be the well-established norm: dead, maimed, and PTSD-ed Marines and soldiers; billions of wasted dollars; and more defeats. Honestly, the worth of U.S. military academies seems non-existent in terms of teaching their students how to fight wars and secure victory. How could General McMaster and his fellow generals, for example, believe that the retaking of cities in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan is a game that is worth the candle? Those knuckleheads seem not to realize that cities are an enormous burden to Islamist insurgent forces, and while the Islamists wanted to hold them, they will be a far more effective and deadly force when they return to their forte, guerrilla warfare. I know it is a lot to ask, but do you not think that these generals would recall that we held all the major cities in South Viet Nam and still lost that war, or that we won all the major Afghan cities in 2001-2002 and still have lost Bush’s war there, the renewal and loss of Obama’s war there, and — soon — the renewal and loss of Trump’s war there. The actor John Wayne is reputed to have said that “Life is tough, but it’s tougher if you are stupid.” U.S. generals have thoroughly validated Mr. Wayne’s words, and their pensions and post-military, corporate-director salaries ought to be confiscated to help pay for the enormous costs U.S. taxpayers are going to pay for having their military mired in demolished cities and responsible for administering, feeding, and rebuilding them as the trophy for the feckless campaign that captures them, but leaves an unbeaten, stronger, and more elusive Islamist insurgent enemy in the field.

Back to the so-called anti-Trump “resistance,” which, of course, will soon field the wholly-owned, Democratic Party-subsidiary known as the “American Peace Movement,” which I noticed was utterly silent during gangster-Obama’s rule, though that cold-blooded thug murdered far more civilians than all of the covert operations undertaken in the decade prior to his election, probably by a factor of 50-to-1 or more. This group, in addition, to those mentioned earlier, want nothing except to remove Trump; silence his supporters, by bloody coercion if necessary; and to then undo the exceptional number of positive achievements Trump has already scored for the rehabilitation of the republic’s economy. Those who have flocked to the many insane banners that fly over this cesspool of “resistance” are not going to give up. They have not only completely divorced themselves from America, they have made themselves utterly and literally expendable.

What to do? Two courses of action are in order.

A.) The first is for President Trump and his team to accelerate their campaign to make good on the goals set and promises made by Trump during the election, to ensure his base expands and remains enthusiastic so his party can retain control of both houses of congress in 2018 and win the 2020 election. There are several tasks remaining to be completed — some difficult, some easy — if this trick is to be turned, and they must be accomplished.

1. Restore Americans’ faith in the rule of law; the equality of all before the law; and the republic’s constitutional viability by indicting and trying — under the espionage laws — Hillary Clinton and all those in Obama’s administration who knowingly conspired to use her deliberately hidden, unclassified, non-government server to conduct the republic’s national security affairs. Ditto, under the appropriate laws, for those who knowingly participated in the Clinton Foundation’s patently illegal activities — including selling foreigners the power of the Secretary of State’s office — and those who used the U.S. intelligence community and the Internal Revenue Service to persecute, surveil/expose, and defeat Obama’s political opponents. Also, indict George Soros for funding violence by the brain-dead students and minorities the Democrats use as cannon fodder.
2. Complete the annihilation of Obama care, and replace it with health plans and premiums that are set by corporate competition, and allow the citizenry to purchase what they want and can afford.
3. Reduce tax rates to the lowest possible point in all categories, eliminate the death tax, and allocate a large part of the resulting increase in government revenue to reducing Obama’s debt.
4. Build the southern border wall as quickly as possible, no more dithering.
5. Remove all illegal aliens — they are all criminals — from the United States, forcibly if necessary.
6. Forget trying to withhold funds from sanctuary cities, towns, states, and campuses, and begin arresting any elected politician, “resistance” activist, judge, priest, mayor, journalist, professor, or celebrity who refuses to obey the law or seeks to obstruct it. Elected officials who defy the law are in a state of rebellion against the law, the Constitution, and the continued existence of the Union. These illegal and obstructive actions would justify the use of the U.S. military if local, state, and federal law-enforcement agencies prove unable to compel the lawless to act legally.
7. Permanently stop all taxpayer-funding for Planned Parenthood, and, when the time comes, appoint nothing but pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.
8. Make NAFTA, and other trade agreements, America friendly or abandon or abrogate them.
9. Make all policy decisions, personnel appointments, and spending plans on education into crystal-clear and effective preliminaries to terminating the existence of the U.S. Department of Education.
10. Fix the Veterans’ Administration with rapid and ruthless efficiency.
11. End more than a century of republic-killing overseas interventionism, all foreign aid, and all immigration for three-years.

B.) With what Trump already has accomplished, moderate, visible, and tangible advances on the issues above ought to be enough to enlarge his majorities in Congress, and to reelect him in 2020. But, given the mindset of the “resistance,” this kind of success for Trump and the republic is likely to breed ever more violent and lethal demonstrations and attacks by the Soros-funded resistance. The loyal citizenry will then be faced with a decision as to whether they will tolerate the violence, economic destruction, and hatred being directed at them by the resistance. My answer would be to declare a “no-tolerance policy” for the expendables who fill the ranks of the resistance. Once Soros’s well-paid but addled boys and girls kill pro-republic citizens or nearby innocents a anvil should be dropped to obliterate them. For now,

1. The targets of the fascist “resistance” — that is, anyone who disagrees with them — ought to bide their time and support Trump. They also should continue to arm with the best weaponry they can afford. Pray God none of those willing to bide time are rewarded for their patience with death.
2. If Soros’s personal SS cross the line and kill those they hate, Trump supporters should hold tight, and see if the Trump administration will rid the republic of these wicked and expendable humans.
3. If Trump’s administration fails to act, or acts as if the expendables are misguided kids rather than vicious ideologues, there would be no more reason for those who are loyal to the American republic to hold back from defending their country, thereby making clear that they will never be servile enough to go back to the anti-republic, globalist, lawless, and anti-Constitution era of the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas. But what to do? Well, on most issues I am not a great admirer of Winston Churchill, too much unnecessary war-making for me. But the American republic was formed to restore to Americans the English liberties that had been taken by the British Crown, and which are today again in dire need of restoration in the republic. And on the defense of these liberties, Churchill is without peer. If Soros’s fascist “resistance” kills those they hate, let the loyal citizenry’s response be the one called for by Churchill. “We have not journeyed all this way across the centuries,” he declared in the early 1940s,

“across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy. The enemies ranged against us, coalesced and combined against us, have asked for total war. Let us make sure they get it. … Tyranny is our foe, whatever trappings or disguise it wears, whatever language it speaks, be it external or internal, we must forever be on our guard, ever mobilized, ever vigilant, always ready to spring at its throat.”

Historically, U.S. political and military interventionism reliably produces three negative results: (a) motion without movement that fools Americans into thinking they are more secure; (b) dead and maimed Americans; and (c) a larger national debt. Let us, for a moment, look at the immediate results of the U.S. military interventionism that has occurred during the past two week:

• We bombed the Syrian military airfield from which a poison gas attack may have been launched against Asaad’s enemies. We destroyed none of Asaad’s gas arsenal, and did not destroy the base’s runways. This is a zero achievement for U.S. national interests, but a reason to celebrate for all of America’s most lethal enemies: Israel, the Neocons, Saudi Arabia, the media, the Republican and Democratic establishments, and the disloyal Israeli-First Americans, all of whom share the priority goal of keeping the republic perpetually involved in unnecessary wars with those they deem their enemies.
• We praised and pledged eternal fealty to NATO, as we have to even such less relevant entities as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. In essence we have signed blank checks for NATO’s spendthrift leaders, men and women who will never defend themselves as long they can extort our financial help by stroking the enormous egos of official Washington and its self-serving general-officer corps with meaningless words like “America’s world leadership is back.”
• We dropped what we called “Mother of all Bombs” in Afghanistan and managed to killed less than 100 IS fighters. Probably not a cost effective use of the bomb; a good lesson to IS to stay out of easily identifiable cave systems; and a really craven replacement for the personal courage and massive killing that even now may be too late to defeat the Islamists.
• We and the Chinese have claimed a victory over North Korea because The Dear Leader backed down, except he did not back down, fired a missile that failed, and and earned no Chinese or U.S. military response for doing exactly what he was warned not to do. (NB: If the Dear One’s missile failed because it was hacked by U.S. war-makers, why has that method not been used previously to ensure no progress was made on North Korea’s nuclear program? And, if dearie’s missile was killed by a U.S. hack, do we not have yet another reason to thank Ronald Reagan — peace be upon him — for funding SDI?)

These four items all fall under the category of: “Using Military Power to Send a Message.” In none of the forgoing cases did the message sent mean any substantive improvement in the situation in so far as genuine U.S. national interests are concerned. Things may be quiet for a week or two, but the messages sent merely popped loudly, killed few, changed little, and will send the targets of the messages scurrying to find work-arounds that will allow them to proceed and then confront us with our failure.

There are two bottom lines here. The first is that the only clear and effective message that can ever be sent with military power is the utter destruction of all the facilities that allow the enemy to wage war, and the production of extraordinary numbers of dead enemies, their civilian supporters, and those who need to learn they cannot live happily and safely among the enemy.

If we do not have the moxie to wage war in the only way it has ever delivered definitive success, we are merely sending loud but strategically meaningless messages via military force. Those messages may convince the delusional and multi-starred braggarts who do the shooting, and then falsely trumpet the attacks as world-changing successes on Sunday news shows. Those who received the messages, however, will simply get on with their wars, having again been reminded that the U.S. and Western militaries and their political masters have no contact points with the nature of the religious war they are fighting, and remain steadily, and very effeminately striding along the path that leads to calamity. The Islamists will exclaim, “Allahu Akhbar!” and thank the Almighty for sending Islam enemies who send messages but have no clue about how men fight if they mean to win and are willing to die in the effort.

The second bottom line is that the President Trump and his foreign-policy and defense advisers ought to call a timeout for a week or ten days and read about the conflicts in which they recently reintervened and so get a grasp on genuine U.S. national interests. (NB: They could do no better than to start their reading with Walter A. McDougall’s The Tragedy of U.S. Foreign Policy. How America’s Civil Religion Betrayed the National Interest, (Yale, 2016)). With a bit of knowledge under their belts, they can then reflect on the clear fact that all of the conflicts of the past fortnight are the result of past U.S. national governments unconstitutionally intervening in other peoples’ wars, and, in doing so, jettisoning genuine U.S. national interests — keeping the republic at peace, its military kids alive, and not expanding the debt, for example — for the irrelevant interests of greedy and/or effete foreigners.

Syria: The Syrian missile raid was only necessary because George W. Bush started an unnecessary war he did not intend to win in Iraq — removing Saddam, the West’s best ally against the Islamists — and because the thug-racist Obama intervened to an extent sufficient to get what he wanted; namely a war that would produce an unmanageable mass migrant problem for the United States and the West that would, over time, end the role of white people, republicanism, nationalism, and Christianity in the governance of Europe and North America. Lesson: When the unnecessary, not-intended-to-be-won wars caused by unconstitutional U.S. military and political interventions go wrong, they can never be turned around and won by more unconstitutional, unnecessary, and not-intended-to-win U.S. military and political interventionism.

NATO: Question: Why does NATO need defending? Answer: Because (a) it will not pay to defend itself but can extort protection from U.S. leaders who are always eager to intervene and pay the bill for foreigners, especially if, when doing so, the irrelevant, weakling foreign nations praise the president of the day and “America’s world leadership”; (b) because George H.W. Bush intervened in post-Cold War European affairs to expand NATO up to the border of Russia, a potentially war-causing interventionism now being carried forth by Senators McCain and Graham; and (c) because the Obama administration, the EU, the UN, and the Western media politically, financially, and media-wise intervened in Ukraine and led and funded the overthrow of a pro-Russia regime and replaced it with a pro-EU regime on territory that historically has been Russia’s, and which is a strategic threat thereto if held by Russia’s enemies, or those friendly to Russia’s enemies. Lesson: When the unnecessary, not-intended-to-be-won wars caused by unconstitutional U.S. military and political interventions go wrong, they can never be turned around and won by more unconstitutional, unnecessary, not-intended-to-win U.S. military and political interventionism.

Afghanistan: The thinking behind the decision to drop a huge bomb in Afghanistan could only have been hatched in an asylum for either the mentally deranged or haters of America. In a country where there is never any national unity unless their is a common, non-Muslim foe to fight, the dropping of the bomb can only be understood as a means by which the asylum’s denizens sought to further unite Afghans and their Arab allies against the United States and NATO, and to get the former to kill its soldier-children and deepen its debt by deepening its intervention there and, thus, reenforce its earlier and irreversible Afghan defeat. Lesson: When the unnecessary, not-intended-to-be-won wars caused by unconstitutional U.S. military and political interventions go wrong, they can never be turned around and won by more unconstitutional, unnecessary, not-intended-to-win U.S. military and political interventionism.

Korea: The seemingly endless U.S. war in Korea began when President Truman behaved as a dictator and unconstitutionally invaded Korea without the approval of Congress, but — like Obama in Libya — claimed to be armed with the irrelevant authority of the UN. Nearly seventy years later, the republic’s unconstitutional and unnecessary intervention in Korea — combined with several nations speeding the Dear Leader’s nuclear development — leaves the United States with a problem that has progressed from cavity, to root-canal, to a mouth full of gums. This week’s naval interventionism and hollow threats have done nothing to remedy the problem, but probably have made the Dear Leader’s trigger finger more itchy. Lesson: When the unnecessary, not-intended-to-be-won wars caused by unconstitutional U.S. military and political interventions go wrong, they can never be turned around and won by more unconstitutional, unnecessary, not-intended- to-win U.S. military and political interventionism.

The answer to this set of self-made problems for the republic is to retreat to the safety of the Constitution (as it was written), American nationalism, a clear and commonsense definition of genuine U.S. national interests, and a recognition that an always strong U.S. military is the indispensable tool needed to ensure that America’s only survival-ensuring foreign policy — neutrality and non-intervention — is resolutely maintained unless the nation is attacked by foreign miscreants. Spreading democracy, women’s rights, and human rights; protecting favored nations from the consequences of their own actions; and the governing elite’s passion to be praised by foreigners, even at the cost of America’s demise, are all sure-fire war starters. The term America First means exactly that. It does not mean NATO, Israel, and Egypt first, and then, if any money left, Americans. And it certainly does not mean that the national government should be moved to military interventions because mounds of dead Syrians, Israelis, Ukrainians, Afghans, or most any other foreigners are piling up.

The only foreign-policy reason that the always evil presence of a central government is allowed in the United States is to defend Americans and the republic’s life-and-death national interests, even with the use war, as a last resort. The national government created by the Constitution has no plausible legal, moral, or ethical responsibility to ensure the survival of any foreign entity or population. In short, foreigners are always expendable.

The Trump administration is reaping the whirlwind created by U.S. foreign policies that — between 1945 and 2017 — have served the interests of foreigners far more than those of Americans, have bankrupted their republic in the process, and have given the president the powers of a tyrant. The people who elected President Trump thought that his words meant he understood this simple reality, and that he would reestablish the binding principle of putting America First. Perhaps he does, and he is off to a slow start.

But if Trump maintains or strengthens the interventionist status quo, there is no longer a reason to maintain what has become a national government that, in foreign policy, can only wage unnecessary, unconstitutional and always losing wars, at the cost of constricting liberty at home. With the national government also having proven long ago it is incapable of conducting a domestic policy that is not bankrupting, liberty-eroding, and society dividing, moreover, the citizenry would be left staring at the fact that there is no plausible reason why the national government — as currently configured, empowered, and staffed — should be permitted to continue to exist.