Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

There clearly is a good deal of malign foreign intervention occurring in the 2016 presidential election, but it is not coming from Russian President Putin and his intelligence services. It is coming, rather, from Israel, and it is being executed through that country’s legion of disloyal U.S. citizens, be they Israel-Firsters, Neoconservatives, AIPAC’ers, or that steadily filling sty of war-loving foreign policy gurus and general officers that hate Trump.

First, the Russians. The idea that the Russians are the only ones who stole the DNC and Podesta e-mails and gave them to Wikileaks is a hoot. Of course the Russians stole them — that is what all intelligence services do and should do — and the Russians also no doubt have the entire body of Hillary Clinton’s pre-bleach-bit e-mails, as do the Iranians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, all the EU governments, the Saudis, the Israelis, and, really, any savvy teenage computer jockey. The three e-mail collections now in the hands of foreign governments are there because the DNC, John Podesta, and Hillary Clinton did not put an even marginally effective safeguard on their e-mail files.

But neither the Russian nor any other government would waste its e-mail hauls by giving them to Julian Assange or Anonymous; indeed, both hacking organizations are fully capable of stealing the e-mail collections off their own hook. No, foreign governments would save them for use in controlling a President Clinton by threatening to release them after her election, a form of ruthless shake-down that Hillary would no doubt recognize and admire. This simple fact makes nonsense of the argument that Russia stole the e-mails to prevent Clinton from becoming president. Clinton and Podesta are proven and dependable commodities for the Kremlin. Each has done Moscow’s bidding for pay, and that behavior, at least on Clinton’s part, would be guaranteed to continue if she is elected, given Mr. Putin’s possession of her e-mail.

Russian intervention is a bogey that has driven James Carville publicly insane, but Israeli intervention is a hard and long-standing fact. While the Israeli government has been properly silent about the election, its fanatic supporters in the United States have been trying to destroy Trump and elect an anti-American — like themselves — felon, traitor, and tyrant as the next U.S. President. Oh, they dress up their opposition to Trump in the glad-rags of “principle” — he gropes, swears, evades taxes, etc., etc. — but no one should be fooled by this faux mix of moral righteousness and indignation. No, they hate Trump because of two words, namely “AMERICA FIRST.”

You see, these disloyal Israel-First U.S. citizens have spend decades and billions of dollars — in the form of campaign contributions and other kinds of rewards-for-politicians — on effectively suborning much of the bipartisan governing elite, the media, the military, and the federal civil service so that each always acts in Israel’s foreign-policy interests, and almost never in the foreign-policy interests of the United States.

When Trump said he would pursue a foreign policy of America First, the Israel-Firtsers suddenly envisioned that long-past-due day when the FBI would be dismantling their network of high-level, U.S. citizen espionage agents; when their subversive organizations would be required to register as agents-of-a-foreign-power; and perhaps even when veteran FBI and Intelligence Community officers would testify under oath before the Congress, describing what they know about how disloyal Israel-Firsters hurt the United States, a truth that many of those officers believe their fellow citizens also ought to know.

Most of all, the Israel-Firtsers knew that “America First” would mean the end of the U.S. government’s heretofore supine willingness to go to war on behalf of a country that is of no national-security value to the republic — indeed, it is an acid that erodes that security — and against an Islamist enemy who attacks America primarily because the U.S. government, under both parties, supports all-things Israel, as well as every two-bit Arab tyrant who can offer bribes disguised as campaign contributions, gifts to help build presidential libraries, or arms contracts.

The difficulty of speaking the truth about Israel-First’s anti-American malignity is obvious to all. Given that fact, I thought I would end this piece by offering readers the chance to decide for themselves. There follow below citations for a series of articles that have been published by leading Israel-Firsters, Neocons, pundits, professors, and other of their associates during the past 14 days. Note the steady increase in their venomous and panicky tone as Trump’s campaign picked up political momentum, and especially since the FBI began taking another look a Hillary’s unmistakable criminality.

The theme of each article is two-fold: (a) Donald Trump is an unprincipled, crude, and genuinely bad guy, and (b) Hillary Clinton is a flawed but far preferable alternative for the presidency, notwithstanding that she is a liar, a felon, a self-confessed traitor, a war lover, an aspiring tyrant, a spendthrift intending to bankrupt the republic, and a deadly enemy of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Also making these flaws tolerable is the fact that the Israel-Firsters know that they own Hillary, her husband, and their party — and many senior Republicans — because they have been on the take from Israel First for decades and will do its bidding no matter how many interventionist wars are required or how many dead or maimed U.S. soldiers and Marines result.

For the writers below these are minor flaws and vastly better than the havoc and political impotence that would ensue for Israel-Firsters, their subversive networks, and their ability to serve their country of first affection, if Mr. Trump wins and implements a policy of America First at home and abroad.

So have a read, and see what you think. And remember, the writers are so viciously anti-Trump not because of who he is and how he speaks, but only because the disloyal Israel-Firsters are so palpably and quite correctly terrorized by that clear, simple, historically resonant, and enormously popular phrase “America First.”

• Thomas L. Friedman, “Donald Trump Voters, Just hear me out,” 2 November 2016.
• Michael Gerson, “My Reluctant and Strategic Vote for Clinton,” 1 November 2016.
• Gabriel Schoenfeld, “Expose Trump’s enablers: How many people who should know better are making it easier for him to lie to the American people,” 31 October 2016.
• Michael A. Cohen, “FBI director James Comey should resign,” 31 October 2016.
• Benjy Sarlin, “The Vengeful World of Donald Trump, and Why It Matters,” 31 October 2016.
• Damon Linker, “Clinton Scandal Nothing Compared to the Plague of Trump,” 31 October 2016.
• Jonathan Chait, “Republicans’ Age of Authoritarianism Has Just Begun,” 30 October 2016.
• Howard Fineman, “James Comey Just Unmasked Himself,” 30 October 2016.
• Mort Zuckerman, “The Intolerable Donald Trump,” 30 October 2016.
• William Kristol, “A Populist-Nationalist Right? No Thanks,” 30 October 2016.
• Dana Milbank, “Mr. Comey’s Dangerous October Surprise,” 29 October 2016.
• Eli Lake, “Don’t Let the FBI’s E-Mail Surprise Swing the Election,” 28 October 2016.
• Gabriel Schoenfeld, “Comey’s letter is not a bombshell: Donald Trump is still unfit, and we’re unlikely to learn anything new about Hillary Clinton’s email error,” 28 October 2016.
• Dana Milbank, “The Bricks in Trump’s Wall of Shame,” 28 October 2016.
• Alan J. Lipman, “The narcissism of Donald Trump’s candidacy,” 28 October 2016.
• Harold Myerson, “Dems Get Out the Vote; GOP Suppresses It,” 28 October 2016.
• Thomas Friedman, “Trump is the enemy of all that’s great,” 26 October 2016.
• Dana Milbank, “The Lap Dogs of Democracy Who Didn’t Bark at Trump,” 25 October 2016.
• Yoni Applebaum, “Trump’s Gettysburg Address Attacks Faith in Government,” 24 October 2016.
• Michelle Goldberg, “The Anguish of Being a Republican Woman in Age of Trump,” 24 October 2016.
• Noah Feldman, “On Nov. 9, Let’s Forget Donald Trump Happened,” 24 October 2016.
• Laurence Tribe, “Donald Trump’s Dangerous Nonsense,” 23 October 2016.
• William Kristol, “Donald Trump: The Loser,” 22 October 2016.
• Jonah Goldberg, “Aren’t Trump’s Supporters Living in a Bubble, Too?” 22 October 2016.
• Roger Cohen, “Donald Trump the anti-American,” 22 October 2016.
• Dana Milbank, “Trump Can’t Just Be Defeated. He Must Be Humiliated,” 22 October 2016.
• Michael Cohen, “Trump Undermines the Legitimacy of Our Democracy,” 21 October 2016.
• Charles Krauthammer, “My vote, explained,” 21 October 2016.
• Paul Krugman, “Why Hillary Clinton wins,” 21 October 2016.
• Jonathan Cohn, “Trump Disqualified Himself from the Presidency,” 20 October 2016.

“No punishment, in my opinion, is too great for a man who can build his greatness upon his country’s ruin.”

George Washington, 12 December 1778 (1)

A few weeks ago, a reader of this blog sent a comment saying that perhaps our republic is just finally “fizzling out,” as have almost all of history’s previous republic’s. I did not answer this cogent note at the time because I wanted to think about it. Little did I then imagine that so much new data would appear since the reader’s comment that, at least in my mind, makes the fizzling option seem all too real. The days pass and the picture gradually fills in, and the fuller and more complete it gets the louder the fizzling becomes. But there is a last-resort option for Americans, one that has strong precedent and sanction in the republic’s history, tradition, and founding documents.

Long ago, in 1963, America’s newest Nobel Laureate for Literature wrote a song that seems to pretty much fit this particular point in U.S. history, which is a knack Bob Dylan has demonstrated repeatedly during his remarkable if, at times, ornery and reclusive career. One verse of that song is worth quoting in full:

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’ (2)

This week’s news that Colin Powell has said he will vote for Hillary Clinton highlights the point that, as Mr. Dylan said, the old “order is rapidly fadin’. Powell is brave and intelligent man, a military officer who served his country well and was highly honored by it. And now, in return for those honors, he publicly champions for the presidency a woman who is a felon, a traitor, and a proven war lover. I must confess that I stopped respecting Powell when he supported Barack Obama for president twice. Obama is a man that, given his lack of every credential of character, experience, and personal accomplishment, General Powell would not have given the command of a squad of soldiers. I wonder what Powell now thinks about backing Obama after Wikileaks has shown that he, like Hillary, is a documented traitor for knowingly using an unsecured server to conduct the classified business of the nation.

The famous ex-General Powell has dug for his once enviable reputation a grave that would be best left unmarked. History will remember him as man who willingly and openly betrayed his oath as a military officer, and his duty as a citizen, to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution not only against foreign foes, but from domestic traitors like Clinton and Obama. The much-praised General Powell has though his own words and actions now built a permanent place for himself in U.S. history, one where he will be remembered not as a combat veteran and a secretary of state, but rather as a man who will be deservedly damned for being the callous abettor of two of the most despicable traitors in all of American history.

But Powell is only one voter. What is to be thought about the tens of millions of other U.S. citizens who apparently intend to vote for a woman whose entire career has been one of intentionally applying her lethal brand of wickedness to the body politic?

• How will parents explain to their children and grandchildren that they voted for a woman who is congenital liar; for a woman who speaks loudly of her ardor for helping children, but has been and is the relentless champion of murdering 60 million of them, a fact that makes the history of slavery in American slavery seem a quite minor event; and for a woman who claims to be liberated and independent, but has spent 30-plus years protecting a sexual-predator husband, defaming and threatening the women he attacked, and utterly depending on that predator and dozens of other girly-whipped, criminal-loving men — think of John Podesta, Robert Creamer, James Carville, Terry McAuliffe, and all the male and semi-male reporters at ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC — to do the lying, violence-making, cheating, and bribing that are responsible for winning her the offices, riches, and status that she could never have won on the basis of her own meager stores of talent, brains, character, and courage.
• How will the parents of America’s soldier-children explain to them why they voted for a woman who loves war, cares not a bit about dead or maimed soldiers and Marines, and has helped to start, or has started, the wars in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya, and now seems eager to start one with Russia? And if that war with Russia comes, how will those parents explain that they voted for the woman who lit the fire that led to that war by joining with George Soros and the globalist U.S. and European elites to recklessly foment the coup that overthrew the pro-Russia government of the Ukraine and then continually lied by blaming all that happened in Ukraine on Vladimir Putin?
• As citizens, how will pro-Hillary voters justify to themselves, and to the rest of the citizenry, the fact that they voted for a woman (a) who helped deprive enormous numbers of Americans of affordable and effective health insurance, and who has promised to make that problem bigger and more expensive; (b) who intends to appoint Supreme Court justices who will complete the destruction of the U.S. Constitution by permanently entrenching rule by and for minorities, be they ethnic, racial, sexual, or illegal aliens and refugees; (c) who intends to make sure that working people get to keep only the smallest possible portion of the salaries they earn; and (d) who will use the bogey of climate change to destroy the jobs of millions of Americans — do not think coal miners are only targets — and also use Obama’s unconstitutional climate-change deal to expand the executive branch’s power, pour on ever increasing taxation and growth-killing regulations, and eradicate the 2nd Amendment so that she can cede more and more U.S. sovereignty and independence to world governance via an America-hating abomination like the UN or some even worse international institution that she, Soros, and their globalist pals have readied but for now is hidden.
• Perhaps most important — though there is no small beer in the foregoing — how will those who intend to vote for Clinton explain that they knowingly voted for a third American civil war. The election of Clinton will leave those who did not vote for her with only the stark choice between supinely submitting to her goal of creating a country that is a republic in name but without liberty, Christianity, or a viable economy, or to do as their ancestors did and decide to risk all on the long-shot of an armed rebellion to rescue and then rehabilitate all that is politically, spiritually, historically, and economically dear to them.

It is on this last point that pro-Clinton voters ought to focus and reflect because it is their lives that will be on the line, and they will be easily identifiable. All of the republic’s enemies — Liberals, Neocons, media personalities, Israel-Firsters, socialists, teacher unions, abortionists, etc., etc. — brilliantly chose to gather together under Clinton’s tent and and loudly proclaim their support for her plans to destroy America and those they deem “deplorable” inhabitants via taxes, interventionist wars, and executive orders. It is only commonsense to say that it always is a good thing to know who and where your enemies, and the pro-Clinton folks have made that as easy as targeting apples bobbing in a barrel of water.

Historically, Americans are one for two in armed rebellions against those whom they perceived as intending to impose tyrannical rule on them. The Founder’s generation won; the Confederate-American generation lost. The Founders delayed rebellion until Britain’s tyranny was installed in the northern parts of British North America and could be seen to threaten all of it; the patience-short Confederate-Americans rebelled on the suspicion that a northern-run tyranny was coming their way.

The Founders, as noted, won, and the Confederate-Americans lost, but the latter’s defeat really provided no guarantee against a future civil war, notwithstanding the many clueless historians who have claimed that armed rebellion has been unthinkable since peace was made by two wise soldiers at Appomattox.

Why did the civil war’s conclusion fail to make a future armed rebellion impossible? Simple. The door to and duty of rebellion can never be permanently closed or denied to citizens who are armed; who sense the approach and/or have experienced the beginnings of tyranny; and who believe a failure to attempt rebellion will only yield their enslavement as serfs to the elite. This hard and ominous fact, of course, is why Clinton and her ilk are striving to neuter the 2nd Amendment.

Today, the U.S. citizens who will never vote for Clinton have been much more patient than either the Founders or the Confederate-Americans, but that patience is near to run out. For over 40 years they have watched their taxes steadily increased and even more quickly wasted; their religion vilified, ridiculed, and attacked by unconstitutional laws and undermined by federal control of education; their jobs deliberately exported, thereby blighting their communities and their own and their children’s futures; their kids killed or maimed in unnecessary interventionist wars the governing elite never intends to win; their share of equality before the law eroded by the unconstitutional legal, financial, employment, and educational preferences given to favored ethnic groups, illegal aliens, and dangerous, unwanted refugees; their civil liberties deliberately constricted by presidents using the impact of needless wars and the mad advice of Ivy League ideologues to increase the executive’s power; and their own and their nation’s history, traditions, sovereignty, and independence sold out in the name of an anti-democratic, God-less, authoritarian-cum-fascist world order.

It seems quite likely that there are many millions of nationalistic Americans who now stand only a short step or two from the enough-is-enough line, and that they may soon see little recourse save an armed rebellion while the 2nd Amendment is still operative and doing what the Founders intended. The Founders’ goal for the 2nd Amendment was, of course, to ensure that succeeding generations of Americans always have the tools with which to overturn rigged elections, protect and defend their Constitution, and, especially, to kill as many as necessary, and then a few, of their fellow citizens who are trying to subject them to the whims and wickedness of a liberty-murdering tyranny imposed — in this case — by a lying, corrupt, arrogant, power-and-money hungry, and obviously mentally disturbed politician.

Those refusing to vote for Clinton can, I think, take pride and succor in knowing that America’s Founders faced much the same situation and, against long odds, took up arms and restored their liberty. From that day to the ever-pertinent Dylan’s, no one has described the duty of rebellion better than a prominent, Boston-based Protestant divine named Jonathan Mayhew. Reverend Mayhew, a cleric when clergymen were intelligent, manly, and courageous, preceded most of the Founders by 20 years in telling to his congregants that they had no obligation — under either God or the law — to submit to tyranny. “The king,” Mayhew told his congregation in 1750:

“is as much bound by his oath of office, not to infringe the legal rights of the people, as the people are bound to yield subjection to him. From whence it follows, that as soon as the prince sets himself up above the law, he loses the king in the tyrant: he does to all intents and purposes, unking himself, by acting out of, and beyond, that sphere which the constitution allows him to move in. And in such cases, he has no more right to be obeyed, than any inferior officer who acts beyond his commission. The subject’s obligation to allegiance then ceases of course; and to resist him, is no more rebellion, than to resist any foreign invader.” (2)

If Mrs. Clinton and her supporters — that is, the criminal and her accomplices — win the 2016 election, the “obligation to allegiance” to her government ceases for those who opposed her and her abettors. As the Reverend Mayhew, and later a Virginian named Jefferson, said their is no obligation for citizens to continue to offer unlimited submission to a tyrant or to fail to resist her government’s tyranny. Under God, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and plain commonsense, the citizens’ duty and responsibility lies squarely in refusing to submit to the taking of their liberty, and a grim willingness to risk death, family, and property by seeking to preserve the republic by destroying the tyrant, her associates, and their enslaving intentions.

Endnotes

1. George Washington to Joseph Reed, 12 December 1778. See, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-18-02-0452
2. Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” 1963. See, http://bobdylan.com/albums/the-times-they-are-a-changin/
3. Jonathan Mayhew, “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Higher Powers, 1750.” See, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=etase

Imagine that naughty Mr. Trump having the nerve to suggest the 2016 presidential election is rigged. Most in the mainstream media and the Democratic party establishments are now in a high, Captain Renault-like faux dudgeon over Trump’s assertion. Their noisy anger and syrupy, patriotic-sounding rejection of the fact that the vote is clearly rigged serve to do only two things: (a) validate Trump’s claim, and (b) confirm the voters’ growing suspicion that they are again being had by the powerful, wealthy, and tyrannical political elite that hates everything about them except for the money that they can take from their pockets. Trump must stand by this accurate assessment of this year’s rigged presidential election, no matter how much the media and Democratic hounds — and probably some similarly slobbering Republicans — bay for him to recant and repent.

So absurd is it to deny the obvious fact that the powerful, rich, and sordid Clintonites have rigged the vote to maintain their access to the federal treasury and their ability to wield arbitrary power that it might be considered superfluous to note a few examples of the conclusive evidence of rigging. But their egregious rigging of the election is so threatening to the republic’s peace, prosperity, cohesion, and survival, and a Clinton victory is so full of chances for an armed rebellion against the tyranny she plans, that a few issues proving the election has been rigged are worth pointing out.

• In the macro sense, U.S. elections at all levels became readily riggable when Democratic and Republican elected officials agreed to install electronic voting. The Democrats always have gotten the dead, hopelessly addled drug addicts, and illegal aliens to vote. Why do you think they so viciously oppose voters being required to show a photo ID before voting? But today, every citizen’s vote can be changed by either party because elected officials have suborned the computer companies and their experts — never forget that Silicon Valley’s collective head is very far up Hillary’s butt — with the rich contracts given to them for installing, maintaining, and monitoring the electronic equipment used in elections. Like social media’s elimination of personal privacy with tools Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would have killed more millions to possess, electronic voting negates the personal and private choice of the voter by making it simple for the political elites and their computer-geek minions to change a citizen’s marking of his or her ballot silently and without chance of detection.
• In the day-to-day political arena, the mainstream media for more than a year have been rigging this election. They have focused on ephemera such as Trump’s blue-collar speech, his legally paid taxes, his un-political correctness, his honest and correct economic pessimism, and now the steady and predictable parade of weepy, lying women that the DNC probably recruited from Bill Clinton’s history-of-the-women-I’ve-attacked ledger. (NB: Is there anything more surreal than a wretched criminal like Hillary Clinton claiming that her character is more admirable than Trump’s? How many wars has Trump started and lost? How many legless Marines are now hobbling about because of Trump? How many times has Trump betrayed the republic for money? How many sexual predators has Trump protected? How many blue-collar jobs has Trump promised to destroy? How many millions of infants has Trump helped to murder?)
• The media also have ignored the campaign’s real issues, such as Obama’s Hillary-approved excessive taxation, regulation, and debt expansion; the Obama-Clinton war on free speech, religious liberty, and the 2nd Amendment; the long-stagnant economy that produces few jobs and almost no growth; the Democrats’ war on whites and all blue-collar Americans; unlimited illegal immigration; Hillary’s silence about Obama’s arbitrary and so unconstitutional rule; Hillary’s advocacy for importing the Islamist terrorists she has said are among the unvetted Syrian Muslim refugees; Hillary’s love for starting and losing wars and not giving a damn about American casualties; and Hillary’s championing of the currently collapsing, unaffordable, and unfixable Obama health-care system.
• While the citizenry looks squarely into the face of their dying jobs, kids’ futures, communities, and nation, Clinton, the Democrats, the mainstream media, and many in the Republican establishment want to focus on what they claim are the greater dangers of offensive language, the unforgivable sin of hurting feelings, and — most hilariously — the dire need for an increase in rights for women, but only for those who agree with Hillary. My God, pro-Hillary American women already are legally superior to every American male; no man, after all, can hire a medical doctor to murder the human being he designates for death. This limited cackle of pro-Hillary women, moreover, has contributed nothing to the nation save its always negative trademarks; namely, its constant adolescent whining and groundless discontent over long-resolved problems; its targeted humiliation of stay-at-home mothers and women who live their faith; its joyous support for the murder of 60 million infants and rabid enthusiasm for killing millions more at home and abroad if Hillary wins; its arrogant demands for unconstitutional legal preference and free contraceptives; and its eagerness to provide the stars and extras needed by the pro-Hillary producers of the massive and ever increasing amount of made-in-America pornography.

While Trump’s political and mainstream media opponents focus on tripe, it is worth recalling that the citizenry has heard only limited snatches of news about Hillary Clinton’s record of relentless incompetence, deceit, sleaze, and crime. Among dozens of examples are:

• The fact that Hillary’s campaign chairman and his brother have been in the pay of a Russian state bank that is reported to have built Putin’s personal fortune and to serve as a conduit for the conduct of Russian intelligence operations. This fact comes on top of the fact that Clinton approved the sale of nearly a quarter of the U.S. uranium supply to a Russian company that has given millions of dollars to her foundation. (1)
• The fact that President Obama procured a false e-mail address to communicate with Clinton about classified national-security issues through her unsecured server. FOIA data has proven Obama lied when he claimed have learned about the server in the press, and so now we have irrefutable evidence that both the commander-in-chief and the secretary of state deliberately compromised sensitive national security information to the republic’s enemies. (NB: The same kind of Obama/Clinton disregard for U.S. security is manifested by much of the Republican elite in its support for the clearly lying and traitorous Hillary Clinton over the patriot Trump because, they claim, “she is better fit to be commander-in-chief.”)
• The fact that the current tense situation between the United States and Russia began with the Clinton-approved State Department operations — assisted by our feckless NATO and EU allies — that helped to over throw the pro-Russian regime in Ukraine and replace it with an anti-Russian regime.
• The fact that Hillary Clinton has been wrong on every issue in the Middle East, having supported the invasion of Iraq; approved Obama’s re-interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan; led the destruction of Libya, which is destabilizing Africa; intervened in the Arab Spring with a sublime ignorance of Islam; cheered the re-establishment of a military tyranny in Egypt; and took money for her foundation from the Saudis and Qataris even though she knew they were supporting the Islamic State as it killed Americans and so many others.
• The fact that Obama has put more than 5,000 U.S. Marines and soldiers on the ground in Iraq to participate in the battle for Mosul, the timing of which was set to help Hillary’s campaign. The Democrats’ disregard not only for U.S. military lives but all human lives in the Mosul area in this politically timed battle is stunning, though not surprising. If U.S.-backed, Iraqi forces take the city, more than a million people will be displaced to starve at winter’s onset; the Shia will slaughter Sunnis and Christians; Kurds will fight Turks and Arabs; Iran’s presence and military strength in Iraq will be strengthened; Iraq will become an even greater economic catastrophe that America will expected to rebuild; and the Sunni world will once again see the United States killing Sunnis, helping Shias take territory from Sunnis, and intervening in an oil-rich Islamic country. And what will happen to the Islamic State? Well it will lose a city and some manpower, but afterwards it will simply return to what it is best at, and what U.S. forces have proven they cannot defeat — an insurgency — and try to find a way to keep track of the flood of donations and foreign fighters that will be flowing in from wealthy Sunnis and newly radicalized young men enraged by U.S. actions.

In time, there will be numbers of books written about the manner in which the 2016 presidential election was rigged. The evidence for that reality is already massive and irrefutable, and it is in the form historians’ describe as “primary sources;” that is, contemporary documents that are written by the individuals involved — usually at the leadership level — and record the events they led and/or experienced.

If Trump wins, these books might be written by Americans. If he loses, the books will have to be written by foreigners who have saved the now-available materials, because Clinton, in power, will wage a much more thorough Sandy Berger-like war on the historical record — bleach-bit-ing the National Archives, if you will — so as to protect her power, fortune, and grotesquely false, media-built reputation.

But Hillary best be quick to start and finish her war on the historical record, as ordinary Americans are not likely to long delay acting to render her, her tyranny, her deceit, and her hatred for the republic entirely unable to further damage America. To paraphrase President Roosevelt’s December, 1941, words about the much less formidable threat Japan posed to the republic, I am confident that the mortal danger irrefutably posed to America by Hillary Clinton will be met and annihilated by “… the unbounding determination of our people — [and] we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God.”

Whether that vital defeat is inflicted at the polls on November 8th, or sometime after the election, matters not, though the former certainly will be less unpleasant than the latter. Come what may, however, this rigged election marks the end of the Clintons’ era of arrogance, corruption, treason, criminality, and greed. Just retribution is quickly approaching.

Endnotes

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
2. http://millercenter.org/president/fdroosevelt/speeches/speech-3324

In a republic whose media are rife with lunacy, addled by sex, and enthralled by magically appearing damsels in distress, there are few crazier analyses than that which argues Russian president Vladimir Putin wants Donald Trump to win the presidency.

Let us leave aside that Putin’s government is closely linked to Mrs. Clinton’s senior lieutenant John Podesta’s consulting company, which was hired and paid by Putin’s favorite Russian bank. (1) Let us also leave aside the fact Putin also has all of the e-mails — as do China, Iran, and others — that Mrs. Clinton and her traitorous, Comey/Lynch-immunized team of IT experts and senior aides made easily accessible to the republic’s enemies. There is no use arguing this point. Whether Julian Assange got none, some, or all of his Clinton e-mails from Putin’s intelligence service is irrelevant. (NB: My own guess — and it is only that — is that Assange got them via his own methods, perhaps including the young DNC employee murdered in Washington after Assange’s first Clinton-related leak, about which the media is now silent.)

Mr. Putin is not a moron. There simply is no way that it is in Putin’s and Russia’s interests to give Assange the cream of the crop of the Clinton e-mails; namely, those that document Clinton’s sale of the influence via the Clinton Foundation while secretary of state; those showing her extorting highly paid speaking jobs for he husband; those demonstrating the top-secret material she intentionally put on the unsecured server is now safely cached on secure servers in Moscow; and those that show she is wholly responsible for the murder of four Americans in Benghazi and the Iranian nuclear scientist who was working for U.S. intelligence.

No, dear, dumb media and foreign-policy experts, those e-mails — or at least copies of them — will be presented, if she is elected, to President Clinton by the Russian ambassador just after the inauguration. The copies will be accompanied by a short, hand-written note from Putin that will read something like, “Madam President, congratulations to you and to me! Please read these documents and then guess who is now calling the shots. Call me soon — that’s not a suggestion. Respectfully, V. Putin.”

Does anyone really think that Putin is stupid enough to give away one of history’s greatest intelligence coups by giving all the e-mails he derived from Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured server to Mr. Assange to exhaust prior to an election from which may emerge a U.S. president whom he will be able to control, perhaps even command? No, Mr. Putin is much too talented, street smart, nationalistic, and, frankly, simply has too much of a taste for the jugular of Russia’s enemies to do such a self-defeating thing and thereby let Mrs. Clinton off the meat hook she crafted for herself and on which she so richly deserves to be impaled.

But, again, let us leave aside the realities of the Catholic-hating Podesta playing Putin’s cat’s-paw and Mrs. Clinton’s obvious treason, and again ask why the Russian president would want a hard-ass, frugal, economy-reviving, nationalist like Trump to be president, when he could have a corrupt, compromised, lawless, profligate, bankruptcy-loving, and civil war-promoting virago like Mrs. Clinton at the helm of Russia’s greatest enemy? If he did want Trump elected, Putin would be trying to end a string of four U.S. presidents — Bush, Clinton, Bush, and especially Obama — whose mad foreign and economic policies have all but killed America, while putting Russia back on the road toward superpower-dom, even though its economy is still in only marginally better condition than the shambles the USSR left behind. This kind of self-immolating tack can make sense to no one except a Democrat or Anderson Cooper. (NB: Forgive my being redundant.)

What Putin absolutely does not want to encounter — much less help to elect — is a U.S. president bent on reestablishing the republic’s financial solvency, military and economic power, social cohesion, and rule-of-law. Nor does he want to face a U.S. president who will stop conducting a foreign policy of relentless and unnecessary interventionism, which is, clearly, a pro-Russia policy in that it has earned much of the world’s hatred, all of its laughter for America losing the wars Washington starts, and which has made Putin and Russia appear to be a stronger, smarter, more reliable, and less indiscriminately destructive nation than the United States.

No, Putin is not going to waste all of the best e-mail bullets he stole from Clinton’s unsecured server in order to prevent the election of a hectoring woman whose personal greed, dreams of open borders, elitism, stated intentions, education, Ivy League-colleagues, and tyrannical goals certainly will finish the destruction of the United States — either by bankruptcy, civil war, or both — and quicken the rehabilitation of Russia’s international stature and power. Indeed, Putin knows that, with Clinton’s election, Russia will be well-positioned to win the nearly 75 year-old contest between Russia and the United States, and would be set do so without firing a shot, spending a nickel, or losing a soldier.

If Putin knows anything about U.S. history, he must know that Mrs. Clinton — despite her recent assertions — is not even the palest shadow of Abraham Lincoln. Mrs. Clinton is as close to being like Lincoln, as her husband is to being like a celibate monk. But what Mr. Putin might not know is that Mrs. Clinton, her party, and their supporters are fully capable of making one of Lincoln’s still-pending predictions come true. “Shall we expect,” Lincoln asked an audience in Illinois in January, 1838,

“some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio [River] or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach[es] us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.”

Mrs. Clinton’s actions as president surely would make Mr. Lincoln’s prediction come true. Under Mrs. Clinton and her party, the American “nation of freemen” undoubtedly will “die by suicide,” and she, her party, their supporters, and most of the media will be “the author and finisher” of the republic’s destruction.

Mr. Putin must be licking his chops.

Endnote

1. See, for example: With Saudi and Russian ties, Clinton machine’s tentacles are far reaching, according to Panama Papers, and Clinton campaign chief linked to Russian bank listed in Panama Papers.

I have consistently argued in this space that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans on the issues of foreign policy and military interventionism. I have always suspected — but have been less confident in my judgment — that there is precious little difference between the two parties on any issue.

The whining, womanish behavior of Speaker Paul Ryan, and other “too pure” establishment Republicans, since the media played the tape of what Trump accurately described as “locker room talk” — and I would make it “common locker room talk for both men’s and women’s sports” — has convinced me that there are not two parties, but only one autocratic political machine in this country, and that its only goals are power and arbitrary rule.

Paul Ryan is, essentially, speaking for both parties’ hatred for anyone who suggests the current political status quo should be shattered for the good of the republic. They oppose it because anyone seeking to serve the good of the nation, must first destroy the seeming death grip that the parties cooperate to maintain on the national government, its actions, and its treasury. Ryan and the Republican establishment are saying in the clearest and most understandable way, that when their and the Democrats’ corrupt, gold-laden, and citizen- and middle-class-hating gravy train is headed toward the cliff, they will come down on the same side, that is the side of self-interest and the booty they regularly extort in taxes from working Americans. In other words — and to use a vulgarity — everyday, working Americans can shut up and go to hell.

So, here’s the deal. Speaker Ryan and his party have now said quite explicitly that they agree with the Democrats that:

• Vulgar words are a greater danger to the United States than a $20 trillion debt that will be wildly increased with the approval of both parties if Trump is defeated.
• Vulgar words are much worse than having a lying, two-faced, condescending, treasonous, influence-peddling, man-hating, rapist-protecting, and felonious president.
• Vulgar words are much more dangerous to the republic’s political stability and social cohesion than the fact that both parties have created a situation in which less than 50-percent of Americans pay income taxes, because tax laws are fixed to shield campaign contributors and to reward the automatons who mindlessly vote for them.
• Vulgar words are more dangerous to peace, U.S. national security, the national debt, and the lives and limbs of U.S. soldiers and Marines than are endless, unnecessary, and always bipartisan and losing interventionist wars.
• Vulgar words are more immoral than a president who has enabled the murder of 60 million American children and is transparently aching for a chance to kill more at home and abroad.
• Vulgar words are a greater threat to Americans and their personal economies than the Democrats’ intention to wipe out the coal/fossil-fuel industry and the millions of middle-class jobs that it provides.
• Vulgar words are a greater threat to the citizenry than a Harvard-ish, and so not surprisingly failing national health-care system that is bankrupting both individuals and the republic, and is leading to a system that will be much worse in terms of timely health-care delivery and much more expensive.
• Vulgar words are more dangerous to the republic than both political parties deliberately governing in a manner violating the Constitution, and effectively undermining the rule-of-law, the freedoms of religion (but only when it protects Christianity), speech, and privacy, and the 2^nd Amendment. (NB: Perhaps Speaker Ryan can lead both parties in a joint, Obama-Holder-Clinton-like attack on the massive threat posed to the nation by the Little Sisters of the Poor, who have the nerve to care for ill seniors who have no other place to turn for help.)
• Vulgar words are much more dangerous to democracy and social cohesion than giving taxpayer-paid subventions to fund the unconstitutional legal privileges both parties have awarded to all Americans but whites, via judges who are nothing more than Ivy-League ideologues and/or corrupt party apparatchiks.
• Vulgar words are much more dangerous to our kids’ future than a president beholden to the corrupt and anti-American teacher unions, organizations that are the partners of the abortionists and responsible for killing the minds of those who do not get physically murdered in the womb and then dismembered.
• Vulgar words are more dangerous to American youth than having a president who is beholden to a non-substantive, pet-media that hates the United States and loves any kind of sexual deviance, anti-white violence, and human debauchery, and to a movie industry that for decades has taught kids how to kill, rape, take drugs, debase women, and hate the republic and its history, symbols, and traditions, and whose actresses — who politicians cite as role models for young girls — vie with each other to see who can “leak” the sluttiest and most self-degrading sex-tape.
• Vulgar words, in sum, are much more dangerous to the republic’s survival than is a presidential candidate who has for decades helped the Democrats and Republicans to deliberately inflict an unmitigated economic, racial, constitutional, employment, societal, political, military, and cultural catastrophe on the now near-to-expiring republic.

Speaker Ryan’s effeminate anti-Trump decision, and the wide support it has in the Republican establishment, has at long last completed the concentration of all of the republic’s non-vulgar but black-hearted and pro-tyranny enemies under one tent.

It would be best, of course, to wait for the Lord to strike dead this republic-killing menagerie of the willingly greedy, murderous, racist, anti-Christian, and war-mongering. But He is a busy fellow, and probably none too pleased to see how thoroughly Americans have mucked-up the unrivaled opportunities for peace, prosperity, and social amity Providence afforded them in North America. Instead, as Theodore Roosevelt is reported to have said, let us proceed “fearing God, and taking our own part” and joyfully strike dead that cursed, two-party menagerie at the ballot box on 8 November 2016.

I am a white male and soon will be 64 years of age. In the current presidential campaign Mrs. Clinton has spoken a great deal about the “evil” of “white privilege,” and about her intention to destroy it. After reflecting on what the substance of that phrase has meant during the course of my life, I enthusiastically, even rabidly, endorse the idea of eradicating “white privilege” in its entirety, almost as much as I endorse eradicating Mrs. Clinton and her family from American politics.

The following, then, seems to me to constitute the gist of what I have experienced and observed because I am honored to be a holder of what Mrs. Clinton calls “white privilege.” I have been, for example, a privileged observer of the following.

• While a student attending two U.S. universities, and then teaching at another, my white privilege permitted me to closely watch advantages given to all who were not white, to watch basketball players sit in class day dreaming, napping, inspecting parts of their anatomy, skipping classes, and not turning in assignments, and yet getting grades as good as the supposedly highly privileged whites who worked their tails off and missed neither a class nor delivering an assignment on time. I also had the white privilege of often walking across the campus of a new-age Catholic university in Washington, D.C., at which I taught, and listening to the routine use of the word “nigger,” as well as the blaring of a noise inexplicably identified by many as “music,” and the lyrics of which were replete with the word nigger, anti-white slurs, misogyny, demands for dead police and whites, and calls for violence against women. The surreal nature of this experience lay in knowing that my white privilege would entitle me to being fired if I used the word forbidden only to whites, or if I refused to acknowledge that this non-music and its grotesque, violent, and often inhuman lyrics were admirable and award-worthy achievements of non-white culture and so were bound for honoring in non-white-only museums.
• During 15 years in the blue-collar, unionized work place, my white privilege permitted me to witness white guys get suspended or fired for drunkenness, drug use, absenteeism, or just plain laziness, and non-whites coddled, warned but retained, and promoted despite being guilty of the same infractions. This in a factory where hazardous work was done and inattention to the job — whatever the cause — could be deadly.
• In the white-collar work place for 30-plus years, my white privilege entitled me to watch the nation’s national-security apparatus incrementally and knowingly debilitated by a growing infusion of unqualified, non-whites who were hired, passed their probationary period, and then promoted to positions far above their competence, this on the basis of appraisals authored by those who feared for their own careers if they wrote a truthful but negative performance appraisal report for a non-white. This still intensifying process bodes ill for the republic’s security, and simply savages commonsense, the commonweal, and racial amity.
• As a father for 42 years and counting, my enviable white privilege allowed me to see my children denied access to large blocks of seats in universities that my taxes help support because those seats were reserved for non-white Americans, women, LGBTites, and foreigners of all races, this though my children had grades at least as good and, in many cases, much better than the students given preference. My precious white privilege also allowed me to watch my children compete for employment in job pools in which a portion of the jobs in each were also reserved for non-whites and the others to whom the law gives preference, whether or not they are qualified or even U.S. citizens.
• As a taxpayer for 50 years this December, my white privilege has been bountifully rewarded by allowing me to watch the hard-to-come-by money needed to raise and educate my family taken from my pocket as tax and then given to non-whites for their food stamps, college tuition, welfare, medical care, rent, low-interest mortgages, childcare, small businesses, and even for their kids’ breakfasts. Likewise, it has given me a wonderful view of how these trillions of working-Americans’ dollars, combined with incompetent, cynical, and vote-buying elected city officials, have destroyed major U.S. cities, exponentially increased crime and killing both between non-whites and against whites by non-whites, and generally worsened the lot of non-whites, notwithstanding the unearned money and unconstitutional legal preference they have been given.
• As a senior citizen, now for more than a decade, my sainted white privilege has allowed me to realize that I have spent most of a lifetime seeing non-whites riot, loot, kill/assassinate police, murder bystanders, slaughter each other, and raze the property of members of all races with no fear of facing justice; the election of a completely inexperienced, incompetent, amazingly lazy, lawless, and anti-American president simply because he is a non-white; the pardoning of hundreds of non-white felons imprisoned for lengthy sentences for selling narcotics to kids of all races (so they can do so again?); and the unending celebration by the media and movie-makers of the glories of non-white culture, among which are gang wars, complete with assassinations of 9-year kids; untold of numbers of fatherless children; narcotics-trafficking; and hatred for the American republic.
• Most of all, my sublime white privilege, in my dotage, has been blessed by knowing that since my youth trillions of tax dollars have been doled out to non-whites and wasted by them, as well as by the fact that I am fortunate enough to still hear the non-whites’ shrill, grossly selfish, often-vicious, and never-ending whining about the terrible condition of their lives, a condition which is largely of their own making and that of the politicians to whom they have self-enslaved themselves. Perhaps no people other than American non-whites has ever been given so much money and unconstitutional legal preference for which they have not worked and do not merit, have done so little with them to improve their lot, and have the nerve, shamelessness, and greed to demand even more of what I and other whites earn and require for the needs of our families.
• Finally, as an American citizen, my superb white privilege has awarded me a wonderful ringside seat to see and understand that most of the men and women now operating in the U.S. political arena can do so only because of the non-white votes they purchase with my taxes. These politicians also exist only because they have mangled my Constitution by finding it in heretofore invisible pro-tyranny clauses with which they and their pet judges justify such unconstitutional, discriminatory, and anti-white absurdities as racial quotas, unlimited illegal immigration; brain-dead diversity schemes, which do nothing but reward the untalented and legally preferred; and the existence of a “right” to apply the republic-killing scourge of multiculturalism, which might as well be entitled “Whites need not apply for anything, but better pay up.” Today, my glorious white privilege also permits me to see that the concepts of “merit-based employment and promotion” and “the equality of all before the law” have just about disappeared in the United States. They have been replaced by the absolutely unconstitutional, perhaps civil-war engendering, doctrine of “preference for all non-whites, women, LGBTites, felons, etc.” before what has become, at best, law-in-name-only.

What to do? It seems obvious to me that there are only two possible solutions. One may preserve domestic peace and restore some of the racial amity that the politicians — especially Obama, Holder, and Lynch — have intentionally destroyed, the other will cause the terrible civil war that inevitably must come from the maintenance and further enhancement of a tyrannical, anti-white status quo. Indeed, the fuse for that struggle may already have been lit by the national government’s expenditure on each non-vetted, illegal, and usually non-white immigrant of an amount of money that exceeds the average annual income of the whites it is taxing to pay for this government-imposed burden on and threat to the republic.

The solution to the problem is simple enough. At a future date, say 1 January 2018, applications for attending and teaching at schools at all levels, as well as all applications for employment in the state or federal civil services, the U.S. military, and all private sector for-profit and non-profit firms, will be submitted by e-mail from an address that does not identify the sender. They will no longer include an applicant’s name, address, age, gender, race, sexual or political proclivities, home address, or sporting skills. The applications also will not require letters of recommendation, essays written by the applicant, or pre-application interviews, which these days amount to nothing more than special pleading and implied threats of lawsuits by those entitled to legal preference. In addition, all schools will be required to forward transcripts without identifying information save for a number provided to the applicant by the entity to which he or she is applying for a position.

The would-be employer would thereby receive an application which can only be evaluated on the basis of the sender’s documented scholastic and/or workplace accomplishments, followed by an estimate, on the employer’s part, of what the merit present in the application, if any, is worth in terms of position and salary. If the decision is made to interview the applicant, the admitting or hiring officers will have made the decision that there is merit in the achievements recorded in a particular application, and will not know, until the applicant walks in the door, all the other data — name, age, gender, sexual proclivity, extracurricular activities, work experience, race, etc. — that enable the working of the discriminatory system the politicians have established for giving unconstitutional legal preference for non-whites in schooling and employment.

Such a system would, as they say, begin to re-level the playing field, and it also would reestablish merit and fairness as the main guiding principles of success and advancement in America. Under such a regime, my white privilege will be, praise God, erased; my children and I will regain our birthright, equality before the law; and whites will cease to be the financial and legally debased sponsors who are forced by the national government to be silent and abide by the legal and many other preferences reserved for non-whites.

Now, there is no suggestion here that whites should seek reparations from non-whites for their decades of unconstitutional subordination and for the trillions of their tax dollars the national government has taken from them and given to non-whites, who, by and large, remain politically enslaved to politicians who bribe them with my money and hateful toward their unwilling but legally obligated white benefactors. After all, whites would have to pay even more taxes to enable the politicians to give non-whites more money to pay back the money they did not earn and have wastefully consumed. Neither is there any animosity toward these non-whites, women, LGBTites, ex-convicts, illegal aliens, etc., they are as much the pawns as whites are of the increasingly tyrannical national government that is found under either party.

To conclude, I can only say that I have never owned a slave, discriminated against a woman, a non-white, an immigrant, an Indian, or a LGBTite, and that I hold, at this point, no anger, much less hatred, for any of them. (NB: For obvious reasons, I cannot say that about the national government) I am simply indifferent to them and their problems. I am, rather, eager to have the income after taxes to assure my family’s security now and in the future, and to pursue my own interests and goals. As a result, I am completely unwilling to be ever more heavily taxed to support the inability or unwillingness of non-whites, women, LGBTites, ex-convicts, and illegal aliens to pull their own weight without endless subventions from me and other whites. Let all of us make our own way in American society, and let all sink or swim based on their own merit and hard work. To make racism minimal in the United States, the national government must be made to stop both its longstanding and now deepening policy of deliberately pitting whites against non-whites, and its unending and highly illegal immigration-based campaign to make whites the republic’s subordinate and pay-for-all-others minority.

If that change does not come, civil war will, and with it will come the hatred and blood that naturally succeeds indifference. And it should.

The New York Times this morning leaked what may be some of Mr. Trump’s tax returns, and speculates that he may not have paid income taxes for 18 years. Well done, Mr. Trump!!!

At first blush, the Times’ story seems to prove, beyond doubt, the truth of Trump’s consistent charge that the country’s taxation, political, and economic systems are brazenly rigged by politicians from both parties, men and women who pass laws to keep their billionaire donors sweet.

If the Times is correct, and since Mr. Trump is not in jail, he obviously obeyed all of the national government’s tax regulations and the IRS — the Democrats’ brown-shirted army of lawless, anti-Conservative enforcers — has not been able lay a glove on him. The Times’ story also proves that Trump has the resolve and moxey to get off his butt after taking a wicked financial beating, and successfully strive not only to retrieve lost success, but to amplify that success. There are no more admirable American traits than stubborn perseverance and the honesty to recognize a defeat, but not accept it as final.

Is it not simple commonsense to say that Mr. Trump and all other Americans would have to be fools, suckers, and morons if they did not try to take as much advantage of the law as possible to avoid paying money to the bipartisan political whores who run most wildly profligate and deeply indebted government in the history of man.?

The truth, of course, is that both parties always write tax laws to favor the rich because the rich are the people who politicians in both parties — most of whom seem averse to real work — must abjectly beg for the money that allows them to continue in power and grow rich at the citizenry’s expense. Is that not precisely what Mr. Trump has been telling the electorate for more than a year? What more positive and emphatic proof for Trump’s assertions could possibly be needed after what America’s sainted “newspaper of record” has printed?

Again, the Times has proved Mr. Trump’s point: the national government’s taxation, political, and economic systems are rigged against everyday Americans. They must be expunged, not reformed. What reason is there for any American to pay more tax than the law demands, or to pay any tax that clearly violates his or her constitutional rights, such as forcing Christians to fund abortions, or giving the taxes of America’s Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Quakers, atheists, etc. to support and protect religious theocracies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

It is a madness to think that the Founders created a republic wherein people are meant to keep the least possible amount of the money they earn, and that the rest must be paid in taxes to an unaccountable bipartisan kleptocracy, one that reliably wastes it on unnecessary wars; unwanted, unneeded and illegal immigrants; slackers, thugs, and legally favored minorities; and innumerable foreigners seeking handouts for their Swiss bank accounts from Americans who make cars at Chevy, or mine the coal, or carry the mail, or protect the populace from criminals, or plow the snow, or deliver packages, or pick-up the garbage, or defend the republic with their lives and limbs.

The two great goals of all Americans should be to pay the least amount of tax legally possible, and to elect someone who knows how the system is rigged, who honestly says he has legally used it to his advantage, and who is ready, willing, and knowledgeable enough to destroy it, and to indict its political and federal civil service designers.

And it would be well for their health and futures, if the designers of the rigged tax system recalled two things. First, that Founders fought a successful war against a British king and Parliament seeking to arbitrarily tax Americans who were not represented in the legislature. Second, that the Founders left their posterity the 2nd Amendment to ensure that if such a tack was tried again in the United States, as it has been for the past 25 years, it could be — if necessary — deservedly and bloodily destroyed.

After listening to your debate with Mr. Trump, I am left a bit confused.

By way of preface, let me say that I have always been grateful to have been educated by the Society of Jesus at a little college called Canisius in Buffalo, NY. I attended Canisius in an era when Jesuits still taught men to be honest, reliable, Stoic, hard-working, God-fearing, and courageous enough to recognize and support the good, and to speak out against evil. Those Jesuits were still Christ’s soldiers, a very far cry from today’s new-age, mush-mouthed Jesuits who — like those at Georgetown University — race to hide religious pictures, statues, and crucifixes as a means of getting the U.S. president to speak at their institution.

In the early 1970s, the Jesuits also taught that only God knows what is in a person’s heart and mind, and that the only fair way to judge people is to compare what they say, with what they do, and to examine the company they keep. They especially taught us to be uncomfortable and wary of those who say one thing and invariably do another. It is on this last point that I want to ask you few questions, based on what you said in this week’s debate and how you have spoken and acted over the past three decades.

1. You spoke, and always speak, about how much you care for America’s children. But you have been an enabler and protector of those who, since 1973, have killed 60 million unborn Americans. You have helped to give sexual deviants easy access to our children’s classrooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, and scouting and sports activities. You have refused to support effective schools for our kids — via charter and magnet schools or school vouchers — and so have deliberately left them mired in lousy schools because you want to keep getting enormous campaign contributions from the teachers’ unions. Mrs. Clinton, this cannot be the record of someone who cares for children.
2. You said, and always say, that you believe law and order is vital for our society. But you always support the Black thug over peaceful Black citizens, and, as in the debate, you always use cunning language to vilify the police and put them in the wrong. You are always on the side of our society’s domestic enemies, including criminals, illegal aliens, agitators-for-violence, terrorists, rioters, looters, and sexual predators like your husband. Indeed, you have a record of trying to protect these individuals against the application of the law, and, in your support for federal gun control, you seek to ban law-abiding citizens from having weapons to protect themselves from the violent miscreants you fawn over. Mrs. Clinton, this cannot be the record of someone who cares for law and order and the safety of the citizenry.
3. You said, and always say, that you care deeply about the lives of the men and women serving in the U.S. military, diplomatic, and intelligence services. But you cold-bloodedly voted to send them to die and be maimed uselessly in Iraq, abandoned them to be butchered in Benghazi, helped flood their ranks with sexual deviants, and, in thirty years in public life, have done nothing to make the Veterans Administration a caring, not a killing agency. Mrs. Clinton, this cannot be the record of someone who cares for the men and women who defend our republic.
4. You said, and always say, that you care passionately about improving the lot of all women. But you are reported to have repeatedly defamed, verbally abused, and legally threatened those women who dared to complain that they were victimized, bitten, and bruised by your sexual-predator husband. You have defined any woman who supports your opponent as being in the “deplorable basket,” a term that can only mean that you regard those women as scum. You always claim to be a confident, independent woman and so a model for young women, and yet you never fail to rely on a man — your husband, Lanny Davis, James Comey, James Carville, John Podesta, Barack Obama, etc., etc. — to rectify the political mistakes you make and hide the illegalities you commit. Mrs. Clinton, this cannot be the record of someone who cares for women and who is, herself, a confident, independent, and competent woman.
5. You said, and always say, that the first and most important duty of a president is to ensure the nation’s security. But you insisted on using a private and unsecured e-mail server for a prolonged period, which made the republic’s most secret matters easy pickings for its enemies. You have motivated our Islamist enemies by championing unnecessary, losing interventionist wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, where no genuine U.S. interests are at risk. You have refused to do anything to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants who kill daughters out walking with their Dads, rape elderly and defenseless women, and soak our youngsters with narcotics. Mrs. Clinton, this cannot be the record of someone who believes effective national security is a president’s most important duty.
6. Finally, you said, and always say, that you love America. But you have for thirty years supported efforts to destroy the only four things that hold together a people spread over North America’s enormous extent: the English language, Christianity, a shared history, and equality under the law. You have opposed all attempts to secure the primary role of English in American society, so we are now a people who often find themselves unable to talk to each other. You have attacked Christianity at every opportunity, on issues ranging from Christmas decorations, the work of the Little Sisters of the Poor, and the battle to protect infants from murderers, but never, say, Judaism, because you want Jewish-American campaign contributions, or Islamism — whose adherents have killed so many of our service personnel — because you want the mindless votes of Muslims for whom you are always ready to apologize. You have attacked the republic’s history at every turn, denigrating the Founders, their works, and identifying American history as indelibly misogynistic and racist. You also have demanded the destruction of the South’s heritage by urging the elimination of the region’s history-honoring emblems, holidays, and statues. You have even damned the battle flag of Lee’s army — Lee, who single-handedly prevented a guerrilla war in America in April, 1865 — while approving the flying of the flag of a murderous, racist, and criminal organization like Black Lives Matter. You have lead the way in proving to the citizenry that the bipartisan ruling elite is above the law — in your case, the espionage and perjury laws — and have pledged to act more unconstitutionally than your current president, if that is possible. Mrs. Clinton, this cannot be the record of someone who loves America.

I hope you can understand from the foregoing why I am a bit confused. I can find no way to square your caring words with you uncaring actions. Again, what is it that you actually care about? The only conclusion I can draw — given the disparity between your caring words and uncaring, often destructive actions — is that you have never once been honest with Americans on this subject.

For my part, I will not play God and pretend I can read what is in your heart and mind. But I can, as all Americans can and should, compare your words and deeds. That comparison leads me to conclude that you care for only three things: (a) personal and arbitrary political power, (b) the acquisition of extreme personal wealth by any means necessary, and (c) ruling — not governing — a nation of obedient citizen-sycophants who applaud but never question.

I remain, then, with every prayer for your permanent political demise,

Sincerely yours,

M.F. Scheuer
Mclean, Virginia

28 September 2016

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says he wants the Obama administration to turn over the papers of Usama bin Laden to his Committee by 11 October 2016, or he will issue a subpoena for them. He believes they will make a lie of the Obama administration’s claim that al-Qaeda was all but destroyed and bin Laden was isolated from his organization when he was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan in May, 2011.

The congressman is wrong on two counts. First, the Bush administration is just as culpable as Obama’s on the matter of lying to the citizenry about the condition of al-Qaeda and bin Laden’s isolation from the organization. Second, while a full release of the documents would be most welcome, the documents that have already been released definitively prove this deliberate, bipartisan deceit for any person who has taken the time to read them.

There have been three major releases of the so called “Abbottabad Documents” — a bit more than 235 documents — since bin Laden’s death:

1. https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/letters-from-abbottabad-bin-ladin-sidelined, 3 May 2012
2. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/resources/bin-laden-bookshelf?start=2, 20 March 2015
3. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/resources/bin-laden-bookshelf?start=1, 1 March 2016

Being a terminal pedant, I have read the documents — especially those bin Laden wrote and received, many have little or nothing to do with him — and can only say that their contents are diametrically opposed to what the Bush and Obama administrations have told Americans and the world. The documents, for example, show that:

• Bin Laden was never isolated. The documents make it clear that he was fully involved in all of the important facets of Al-Qaeda’s financial, manpower, military, training, and diplomatic operations. To be sure, his involvement therein became more difficult and frustrating after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent start of drone operations — which bin Laden says were the bane of AQ’s existence — but his ability to command was only slowed, never halted.
• Bin Laden, in his private correspondence, never said that al-Qaeda’s war on the United States and its allies had anything to do with his hatred for Western civilization, freedom, the people’s selection of leaders, alcohol, women’s rights, etc. Until his death, he remained, in public speech and private writings, motivated by his determination to defeat U.S.-led, Western political, military, and economic intervention in the Islamic world, and especially its readiness to defend whatever Israel does, and to protect and prolong the the criminal rule of numerous Arab tyrants. In 1996 and 2016, those who argue that bin Laden’s and al-Qaeda’s war is motivated by hatred for abstract ideas — such as democracy, liberty, humans rights, etc. — are simply prevaricating and, like Bush, Obama, and their advisers, hoping that Americans are too lazy to read the three tranches of documents noted above.
• Bin Laden never was anything but enthusiastic about and thankful-to-Allah for the Arab Spring. He had always thought and written that Muslims would immediately move toward Islam, not secular democracy, if the Arab tyrants could be overthrown. When that happened, he repeatedly said that Arab Spring was a gift to Muslims from Allah, and there seems to have been no one in al-Qaeda that dissented from that view. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden, and Rice, most of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. and Western media, and the academy lied through their teeth when they said secular democracy was on the way in the Arab world and the Arab Spring was the death knell for al-Qaeda. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda rejoiced at the Arab Spring as a victory sent by God for the Muslims who had been brave enough to revolt, as well as for the mujahideen who had spent a quarter-century setting the stage. The Arab Spring caused bin Laden and al-Qaeda worry only because they were not confident that the victorious Muslims could form effective Sharia governments quickly enough to prevent counter-revolutions by the tyrants. This worry was well taken in regard to Egypt and, perhaps, Tunisia, and the jury is still out on the other Arab Spring states and the other Arab tyrants who have yet to fall, but will.
• Bin Laden resolutely opposed any near-term attempt to recreate the Caliphate. Attributing this intention to him is another lie by those who refuse to understand — and often have political reasons for refusing — what al-Qaeda was and is about. This is not to say bin Laden did not want a Caliphate, because he certainly yearned for its reconstruction, but he only wanted to try it when the time was right. When would the time be right? Only when the United States had been driven from the Arab world by God’s will, the tenacity of the mujahideen, the U.S. government’s inability (or unwillingness?) to win a decisive military victory, and the national financial disaster that Washington’s never-ending, interventionist war on Islam would yield. Bin Laden warned his colleagues that any premature attempt to restore the Caliphate would be dismantled by U.S. military power — I think he meant air power knocking down infrastructure — and that it was an open question if the mass of Muslims would support a second bloody effort to do so. Islamic State chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi must not have heard bin Laden’s advice, or, if he did, he ignored it, as the U.S., Western, Russian, Iranian, and other air forces are doing precisely that kind of destruction right now, although very far from murderously enough to eliminate the Islamists. Al-Baghdadi and his lieutenants appear to headed back to a victorious-in-the-future insurgency — air power cannot beat that — and, in the meantime, he and they can dwell on the fact that bin Laden was right, their caliphate-building was premature, and for now they are better advised to focus all they have on bleeding America, at home and abroad, both economically and in terms of civilian and military lives. If the status quo in U.S. foreign policy endures, they will win in that effort. But, for now, the only people who will miss the Caliphate are the pro-Israel, American Neoconservatives who have used it for more than decade to scare the citizenry into supporting their lust for unnecessary wars and their smug acceptance of dead and maimed young Americans.
• Bin Laden never once thought, per the released documents, that the 9/11 attacks were a mistake, as some Western pundits and analysts argued during the recent anniversary of the raids, with one inexplicably describing it a “spectacular miscalculation.” The documents released so far prove that bin Laden considered the 9/11 attacks to be the key victory that Allah had given to al-Qaeda and Muslims. The attack got the U.S. military into an Islamic country where it could be bled and defeated more easily, and — bin Laden would say “all thanks to God — publicly proved its unintelligent strategy and resolute, politically correct impotency. That U.S. forces are there 15 years later, still bleeding and losing, is irrefutable evidence that bin Laden was right. Indeed, 9/11 was a marvelous two-for-one operation for AQ, for, without out it, U.S. forces would not be mired in Iraq today, fighting for the interests of Syria, Russia, and Iran. Defeating two U.S.-led, Western field armies and having the West firmly and publicly on the side of Shia Iran and Hizballah, now that is a lot of bang for the pittance AQ spent to run the 9/11 raids, a real “Allahhu Akbar” moment. One more thing, the released documents clearly show that bin Laden and his media team began planning for the celebration of 9/11’s tenth anniversary in the last months of 2010, and had contacted media outlets and found them willing to lend a hand. The U.S. Seals thankfully killed bin Laden before he could inflict that humiliation on America, but otherwise he died a complete success: Al Qaeda’s role as an indispensable vanguard group was complete and utterly successful; the jihad itself was self-sustaining and increasingly international; and the jihad’s most vital ally — unnecessary U.S. military interventionism — was alive and well and about to be unleashed again by Obama and Hillary Clinton, with Republican support, in Libya, Iraq, and Syria.

Bin Laden’s last words surely must have been “God is greatest!” And, wherever he is, bin Laden knows that, God willing, there is still another al-Qaeda shoe to fall on the United States.

The media yesterday, in wake of the Islamist attacks in New York, quoted Hillary Clinton as promising “resolve” (1) in the fight against Islamism. She did not promise a U.S. victory, the annihilation of the foe, an end to war-causing interventionism, an effective and reliable domestic defense, or an end to the waste of American military and civilian lives. “Resolve,” you may have noticed, is what America has had as a policy for the Islam war from the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. America has been led with “resolve” in this war since 1996, and it is leading the republic to calamity.

“Resolve,” in Hillary’s mind, is what you show when you believe there is some other outcome in the war with Islam besides winning or losing. There is not. And there never has been. All of those in both parties, the media, the military, and the academy who have, for 20-plus years, told Americans that there is — in such forms as nation-building, democracy-spreading, election-holding, or women’s-rights awarding — are liars, stupid, or stupid liars. That is the basket in which Hillary, her husband, Bush, Cheney, Obama, and Biden permanently belong.

Screw “resolve,” it means cowardice, timidity, bankruptcy, and defeat. Mrs. Clinton proved this point yesterday when she trumpeted the fact that she had taken “part in the hard decisions to take terrorists off the battlefield.” (2) Any would-be American president who finds it “hard” — rather than a pleasure — to kill as many of America’s worst enemies as possible when chances arise to do so, is a worthless citizen meriting nothing but scorn and contempt.

America is either all in the Islam war, or all out; slaughter all Islamists and their supporters, or get out of a war that no longer concerns us, except for closing/controlling our border and lawfully hounding domestic Islamists to prison or death. And these are the only options there have been since the self-worshiping Bill Clinton refused to take any of the ten chances CIA gave him (1998-1999) to kill bin Laden because, he said on 10 September 2011, it would have made him — Clinton — look like a killer like bin Laden. Poor, cowardly, philandering Marse Billy, not once in his entire life has he even come close to being the quality of man, husband, and leader that bin Laden was.

From 1999 forward, then, there never has been a chance of negotiation, compromise, or prevailing on the basis of our generals’ half-assed dependence on intelligence, rendition, Special Forces, useless allies, and drones. Why? Because they are, at best, sideshows to the massive use of main force that is required to win the kind of war we are fighting, that most vicious of all conflicts, a religious war, and one that is only going to get more vicious and geographically dispersed.

The best of the two options clearly is to get out of the way and let the currently gathering momentum for a Shia-Sunni war come to fruition. Let the Israelis, Europeans, and our Sunni non-allies take care of themselves. That said, there is little to quarrel with if a decision is made to unilaterally annihilate — our allies participation would ensure failure — however much of Islam is necessary to definitively win. But such a decision would be very expensive in terms of American lives, limbs, and treasure. Much better to let those who more merit the costs pay them.

A final note. When thinking about voting for Hillary, recall that she repeatedly has said that her husband would play a big part in her administration. Then recall what Bill Clinton told his Australian business cronies on 10 September 2011:

“I nearly got him [bin Laden]. And I could have killed him [bin Laden], but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar [bin Laden was not in Kandahar town] in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children [an enormous exaggeration], and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.” (1)

For the parents of all U.S. soldier-children who have been killed or maimed since 9/11, and for all those whose soldier-children will certainly be killed in Hillary’s unending war of “resolve,” it is worth asking yourself what possible good could be derived — for yourselves, your kids, or your country — from putting two such lethal-to-Americans and self-serving narcissists back in the White House.

The answer is none.

Endnotes

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-urges-americans-to-choose-resolve-not-fear-after-ny-nj-mn-attacks/
2. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/clinton-says-shes-been-part-hard-decisions-take-terrorists-battlefield
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-clinton-i-could-have-killed-osama-bin-laden/