Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

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/

The 535 members of the U.S. Congress and Senate and President Obama’s administration have made clear what their collective priority is for spending taxpayer money. They had a pot of $38 billion to spend and, as always, there were numerous items contending for top-priority financial support, but only one could win.

Let us start with several of the most vital items that would be found any list of America’s needs, but which lost out in the contest for spending that $38 billion of your money and mine. We will then finish by naming the big winner who will — like a quick-handed sneak-thief — reach in and take the money right out of our pockets.

THE LOSERS:

1. Quickly and completely fixing the lead-contaminated water problem in Flint, Michigan, and other American cities where the problem exists. (That is, $0 from the $38 billion pot.)
2. Immediate actions to ensure no more U.S. military veterans die or commit suicide while awaiting medical or psychiatric assistance. (That is, $0 from the $38 billion pot.)
3. Effective, near-term efforts to remedy the prolonged cruelty of allowing 25-percent of America’s kids to be hungry or malnourished. (That is, $0 from the 38 billion pot.)
4. Funding to help state and local governments use paper ballots for the 2016 presidential election so no voter need fear his vote will be misdirected or deleted by foreigner hackers, as well as to shut up the lawless FBI Director Comey, whose dire warnings about foreign hacking sound — with Trump up in the polls — much like a prelude to Obama cancelling the election. (That is, c. $0 from the $38 billion pot.)
5. A well-funded and aggressive research drive to cure breast, prostrate, and childhood cancer in America as quickly as possible. (That is, $0 from the c. $38 billion pot.)

THE WINNER:

Israel receives $38 billion. (1) (That is, all of the dollars in the $38 billion pot.)

That is more than $4,500 per Israeli, (2) but not a red cent from that pot of money for even one economically hard-up, sick, hungry, or unemployed American. That is precisely how much the bipartisan political elite cares about the worst-off Americans and their needs. In short, they do not care a lick for the citizenry. They care only for the disloyal Jewish-Americans who lead the Israel-First gang — and help fund their election campaigns — and the grasping foreigners who lead a country irrelevant, nay, detrimental, to the genuine national-security interests of the United States.

Endnotes

1. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/israel-us-military-assistance-228110
2. Israel’s population is about 8 million. See, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/newpop.html

I have written here on previous 9/11 anniversaries that the day ought to be called something like the “National Day of Delusion.” I thought this year I would refrain from marking the day, but driving home from Mass this morning and listening to the radio I again got a burr under my saddle about all the falsehoods being propounded over the airwaves. Let us leave aside the fake grief that the media manufactures on each 9/11, and look rather at phrases such as “the terrorists were unable to change America,” “we have avenged the innocent that died in the attack,” “the new skyscrapers in New York City show America is stronger than ever,” and that old, but still reliably nauseating standby “we will never forget.”

Each phrase could be taken and commented on in turn, but the mass of ignorance, stupidity, and/or deceit they represent is so enormous that a few general correctives might be more in order.

• On this 9/11, Americans are marking an enormous U.S. military defeat delivered by an enemy who overwhelmed an incompetently led and politically correct U.S. military, as well as the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans whose lives remain unavenged, which is the only means of honoring wartime deaths. The time has come to stop treating U.S. general officers as demigods until they can prove they can win a war, or one or more of them are found to have enough integrity to resign and speak publicly about the cowardice they consistently display by silently leading their men and women into wars they know their president does not intend to win and under rules of engagement that make them targets not killers. I would propose that an appropriate way to mark future 9/11s would be to hang each of the service academies in black blunting to mark the manner in which their recent graduates have killed what General MacArthur described as their credo, “duty, honor, country.”
• The idea that the terrorists did not succeed in changing America can be shown to be a nonsense by the fact that every U.S. citizen has been, and will again become, the target of the national government’s electronic collection efforts, effectively invading their privacy and depriving them of the protections of the 4th Amendment. The reality that the terrorists have negated a part of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights — though not to the extent of the constitutional damage done by another terrorist named Obama — seems definable as an important change in the way Americans live.
• The new skyscrapers in New York City symbolize the widespread inability of Americans to face facts, a situation that is encouraged by their bipartisan political elite, which continues to ensure endless war by staging military interventions in the interests of Israel-First, Saudi Arabia,the elite democracy-crusaders in the United States and Europe, and now even Iran. The new buildings may well serve business interests, but they really symbolize nothing but a misunderstanding of the enemy. Does any sane person really think that the enemy regards those buildings as a sign that they cannot defeat America? Not a chance. They simply regard them as new targets, and probably are amused that so much more focus, effectiveness, and skill have been put into their construction, than have been directed against those who caused the necessity of reconstructing the buildings.
• The most important reality that we need to face and understand is that both U.S. political parties deliberately have created a new American underclass whose job is to die silently and uselessly. For twenty years and a month, the U.S. national government has profligately expended the talents, endurance, and, too often, the lives and limbs of U.S. military personnel — at the rank of lieutenant colonel and below, of course — and the officers of the U.S. intelligence community. All of the dead, wounded, and burned out from these organizations are much more the casualties of their own leaders’ actions and effeminacy, than they are of the enemy’s actions. These men and women have carried the burdens of war on their backs and in their minds, only to find that on this 9/11 their political and military leaders have deliberately lost two wars — in Iraq and Afghanistan — and have then used them to reintervene and lose a second time in each. They also find that during the past week U.S. military aircraft were attacking the enemy in six different countries, a fact that underlines the wanton manner in which the efforts and lives of U.S. military and intelligence officers have been wasted, and how much stronger and geographically dispersed the enemy is today than he was on the first 9/11.

If those who died on the first 9/11 are watching today, they will see a pathetic parade of notable personalities expressing faux grief and mock tears for them, declaring utterly groundless claims about America’s enduring strength, and spewing transparent lies about the nearing of U.S. victory over the victors of the battle on 9/11. They will also see the base wickedness of those political and military leaders who have since, the 9/11 attack, pontificated about how the dead of that day would never be forgotten, and how those who killed them would be destroyed.

At the close of this 9/11, then, those who fell on the day of the attack, and those who have since been killed, maimed, or made mentally distraught in wars never intended to be won, will know one thing for certain. They will know that their lives, limbs, and futures have been wasted because their national government, the two national political parties, and most of the academy and the media do not give a damn about them, save for the fact that their graves allow these grandees, on each 9/11, to continue lying about their intention to defend the republic, its constitution, and its citizens. The dead discussed herein may not be in the politicians’ “basket of deplorables,” but they clearly are in their “basket of expendables.” And, when you think about it, the two baskets probably are one and the same, together made up of those at times uncouth, always frankly spoken, hardworking, and hopelessly quaint Americans who tend to go MacArthur one better, by being willing to live and die in the name of duty, honor, country, and God.

Late in the afternoon of 7 September 2016, the Washington Post published a story that carried the following title, “Trump calls for higher defense spending after months of isolationist talk.” (1) The most germane part of this fundamentally uneducated and anti-Trump article is in the two following paragraphs.

“As soon as I take office, I will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military. It is so depleted. We will rebuild our military,” Trump said Wednesday during a speech at the Union League in Philadelphia. “This will increase certainty in the defense community as to funding and will allow military leaders to plan for our future defense needs.

“The speech marked a striking shift toward conservative orthodoxy for the real estate developer, whose candidacy on foreign affairs was built on an anti-establishment, anti-interventionist message. Trump has often dismissed the value of consulting experts on international relations, pointing to upheaval in the Middle East as proof that their policies have been ineffective and asserting last year that he knew “more about ISIS than the generals do.”

Now, Trump has not once called for an “isolationist” foreign policy for the United States. Indeed, no political figure of any prominence in U.S. history has ever called for an isolationist foreign policy. Why? Because we are a trading nation and so must be involved in commerce in all areas of the world, as well as in joint scientific endeavors, banking relationships, and dozens of other dealings that are part of being a nation-state existing in a world of nation-states. As Pat Buchanan once said, the term “isolationist” has been used, since the 1930s, as a slur by those upper-class and foreign-owned Americans who want the United States to intervene in other peoples’ wars in the name of democracy and freedom, as well as by malignant foreigners — Britain and France in the late 1930s, Israel, NATO, and the EU today — who want us to intervene in the wars they have started or want to fight, and, in essence, fight their wars, pay for them, and then clean up the postwar mess. Since 1945, the adjective “isolationist” also has been used to identify Americans opposed to U.S. intervention in wars that are none of the republic’s concern as pro-communists, America-haters, and anti-Semites. The term “America First,” of course, is used for the same vile purpose.

The author of the Post article does, most remarkably, stumble onto the truth when, in the second paragraph above, he notes that Trump has championed a non-interventionist foreign policy. Non-interventionism is not in any conceivable way a deviant kind of foreign policy. It is, after all, the foreign policy the republic’s Founders decided was best able to serve genuine U.S. national-security interests in perpetuity. While it reigned in the White House, the United States fought few if any overseas wars. Since it was abandoned — by William McKinley and the loathsome Woodrow Wilson — America has had, quite literally, almost nothing but unnecessary wars.

For the Founders, non-intervention simply meant that (a) America would deal amicably with other nations on any number of issues, save for those nations that chose to attack or tried to subvert the republic, and (b) would never become involved in foreign wars that posed no threat to the United States, even if one or more of the nations involved in such irrelevant-to-America wars was thought to be a friend of the United States.

Because they knew history and human nature better than any current U.S. politician, and because they also knew that history always repeats itself, the Founders believed that war brought death, deep debt and high taxes, internal divisions, and the tyranny that is the inevitable product of the war-engendered growth of excessive executive power. They believed these results would occur even in wars that America had to fight because they were life-or-death struggles for the republic’s existence; that is, necessary wars. Naturally enough, then, the Founders were confident that involving America in other peoples’ wars that were irrelevant to U.S. national security would be a gross stupidity that would unjustifiably impose on Americans the unending grief resident in the host of plagues just mentioned. For the Founders, wars were undertaken only for matters that meant life or death for the republic; they were never, ever, fought for the purpose of winning abstract and unattainable goals — freedom, liberty, women’s rights, secularism, the “right” of a country to exist, etc. — for foreign nations.

Trump, so far, has been a non-interventionist, which, he has made clear, means neither isolationism nor pacifism. Likewise, he clearly sees that there are deranged carnivores lose in the world who would quickly harm America if they concluded it would not respond immediately and decisively. Indeed, such miscreants are doing so today because of the pacific behavior and idealistic — and therefore laughable — rhetoric of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Founders, especially Washington, Jay, Hamilton, and Knox, held that a non-interventionist foreign policy would protect the republic only if America had a military strong enough to smash any nation that believed — as Iran does in 2016 — it could do as it pleased and America would not defend itself to the utmost. In short, non-intervention and a large and capable military must go hand-in-hand.

So the Post, as always, is wrong. Trump remains a non-interventionist — not an isolationist — and, as the Post’s article notes, he continues to politely and clearly inform the Europeans that NATO is a deservedly dying entity because (a) they will not fund their own defense; (b) they are without commonsense, except for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic; (c) they bait Russia with their democracy-mongering — as in the Ukraine — while counting on the U.S. military to rescue them; (d) Americans are no longer is willing to go war automatically if one of the other 27 NATO nations does so; and (e) because Europe’s leaders have already mandated the suicide of their civilization through the door they have opened to unlimited numbers of Muslim migrants.

Whether in 1790 or 2016, the Founders’ non-interventionist foreign policy fits the United States and the American people like a glove, one that can ensure its survival, sovereignty, independence, and to the greatest possible extent in this war-loving world, its peace. For now, Trump has it precisely right. More power to him.

Endnote

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-calls-for-defense-sequester-to-end/2016/09/07/7dda8548-7513-11e6-be4f-3f42f2e5a49e_story.html

On a hot and wet September afternoon in northern Virginia, a number of interesting matters appear in the day’s news.

• I searched for “Donald Trump” on GOOGLE News about 1330 and a page of 2o items came up, 19 of them anti-Trump and ranging from negative to scurrilous. The 2oth item is a piece reporting that the latest IBD/TIPP Poll — said to be the most accurate poll in each of the last three presidential elections — has Trump and Clinton in a dead heat, meaning that Hillary has blown a seven-point lead. One would think that turn-around would merit GOOGLE putting the story on its “Top Stories Page,” but it is not there. Trump is a consigned to a page that includes such vital news as “Democrats troll Donald Trump with a Taco Truck in Colorado” and an interview with a harrowing, pink-haired creature named Cindy Lauper who claims Trump is “like Hitler.” I guess you do not need to be sane or talented to work at GOOGLE so long as your are a Democrat and amoral. And who knows, maybe it is not Trump that cost Hillary her lead. Maybe its just that Americans are catching onto the fact she’s a felon, or perhaps they have heard Michael Savage’s priceless and hilarious question about her: “Why would you vote for someone who looks like Stalin’s housekeeper?”
• The news also says that Henry Kissinger and George Schultz may endorse Hillary Clinton. We will see whether they do, but it would be nice to have two more war-mongering, Israel-Firsters aligned with Clinton under the tent that now houses nearly all of the republic’s internal enemies. I have to admit that I am amazed how many of these purported foreign-policy gurus have endorsed a felon and a woman who the FBI Director said is “recklessly careless” about the handling of highly classified intelligence materials. We know the lying scum Hillary and her family are, but what are we to make of this pool of men and women — say, the fifty who signed the anti-Trump letter and the generals who said the U.S. military would not obey a President Trump — who have spent their careers in responsible defense and foreign-policy posts and who now feel compelled not only to to support a lying felon, but to claim that the republic’s security and future can be entrusted to her care? Surely, their choice ought to disqualify them from any future employment by the national government, and it ought to foreclose the national government from doing business with any company they own, work for, or sit on the board of directors. No need to fret over these folk finding work, however, they have exactly the kind of avariciousness and moral vacuity that will find a lucrative home at GOOGLE or FACEBOOK.
• It also occurred to me today that it is a little more than two years since Obama reintervened in Iraq, arguing that what is going on there has something to do with genuine U.S. national security interests. Well, we are now two years into this Obama mistake and less than 20 U.S. service personnel have been killed in Iraq. Those lives were, of course, wasted; none would have been killed there if Obama had not reintervened. Indeed, IS has killed far more Americans inside the United States, those in San Bernardino who died because Obama’s immigration system is criminally negligent, and 45 in Orlando, where one IS shooter inexplicably was able to kill that group — while he was texting and speaking on the phone — without being overpowered. Juxtaposing these events must lead to the conclusion that our chief national security interests are here in North America, and that the national security interests that are at risk in Iraq and Syria belong to others for whom we need not be concerned.
• On this same issue, it is only fair to tote up the pluses and minuses that have occurred since Obama re-intervened. On the plus size — if you are wearing rose-colored glasses — IS has lost Palmyra, al-Ramadi, and may lose Mosul, although it is worth noting that since IS defeats were declared in the first two cities, the regional media have consistently reported fighting raging in and around both, and the same phenomena is occurring vis-a-vis the much touted IS defeat in Sirte, Libya. Now if you think that the West had a reason to to fear the growth of a mighty IS Caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and its subsequent expansion worldwide, the fall of the cities may well look like a great development. Well, the IS Caliphate was never a threat to U.S. national security interests; indeed, the more it grew, the more IS wanted to keep it, and — given its static physical assets — the more capacity the U.S. military would have to to destroy it. Without that project on their hands, IS will return to what it does best, and what the U.S. military unquestionably does worst, namely, insurgency. By any commonsense assessment, an IS insurgency is very much more likely to expand internationally — witness the deadly attack in Davao in the Philippines on 2 September 2016 — than is an IS-led Caliphate, which creates nothing but that which can be easily destroyed by conventional weaponry, if the America and the West could just identify and then elect and appoint political leaders and general officers who are champions of “America First” and not politically correct cowards.
• On the minus side of Obama’s military reintervention lies an array of nightmares. The London Mail Online reported this week, for example, that after all of the West’s efforts in Syria and Iraq, Iran now commands Shia forces in Syria that out number the the Syrian Army; 60,000 to 73,000 for the former, 50,000 for the latter. How is that for success? Iran now has the strongest military forces in both Syria and Iraq, a success that would have been utterly impossible for Tehran to attain if George W. Bush and Tony Blair and not invaded Iraq in 2003, and if their U.S. and UK successors had not mindlessly continued to reinforce defeat there. And there is more. Turkish President Erdogan’s Islamist government has now invaded Syria, less to hurt IS than to exterminate Kurds. Erdogan and his sidekicks also have long dreamed of reviving the Ottoman Empire and restoring its sway across the Middle East, and they now have the chance to give it a go. The Ottoman Empire, of course, is not a happy historical memory for any Arab and so more war is on the way. And then there is Russia — another power hated by Sunni Arabs for its conduct in Afghanistan and its atheism during the Soviet era — which now has military bases in Syria and Iran, though access to the latter appears to be on-again, off-again. Now, a commonsense view would be one of delight in seeing Moscow assume responsibility for the mess in the Middle East at a time when its own rapidly growing Sunni population is radicalizing and causing problems at home, and when Islamist forces will soon be advancing into Central Asia from Afghanistan. Talk about too many irons in the fire. But our bipartisan governing elite — that is, Israel First, the Neocons, the media, and the academy — will see this development as a “dire national-security threat to the United States [read Israel],” and, if Hillary is elected, will make sure that the United States relieves Russia of its coming, well-merited disaster, and will then see to it that Americans will pay for more lost interventionist wars with their taxes, the lives of their children, and, ultimately, their liberty and republic.

All told, it was not a totally agreeable afternoon of reading and thinking. Trump’s rise in the polls brings a smile, but the willingness of prominent Americans to advocate the election of a felon, to behave disloyally in favor of a foreign country, and to seek to involve America in endless war is deeply disturbing. That said, the utter fecklessness of continuing U.S.-led military interventionism — always championed by those grandees who oppose Trump — and the chaos it has created in the region may yet save the republic by facilitating an all-out Shia-vs-Sunni war. I, for one, will pray for that happy event, as well as for Black Americans deciding at long last to try and unshackle themselves from the chains clutched by Democratic overseers, men and women who have given them, and all-Americans, only slavery, secession, civil war, segregation, and poverty-producing socialism.