Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

The presidential campaign of 2016 has so far been a humdinger. With all of the republic’s most dangerous enemies gathered under the leadership of the Clintons, the race has become a kind of life-and-death match. A Trump win would see him and Governor Pence initiate America’s long road back to prosperity, nationalism, commonsense, social cohesiveness, and a war-avoiding foreign policy. A Clinton win, on the other hand, would force the issue of how dissenting Americans will choose to dispose, with some finality, of what surely will be Hillary’s continuing implementation of tyranny. The building blocks for more tyranny would be Clinton’s naming of Supreme Court justices to codify more legal preference for her party’s various slave colonies; her starting and losing of more unnecessary and bankrupting interventionist wars; her maintenance of a coddled, bribed, and controlled media; her imposition of punitive taxes on working Americans and their employers to support foreigners, migrants, illegal aliens, the Democrats’ slave colonies, as well as to eliminate middle-class jobs via trade deals and the fabricated climate-change crisis; and her party’s final destruction of the Constitution, the idea of equality before the law, the middle class, the primacy of the English language, American history, and the Christianity that always has been and still is a key part of the republic’s social fabric.

In some ways this reality prompts memories of the period between Lincoln’s election in November, 1860, and his inauguration in March, 1861, which historians have termed the “Secession Winter.” Throughout those months, Lincoln publicly argued that the southern states had not been attacked by the national government, and that he had no intention of doing so or of trying to deny the region any of its rights under the Constitution, including the right to own slaves. The southerners nonetheless rebelled and declared themselves an independent state. They acted not because of the existing ominous, though not lethally threatening political environment, but on their fear of what Lincoln, the Republicans, and the abolitionists might do to their liberties and property as 1861 unfolded. They chose to start a civil war — or a war of independence, if you like — and not to wait for a physical or legal attack of some kind by the Lincoln administration. That probably was a poor decision by southern leaders, but it is understandable, perhaps even defensible. Reality, after all, is often based as much on perception as fact, and the southerners’ almost unanimous perception was that Lincoln and his administration directly threatened their liberty and property and so made it time for them to leave the Union.

No such problem will face Americans if Hillary Clinton is elected in November, 2016. If Clinton is elected, Americans who are opposed to her, her party of criminals, thugs, racists, and theorists, and, most important, to tyranny, will not have to wonder, worry, or fret about what she and her administration might do to destroy their history, jobs, wealth, traditions, liberty, Constitution, and religion. Nor will they have to wonder if tens of millions more unborn Americans will be murdered and dismembered for profit, or if tens of thousands more of the republic’s soldier-children will be killed and maimed in unnecessary, Israel-and-NATO-protecting wars. All of these things, Americans will know with a terrible certainty, will be givens.

If Clinton wins, the republic, this time around, will face a much shorter “Secession Winter,” with inauguration day in January rather than March. But even that shorter interregnum is not a problem. Americans will know what is coming from a Clinton administration, and unlike our southern brethren 150 years ago, they will not have to make a decision based on fears about what might to happen to them and their property and liberties. They will know, without any reason for doubt, what is going to happen. The election of Mrs. Clinton means the end of the republic, perhaps not immediately, but soon and conclusively. But, all thanks to God, Americans will be able to deal with that reality on the basis of hard fact and not only fears and assumptions. At that time the die will be cast, and Americans may well confront a reason for rebellion that will require them to execute the duty they were assigned in the Declaration of Independence. “Prudence, indeed,” the Continental Congress wrote as a committee-of-the whole,

will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So the republic is headed for momentous and perhaps tragic and bloody times. Things may still work out without a repeat of 1861 and all that came in its train. Let us all work and vote for that end, and pray with utmost sincerity all goes well. In the meantime, the following items are worth considering. They are crystal clear auguries of what a Hillary Clinton administration will bring; namely, more lies, corruption, criminality, war, foreign influence and masters, bankruptcy, arrogance, debt, and unconstitutional national-government diktats for what were once the free and independent American republic and people.

A Tale of Heroic Feminism: That increasingly feeble icon of modern, self-reliant, liberated, and independent womanhood, Hillary Clinton, bellied up to the bar at the FBI and stoutly defended herself by telling Comey’s boys, “Colin made me do it.” Yes, Hillary and her aides betrayed their oaths of office, broke espionage and perjury laws, and treated their countrymen and their republic as expendable because of the Machiavellian advice of — a MAN. Mrs. Clinton — posing as innocent little Hillary of Sunnybrook Farm — wants all of us to believe that she resorted to criminality only because of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who, she said, used a similar e-mail system during his tenure. General Powell’s office quickly released a polite memo claiming that Powell could not recall offering her the guidance she described, but he had sent her an e-mail memo saying he had used an AOL account for non-classified e-mails because the State Department did not have an unclassified e-mail system when he served there, a situation rectified long before Clinton was appointed to the office. General Powell’s office has since expressed some anger that Mrs. Clinton is trying to “pin” her criminality on the General. Nice try, Mrs. Clinton, but the sum of this story is that you lied again and you were called on it by the highly respected General Powell. You probably thought that General Powell would meekly allow his reputation for honor and honesty to be shredded by your lie because of all fine things that you and your party have done for Black people in America. Well, Mrs. C., the good general would not take the fall for you, and he may well be thinking along the lines of Mr. Trump’s question, “What the hell have Blacks got to lose by trying something new?” After all General Powell’s career was based on hard, republic-defending, and life-risking work, and it flourished during the tenure of the very Republicans that you, Mrs. C., and your fellow Simon Legree-like Democratic overseers deem racists. And by the way, Mrs. Clinton, was it not your husband who said of Barack Obama, “he’s the kind of guy we send to get our coffee”? It must be hoped that ol’ Marse Billy sees that General Powell is a decent, brave, and patriotic man and decides that he is at least worthy of stepping out and fetching bagels, maybe even croissants.

Contribute now or forever hold your bribe: That felonious couple, Hillary and Bill Clinton, have announced that the Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign donations if Hillary is elected president. This is precisely like the national government saying that it will prohibit the sale of beer on 15 September 2016, and no American should dare to buy beer in the run-up to that date. In the latter case, beer would be flying off the shelves and stockpiled. Just so in the case of the Clintons. The Clinton Foundation’s decision to abandon part of its criminal enterprise if Mrs. C. becomes president is simply a message that says, “Hey foreigners! You better hurry up and buy our influence before election day — and, yes, the price has gone up — because if Mrs. C. wins, we are only going to betray America for those of you who have fully paid up before the inauguration.” Rather than a patriotic decision to stop doing the bidding of foreign donors at the expense of America’s national interests, the Clinton Foundation has just decided to launch a slick, intense, and short-duration campaign for massive illegal donations from foreigners, which it will collect at the syndicate’s big meeting in New York City in September 2016. The banner over that meeting’s dais will simply say “Bribe us Now, We Will Play for You Later!”

Israel First is the Republicans’ and the republic’s cancer, Part 1: From the point in the Republican presidential primaries that Donald Trump first showed potential strength, the party’s Neoconservatives and Israel-Firsters have been the core and probably the funders of the never-Trump movement. That group includes Bill Kristol and his crew of fifth columnists, barely disguised as journalists, at the Weekly Standard; the similarly oriented fifth-column staffs at Commentary and National Review; Israel-First buffoons like Michael Bloomberg and Mark Levin; and FOX’s seemingly endless crew of Israel-First shills, Kristol, again, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, the hosts of “The Five”, easily history’s all-time worst television news program, and the network’s team of always wrong on war, but always pro-Israel retired U.S. general officers. Will and Krauthammer are in a class of their own. Each drips personal hatred for Trump; indeed, Will seems half-or-more crazed when dispensing his anti-Trump venom, and not infrequently Brett Baier, host of the fine Special Report program, has had to correct or inject himself into one of Will’s anti-Trump tirades to maintain a bare semblance of “fair and balanced.” This past week, however, it was Krauthammer’s turn to show the ever-bright, always dastardly trademark of Israel First; namely, that U.S. interests can go to either hell or war if that will stop Trump. Mr. Baier’s panel was discussing Mrs. Clinton’s lengthy list of foreign-policy liabilities, when Krauthammer gleefully noted that Trump would be in political trouble if “his friend” Putin invaded Ukraine. Clearly, Krauthammer did not care if the United States became involved in a war with Russia that would have to go nuclear because the rest of NATO has unilaterally disarmed since the fall of the USSR. No, Krauthammer, Kristol, and the rest of the disloyal Jewish-American fifth columnists are willing to run that risk — or any risk — if it would help to get the completely AIPAC- and Israel First-owned Mrs. Clinton elected president.

Israel First is the Republicans’ and the republic’s cancer, Part 2: On 10 August 2016, CNN published a list of twelve U.S. Senators and Congressmen who are not supporting Donald Trump.(1) Having seen Israel-First’s deranged and vicious hatred of Mr. Trump, I thought it might be interesting to see if the anti-Trump Republican members of Congress found on the CNN list are tied to Israel First and have been bidden by their fifth-column masters to oppose Trump, even though it might mean sinking their party, countrymen, and republic by helping to elect a perjurer, influence-peddler, and authoritarian like Hillary Clinton. What I found about the anti-Trumpers, after doing just a small bit of research, follows and speaks for itself. All of the dozen on CNN’s list are recipients of pro-Israel funding — although several sold themselves pretty cheaply — and some also have received one or more free trips to Israel. In essence, Israel First’s leaders said “jump” to the dozen Republican members of the U.S. Congress listed by CNN and those lickspittles eagerly replied “Sure, how high?” while tugging their forelocks.

• Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine): Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $112, 310 (2)
• Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska): Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $286,350
• Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois): Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $718,246
• Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas): Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $100,354
• Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona): Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $119,350
• Senator Dean Heller (R-Nevada): Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $71,100
• Congressman Scott Rigell (R-Virginia): Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $2,000
• Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois): Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $22,150
• Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $67,650, and four free trips to Israel valued at $66,794 (3)
• Congressman Charlie Dent (R-Pennsylvania): Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $5,750 and one free trip to Israel valued at $17,112
• Congressman Mike Coffman (R-Colorado): Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $11,400, and one free trip to Israel valued at $14,624
• Congressman Bob Dold (R-Illinois): Contributions from pro-Israel groups — $118,320, and one free trip to Israel valued at $11,119

Endnotes

1. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/donald-trump-republican-opposition/
2. http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all. This website provided the contribution totals for each candidate named by CNN. The total for each senator, per the website, covers contributions for the last six years of available data, Apr 1, 2009 — Mar 31, 2015, including contributions to presidential campaigns. The totals for each member of the House of Representatives, per the website, covers contributions for the last two years of available data, Apr 1, 2013 — Mar 31, 2015, including contributions to presidential campaigns.
3. https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/the-list-of-congressional-representatives-who-took-trips-to-israel-do-they-represent-you-or-israel/. This site provided the data for the free-trips to Israel taken by four of the Representatives noted above. The data is from 2011, and the four may or may not have taken more free trips to Israel by now.

Mr. Trump, you have fallen into a snare placed for you by the Republican establishment people on your team, most of the media, and by Hillary Clinton and her advisers.

The name of that trap is “complexity” and it is used by both party establishments to explain why they never solve any of the problems America faces. Oh, they promise to do so, but when they fail — and they always fail — they say it is because the problem is too “complex,” too “multifaceted,” or too “nuanced,” and that it needs great amounts of time and enormous sums of money to solve. [NB: Like the “generational war” against Islam lusted for by those 50 Israel-First war-mongers who wrote you the public letter.]

Mr. Trump, THIS IS REPUBLIC-KILLING BULLSHIT!!!

Clear, commonsense, patriotic, and non-complex ideas brought you to the dance and won you the nomination, do not throw that success away by the playing the bipartisan enemy’s confuse-bilk-and-deceive-the-voters game called “complexity.”

Try the following:

Organizing Principle: AMERICA FIRST.

Components of the Principle:

• Debt and War: America is broke and its military is broken, no more wars unless attacked.
• ISIS: This is an American problem only if we are attacked at home; otherwise, let the Islamists’ real enemies fight and win or lose on their own, while we belatedly act to defend North America.
• Student Debt: Kill all of the national government’s student loan programs and force the universities to compete, as well as to decide if they want to lower their extortionate, debt-creating tuition, and greatly improve and depoliticize their product, or want a mass of permanently empty lecture halls.
• Guns: Uncompromising defense of the 2^nd Amendment, and talk about the legal and constitutional option it gives all Americans to — as a last resort — offer armed resistance to the tyranny being imposed on the republic by both party establishments, the media, and the academy.
• Immigration: (a) Build the wall; (b) enforce the law and deport all illegals; and (c) ban all immigration for 5 or 10 years so there is no supportable claim that one group is being discriminated against.
• Taxes: Repeat, repeat, and repeat, “Only lower taxes for all can pave the road to cutting the debt, creating jobs, and rebuilding the middle class and military.”
• Black Americans: Do not “reach out” to Black Americans, both party establishments want you to look like a fool and fail. Most Blacks have voted like mindless slaves for 50 years and are likely to keep doing so for the foreseeable future. Those who want to de-slave and attain dignity and jobs will have to make that decision for themselves and act accordingly.
• Law-and-order: Back the police full-up so long as their actions are lawful, and offer no “sympathy” or “understanding” for thugs, assassins, and looters who are “discouraged,” “frustrated,” “unemployed,” and “without hope.” The party they slavishly vote for has made and kept them that way for 50 years. They apparently like it.
• Trade: (a) No multi-country deals, only bilateral; (a) no multi-country, trade-regulating organizations that negate U.S. sovereignty; and (c) only trade deals that increase blue-collar jobs.

Foreign financial and military aid: None

Allies: (a) As few as possible, none permanent; (b) none that can get us into their wars automatically; and (c) withdraw from NATO.

As the good people of Buffalo would say, Mr. Trump, you can win, but only “if ya dance wit da ones dat brung ya.”

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.”

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 28 (1)

Something near despair about the republic’s future is about the only reaction one can have when reading the media’s fatuous coverage of Trump’s words about the 2nd Amendment. Sharpening that reaction, of course, is the media’s simultaneous and knowing failure to note that, in 2008, Hillary Clinton said she would not drop out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, although far behind, because Obama might be “assassinated.” Coming from the co-leader of the Clinton political machine, which generally terminates with extreme malice those it no longer needs or deems obstacles to what it wants [NB: Most recently in Washington, DC?], Mrs. Clinton words were clearly as much incitement as comment, perhaps more. [NB: Did the Secret Service talked to her about what she said?] Currently, of course, she and her party are four-square behind their newest slave colony, the one composed of the lethally violent thugs, racists, and assassins who form the membership of Black Lives Matter.

Repeatedly in this space, I have suggested that Americans need to recall what the 2nd Amendment was and is intended to do. Yes, it assures Americans have the right and ability to defend themselves, their families, and their homes, as well as to hunt for various kinds of animals. But there is much more to it.

The other, much greater, and absolutely vital intent of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure that Americans — as a last resort — have the ability to act collectively to secure their freedom and liberties against other Americans who win public office and then fail to abide by the Constitution and/or refuse to execute laws that are already on the books. In short, the 2nd Amendment ensures that Americans perpetually have the option to choose between (a) submitting themselves like cattle, sheep, and goats to the whims of tyrants and their unconstitutional rule and (b) refusing to abide by a tyrant’s dictates and making an armed effort to subdue their tormentors. The 2nd Amendment, quite simply, is designed to allow Americans to faithfully abide by the instructions laid down in the form of a duty in the Declaration of Independence; namely, to rebel against and drive out or, if necessary, kill politicians who behave as tyrants.

And in this context it is worth saying that the Founders did not intend the 2nd Amendment to provide a right to “assassination.” In their day and ours the killing of one would-be tyrant would do little but give like-minded others the opportunity to try to become a tyrant. No, assassination is a means of exacting revenge or imposing discipline, and is most usually carried out by organized criminal groups, political gangs, or by individuals with a personal grudge against a specific person. In America today, moreover, an assassination would change nothing as the number of would-be tyrants who inhabit both political parties, along with their liberty-sapping corps of advisers, funders, academic shills, and media acolytes, are far too numerous. No, to effectively restore our republic to liberty could well require nothing less than a collective, armed, and wide-ranging American rebellion of the kind the Founders, God’s peace be upon them, presided over and risked their own lives in fighting.

The most basic reason, then, that an accurate understanding of the 2nd Amendment must be known by voters and taught to our children is the reality that the peaceful means of getting rid of would-be tyrants and restoring liberty are no longer working. The Founders spent a great deal of time in the sultry summer of 1787 crafting the constitutional means for removing presidents and other government officials — by impeachment and subsequent trial — for either their criminal activities or their deliberate violations of the U.S. Constitution. If that constitutional provision was still relevant, each of the last four presidents would have been quite easily impeached for starting wars without the congressional declaration of war the Constitution mandates, and for routinely, deliberately, and often boastfully violating their oaths of office by refusing to promptly execute and enforce the law.

Obama, of course, is the worst of this lot and should have been impeached for (a) using the IRS to persecute conservative organizations; (b) rewriting congressional legislation to meet his political needs; (c) refusing to arrest and hold/deport those foreigners who automatically become felons by crossing the border illegally; (d) releasing prisoners-of-war he knows will return to the battlefield to kill U.S. Marines and soldiers; (e) allowing the Department of Justice to block an investigation of the racketeering Clinton Foundation; (f) allowing groups of terrorist-seeded refugees into America without the rigorous vetting required by law; (g) starting unconstitutional wars; and (h) refusing to enforce laws passed by Congress. On the basis of Obama’s irrefutably tyrant-like performance, the Founders would, I think, be amazed that the people’s elected representatives did not employ the Constitution’s impeachment process against such a removal-meriting man. And perhaps they also might have been surprised, and even a bit dismayed, that the citizenry did not show signs of bringing the true intent of the 2nd Amendment into play on this issue.

Without the anti-tyranny safeguard of the impeachment process — now paralyzed by presidential criminality, congressional cowardice, the tyranny-loving media, incompetent and lying academics, and too much citizen inattention and apathy — the means for resisting tyranny in America are few. In addition to impeachment, for example, the ballot box also seems to no longer work as a means of halting the growth of tyranny, given the many unconstitutional acts of the last four presidents, and the Obama administration’s refusal to indict Hillary Clinton for perjury, aiding and abetting the country’s enemies, and using the office of Secretary of State for personal gain, thereby letting a woman who should be in jail run for the presidency. And in this age of computer voting and hacking, who, in their right mind, is gullible enough to believe that national elections are not rigged in one way or another by either the two power-mad political parties or outsiders.

There also is zero protection in the glib claim of politicians that Americans need not worry about their right to bear arms being abrogated because the Constitution cannot be changed save by using the amendment procedure it requires. Note Obama’s arrogant, clearly unconstitutional, and clearly unchallenged conduct, and recall that half of the 2nd Amendment already has been negated without amendment. Can anyone locate the amendment that ended the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of state militias, which were meant to be the bulwark of state security and sovereignty, and were to be controlled by the states unless the nation became involved in a constitutional war? That part of the 2nd Amendment was negated by legislation, not by the amendment process required by the Constitution, and it has left the states no military force with which to prevent the national government from doing as it pleases, and that is precisely what the national government intended.

In this event, history, as always, was repeating itself. Virginia’s great, lawyer, politician, and statesman George Mason — who refused to sign the Constitution at Philadelphia because it had no bill of rights — told the 1788 Virginia ratifying convention that the one of first steps tyrants would take to disarm the people as a whole would be to neutralize their militia organizations.

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” (2)

So with state militias already illegally destroyed, it becomes more important with each passing year to impress upon Americans and their children the sanctity of the still viable section of the 2nd Amendment, an accurate and sober understanding of its intent, and their responsibilities under it. As noted, the Founders intended the impeachment process to be a readily usable tool with which to remove criminals or tyrants from office, one that would leave resort to the 2nd Amendment infrequent, the very existence of which would warn would-be-tyrants that not only their offices and reputations, but also their lives are ultimately in the hands of the same kind of people who won the republic’s independence from Britain, ones whom the historian John Shy described as “A people numerous and armed.” (3)

With the multiple firewalls the Founders built into the Constitution to make the 2nd Amendment a last resort already discarded or quickly disappearing, the use of the 2nd Amendment’s right to rebellion is emerging as the citizenry’s only constitutional option, no longer its constitutional tool of last resort. If that option is ever used, ironically, the elites will suffer most from the bloody brunt of the constitutional storm they knowingly caused by their arrogance, condescension, greed, and corruption, and perhaps most of all by their failure to heed mama’s sage advice that it is very dangerous to play with guns.

Endnotes:

1. The Federalist Papers : No. 28
2. Rewriting the Second Amendment
3. John Shy. A People Numerous and Armed. Reflections on the Military Struggle for American Independence. (Revised Edition). Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Paperbacks, 1990.

The bipartisan governing elite’s panic over Mr. Trump’s potential for destroying their cozy, elitist, bribe-filled, war-causing, and increasingly authoritarian culture is quite clear in the self-righteous, all-knowing, and citizenry-hating anti-Trump letter published on 8 August 2016. It was signed by 50 Republicans who identify themselves as foreign-policy experts, which in both parties is code for “arrogant and war-loving interventionists.”

The signatories are not really Republican foreign-policy experts. They are rather bipartisan interventionists who are part of the continuum of the post-Soviet foreign-and-defense policy elite that has never, even for a second, considered applying the Founders’ commonsense, non-interventionist, strategically sound, and republic-preserving concept of “America First” to the conduct of the republic’s international affairs. They hate Mr. Trump for suggesting it because it would work and turn them out on the street.

Indeed, until Trump’s candidacy, the bipartisan interventionist elite never gave a damn which party governed because both parties allowed them to seek, cause, and revel in endless, usually unnecessary, and always lost wars; to be more loyal to the security interests of Israel, Arab tyrants, and their own wallets than to U.S. security interests; and to show not a single qualm about getting tens of thousands of America’s soldier-children killed or maimed in interventionist wars that do not need fighting and which they did not intend to win.

They also never gave a damn about what U.S. voters thought about and wanted in the nation’s foreign policy. All they really needed from U.S. citizens was (a) more of their income in taxes to spend profligately — mountains of which they gave to their foreign favorites — and (b) the lives and limbs of their non-Ivy-League-educated, and so expendable, children to waste in unnecessary wars.

Overall, Mr. Trump ought to wear the letter as a badge of honor. He also ought to keep drawing steady attention to the fact that the letter — notwithstanding its unconvincing weasel words to the contrary — fully endorse a Hillary Clinton presidency because she is, after all, one of them, an arrogant, war-loving, Israel-First interventionist.

As you read the letter, consider the following 25 items. They offer a glittering, if often blood-soaked array of the gifts that the bipartisan foreign-policy professionals/experts have given the American people over the past quarter century. You might ask yourself if you want more of such gifts for you, your family, your community, and our now weakening and endangered republic.

The interventionists have given their fellow citizens:

1. The war-causing insanity found in the concept of “American exceptionalism,” which the Founders would have rejected as not only ahistorical, but as evidence of war lust, and arrogance bordering on hubris. Men of humility, the Founders believed Americans were human, no more and no less. They concluded that the only thing exceptional about Americans was the exceptional opportunity afforded them by living in an extraordinarily fertile, resource-and-water rich North America, a continent which also is reliably protected by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and so allows Americans to mind their own business and avoid other peoples’ wars.
2. Advocacy for the unnecessary, unobtainable, interventionist, and war-causing “New World Order” of G.H.W. Bush.
3. An unnecessary war with Islam that will be 20 years old on 11 August 2016, which is now growing into a world war that the United States clearly is losing.
4. The failure to kill Osama bin Laden in 1998-1999 and thereby prevent the current and intensifying war with Islam.
5. A consistent support for Arab tyrannies that has earned Americans eternal hatred among Muslims.
6. The unnecessary 1992 U.S. intervention in Somalia and the consequent U.S. defeat and retreat from that country.
7. Multiple interventionist wars to install freedom and democracy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Somalia. The wars have not only failed to install democracy in those countries, but have provided the U.S. national government — under both parties — with the immediately grasped and exercised opportunity to increase the executive’s power and use it at home to constrict civil liberties guaranteed Americans by the Constitution.
8. All-out support for the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in July, 2006, from which Ethiopian forces eventually retreated in defeat, but only after giving birth to Al-Shabaab.
9. Refusal to destroy al-Qaeda after the East Africa embassy bombings (1998) and the near-sinking of the USS Cole (2000).
10. Rules of engagement for soldiers and Marines in multiple wars that make them targets, not killers, and prevent U.S. victory.
11. A complete refusal to see the unbreakable ties between foreign and domestic affairs, which is most notable in their willingness to wage frequent, unnecessary, and always lost wars that have helped bankrupt America, divide its society, and make it hated around the world.
12. A consistent war-causing and Islamist-motivating willingness to always put Israel’s interests above genuine U.S. national security interests.
13. A necessary post-9/11 war in Afghanistan that started in October, 2001, and quickly became a democracy crusade which brought zero democracy to Afghanistan and the defeat of the U.S. military and its NATO allies.
14. An unnecessary war in Iraq that began in March, 2003, became a democracy crusade/war that the U.S.-led coalition lost, gave birth to ISIS, and turned the country into an oppressive and Iran-manipulated Shia theocracy.
15. The currently ongoing, unnecessary 2014 re-intervention in the already lost Iraq war.
16. The currently ongoing, unnecessary, and now escalating re-intervention in the already lost war in Afghanistan.
17. With the EU, support for the overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, an action that necessitated Russia’s re-annexation of Crimea and, with that event, restarted the Cold War.
18. The exhaustion, in multiple unnecessary and lost wars, of the U.S. military in human and material terms. And, because of the threat-filled world the bipartisan interventionists have created, the guaranteeing of steep increases in defense spending, funded by either more taxes, more debt, or both, and the near-certain resumption of conscription.
19. Foreign policies in the Muslim world that since 9/11 have yielded U.S. military casualties of c. 6,650 killed and c. 42,000 wounded or maimed in lost wars, and have left the 2,996 people killed and the 6,000-plus wounded in the 9/11 attacks unavenged and now largely forgotten, save for one day a year.
20. No hint of concern about the Veterans Administration’s failures while the bipartisan interventionist signatories were guiding U.S. military and foreign affairs.
21. The shredding of the Fourth Amendment’s protections via NSA’s collection of all U.S. citizens’ electronic communications.
22. An utter failure to insist that U.S. borders be controlled as an indispensable component of national defense, thereby awarding the republic’s foes free entry and safe haven until ordered to attack.
23. Supporting such mad war aims as giving democracy, freedom, liberty, women’s rights, and secularism to foreigners, in essence getting U.S. Marines killed so Mrs. Ibrahim can vote.
24. Treaties — especially the NATO Treaty — that negate America’s sovereignty by removing the republic’s ability to decide for itself when and for what it will go war or abstain therefrom.
25. Unnecessary wars and interventions in the Islamic world that have ensured that the territory of the United States will increasingly become a battlefield, one that may well create conditions that kill the republic and yield a military-backed tyranny in its place.

The past week added a bit of clarity to the citizenry’s ability to understand the lawless forces that have backed Obama and now back Hillary Clinton, as well as more evidence — if more was needed — that Clinton, if elected, will regard herself as another Obama-like, ruler-by-diktat. Clinton told the media that she would start by giving amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens — a number, thanks to Obama and Clinton, that now includes murderous Islamists — thereby ignoring both the law and the fact that most Americans have made it clear that they do not want 12 million more non-English-speaking, largely uneducated, and mostly bound-for-welfare foreigners sticking their hands into working Americans’ pockets and taking money from them and their families.

The bottom line increasingly seems to be that the people who support Clinton are either mindless fools or flagrant authoritarians, while she herself is an archetypical American gangster — like Al Capone, Dutch Schultz, Machine Gun Kelly, and her husband — specializing in graft, influence peddling, extortion, disposing with extreme malice those in her inner circle that she and Bill no longer need, and murdering and dismembering infants unable to defend themselves. Proving their superiority qualities when compared to the Clintons and their supporters, Capone, Schultz, and Kelly at least had the courage to murder people who could and would shoot back at them, or who had associates who would try to avenge them.

On Friday, then, FBI Director James Comey waded further into this ever-deepening cesspool of lawlessness by calling for a “national talk over encryption vs. safety.” Now, in a more normal and fair-minded time — say about 40 years ago — Americans would have rightly given Comey’s suggestion serious consideration because the ease with which Islamist fighters can encrypt messages certainly does pose a demonstrable threat to U.S. national security.

But not today. In recent months, Comey has proven himself to be just one more shill for a bipartisan political elite that promotes authoritarianism and its own lawlessness, and so tyranny, in America. Comey is now eager to further alter the 4th Amendment in ways that can only erode individual liberty and empower tyrants, but he refuses to recommend the much-merited indictment of Hillary Clinton — a foe of America much more lethal than ISIS — under both the espionage and perjury statutes. By failing to do so, this FBI Director has said more clearly than any other U.S. government official — elected or appointed — that the members of the bipartisan governing elite are beings superior to all other Americans, and so immune from all the laws that apply only to non-elite Americans.

Contrary to what Comey said, there is nothing difficult about indicting, prosecuting, and convicting Mrs. Clinton. She is the only American traitor that I can recall who has publicly convicted herself out of her own mouth — saying, in essence, “I used a private, unsecured server to conduct the nation’s diplomacy for my own convenience” — and then lied, joked, and bragged about in public. In reality, the U.S. government has successfully prosecuted and imprisoned, or fired and revoked the security clearances of, many dozens of other men and women for the same kind of conduct, although surely not on the gargantuan scale of Clinton’s criminal behavior. But what can be expected from a coward like Comey, a supposedly tough prosecutor who does not even possess enough manliness to publicly refute and correct Hillary Clinton when she publicly lies about what he told the Congress about her obvious-to-all perjury and guilt?

Comey’s decision on Clinton also flushed out the extreme lawlessness at the top level of the U.S. intelligence community when General Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, refused to permanently revoke Hillary Clinton’s clearances, as well as those of all her senior assistants, and those of the president, cabinet members, and generals who knowingly used the communications system Clinton deliberately hid and left unsecured. Clapper and Michael Morrell, then CIA chief, also supported — and perhaps wrote — Hillary Clinton’s lies about the “democracy-bringing” Arab Spring, the defeat of al-Qaeda, the invasion of Libya, and the Islamists’ attack on Americans in Benghazi. Clapper’s treason-assisting dereliction of duty, of course, comes as no surprise. He, like Clinton, has lied under oath. As the saying goes, perjurers of a feather stick together.

In fairer times, when America was a country of equality before the law, both Comey and Clapper would be fired — or perhaps prosecuted — for dereliction of duty in regard to their refusal to prevent Clinton from doing further harm to U.S. national security. Instead, they have been allowed to empower her to do all the harm she wants to do. But with the ransom-to-Iran-paying Obama as president, and Loretta “Let’s make a deal, Bill” Lynch as attorney general, all the lawless are protected and praised, and only peasants like you and I are liable to be tormented by the application of the law by the lawless.

A final thought. If Director Comey really wants Americans to understand the need for additional reductions in the scope of the 4th Amendment’s protections, and to believe that such limitations would not be used to further advance the Obama-Clinton tyranny, let him demonstrate that he and his government colleagues will use that new power for legal purposes and not authoritarian ones. Comey’s FBI could, for example, acquire and make public the 33,000 e-mails that Clinton deleted and NSA now holds as a the first step toward, at long last, making Clinton and her aides and abettors the equal — not the superior — of the rest of America before the law.

These days, however, such a commonsense proposal is, as Sam Spade described the Maltese Falcon, the unobtainable stuff that dreams are made of. But Clinton, Obama, Lynch, Comey, and Clapper are unlike the Maltese Falcon in at least one important respect, which is that the Falcon was a fake, while those five are the genuine article. When the Fat Man used a knife to scrape the Falcon, he quickly found that it was not made of gold. Scrape the five just named individuals, however, and you would find they are precisely what they appear to be. Even a light scrape would begin to expose that those five are born felons, already clad in orange prison uniforms. (1)

Endnote

1. For young readers, the magnificent Humphrey Bogart played Sam Spade, while the great Sydney Greenstreet played the “Fat Man” in pre-degenerate Hollywood’s finest detective movie, The Maltese Falcon. The movie is relevant to the foregoing as a reminder of the importance of always doing the right thing, most especially when it is a hard to do. Sam Spade — unlike James Comey — did the right thing in the movie. He made sure that the woman (played by the lovely Mary Astor) who had killed his partner, Miles Archer, “took the fall” and went to prison for her crimes. That woman happened to be the love of Spade’s life.

The very best part of the Democratic Convention was the evident panic among party leaders over the clear chance that Donald Trump may intend to construct a foreign policy grounded in the concept of America First.

Speaker after speaker railed that Trump is inexperienced in world affairs and lacks a coherent strategic view of the world. These allegations, of course, come from a party that gave the American people the foreign-policy ignoramus Barack Obama in 2008 and the always-wrong, Israel-obsessed, and war-loving Hillary Clinton in 2016. As to the Democratic hacks’ charges of incoherence, what, if not incoherent to the point of being moronic, is the Obama-Clinton foreign policy — supported by the Republican establishment — of fighting Islamists while encouraging them to send fighters to North America in the guise of refugees; removing Mubarak and Gadhafi, trying to oust Syria’s al-Asaad, but supporting all other Arab tyrants and at the same moment calling for stability, peace, and democracy in the Arab world; funding the overthrow of the pro-Russia regime in Ukraine and then blaming Russia for starting a new Cold War and crippling her with economic sanctions; pounding the war drums with Russia, while knowing Putin’s panzers would be in Paris in two weeks or less unless the United States initiated an all-out nuclear war on behalf of the infantile Europeans; and building up Shia Iran as a regional power and at the same time calling for more money, men, and blood from our so-called allies in the Sunni world to defeat the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, thereby further strengthening Iran.

Now it is fair to say that no one really knows which way Mr. Trump will jump on any given issue. Of late, he has said things about Israel that sound like he may turn out to be another vile Neocon. His repeated talk about bombing ISIS and AQ to hell, smacks of both a limited acquaintance with the nature of the Islamist foe and continuity with the effete and war-losing U.S. foreign policy Bill Clinton began in 1998. And it is not clear — at least to me — whether his pledge to conduct the much-needed strengthening of U.S. military will include the even more-needed purging of that military’s politically correct leadership, men and women who think their main duty is to protect the enemy’s civilians and that it is okay for them to lose every war they are told to fight.

But there are some important signs that Mr. Trump is armed for bear when it comes to an America First foreign policy. The crocodile tears expended by senior Democrats over Mr. Trump’s resolute unwillingness to adore the false god named NATO is a positive sign. Even a man I respect enormously — Ralph Peters, who is in no way a Democratic hack — has attacked Mr. Trump because he has had the nerve to identify NATO for the rubbish pile it has become. Last week, Colonel Peters, who I tremble to disagree with, called out Mr. Trump for not recognizing that NATO had kept the peace in Europe for more than 60 years, saying he was, as a result, willing to vote, “with disgust,” for Hillary Clinton for president.

With all respect to the estimable Colonel Peters, I think that Mr. Trump knows that it was the magnificently trained and led, and reliably death-dealing U.S. military at the end of World War II, and then the U.S. nuclear deterrent, not NATO, that intimidated the Soviet Union and kept Europeans’ ill-deserved peace. Few NATO members ever spent what they pledged to spend on their militaries during the Cold War. And after the USSR dissolved in 1991 all immediately cut their consistent underspending even more. Why? Because they knew that the U.S. deterrent was still in place — though today badly eroded by Obama and Mrs. Clinton — and that the profligate U.S. bipartisan governing elite was willing to accept their mixture of pro-NATO rhetoric with growing military weakness, obsolescence, and pacifism, and cover for it by increasing the tax burden on Americans to defend 27 NATO countries who refuse to defend themselves. Clearly, Mr. Trump has Europe’s number on this issue. The now-panicked European, Republican, and Democratic elites suspect (a) he intends to put a stop to their scam and (b) the American people will support him on the issue. The Trumpian response to the issue of NATO should be that of the Founders — neutrality and non-intervention. For America, a Europe worth defending no longer exists.

The importance of Trump’s apparent America First plan can again be seen with exquisite clarity in the current media-fueled spat between Trump and the Democrats’ convention speaker Khizr Khan. Mr. Khan spoke to the Democrats and opened by saying that he first wanted to remember all of America’s veterans — a point for which there was nothing but silence from his audience. Mr. Khan also spoke of his son, who was killed in Iraq while serving as a captain in the army, a man for whom Trump would only have praise and call on others to offer the same. Ask yourself, what other presidential candidate in either party has done as much as Trump to materially assist veterans? The answer is of course none, and that answer should be expanded by noting that not only does Trump stand alone on this issue, but the 20 other Republican and Democratic 2016 presidential candidates are all part of the bipartisan governing elite that has knowingly allowed the Veterans Administration to become the callous killer of veterans.

Mr. Khan, after correctly honoring all veterans and his son, disappears into the mists of the Democratic Party’s truly astounding ignorance of the United States. He waves his pocket Constitution at Trump because the latter has said we ought to ban the entry of Muslims until we have identified and controlled the threat posed by those already in the United States. Mr. Khan seems — like his party colleagues, Obama, and Mrs. Clinton — to be unaware that the U.S. Constitution was written to govern and protect the security and liberty only of Americans, it has no legitimate application to foreigners, and certainly poses no legal obstacle to halting immigration from any or all countries if that is want Americans want as their policy. If Mr. Khan was going to wave his Constitution at anyone it ought to have been Obama, who has flooded the United States with unvetted and therefore illegally admitted Muslims, thereby knowingly and substantially increased the domestic Islamic threat.

Mr. Khan also should have known, that while he and we correctly honor and respect his son’s sacrifice in Iraq, his son died uselessly in a war that no president and neither political party has ever wanted to win. Captain Khan did his duty to his countrymen, comrades, and the republic, but his life and the lives and limbs of tens of thousands of other military women and men have been utterly wasted in unnecessary, interventionist wars started unconstitutionally by U.S. presidents, supported by the war-mongering and Israel-loving U.S. Congress and Senate, and imposed on war-opposing Americans by the interventionist unanimity of both party establishments and the media. You and I, Mr. Khan, are also more than a little responsible for you son’s death, and all of the other casualties mentioned above, because we have consistently voted for party leaders who love to start wars, but care about neither winning nor the military lives that are wasted. It is too late to help your son, Mr. Khan, but, by God, it is worth giving Mr. Trump a shot and see if he can save the life of my military-aged son, and the military-aged sons of so many other Americans, by keeping the United States government from starting and/or intervening in wars that are irrelevant to U.S. national security.

And if Mr. Khan was not wrong-headed enough, today (1 August 2016), we have Senator McCain and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) condemning Trump for defending himself against Mr. Khan’s constitutional ignorance. This is truly and tragically comical. Do the members of the VFW not now that Captain Khan and so many others have died in wars that none of the last four presidents ever intended to win? Do they not recognize that they and Americans generally have been played for fools? That their children have been sent to fight and perish in wars against vastly inferior enemies that their president and senior general officers were quite content to lose, and who then traveled to Arlington to deliver syrupy, pseudo-patriotic, and completely hypocritical eulogies for the fallen service personnel that they killed through their unnecessary interventionism and refusal to attain victory? And, finally, do the VFW members really not know that Senator McCain and his sidekicks Senator Graham, Hillary Clinton, and Michael Bloomberg have been just as responsible as any recent president for sending military men and women to die in unnecessary wars they did not intend to win, and in which they did not care how many U.S, military personnel died as they amateurishly indulged in playing the role of he-men at war.

The bottom line, at least for me, is that with the republic apparently in its economic death throes, Mr. Trump’s America First orientation — if he delivers substance to match his promise — gives America a chance to save itself. It is time to get out of NATO, let the Europeans defend themselves, stop all immigration for ten years, close the border, let all of the Middle East burn to the ground, stop beating the war drums with Russia, and adopt a neutral and non-interventionist foreign policy. We would thereby give America a chance to put its own house in order and rebuilt its ability to defend itself without greedy, worthless, and encumbering allies. Such a tack would also give each party a chance to either purge their leadership of interventionists, warmongers, and Israel-Firsters, or die because they refuse to do so. Only Mr. Trump seems willing to try to make such a win possible for America.

The Democratic Party’s convention twice put a wonderfully bright spotlight on how that party has ruined the American educational system by involving the federal government in education. The convention’s slogan for the first night, for example, was “United Together,” which is a phrase that is as stupidly redundant and it is meaningless. And yet, the party’s apparatus, the delegations from each of the party’s enslaved colonies of minorities, and the 80-percent of the media that has its collective head up Hillary’s derriere thought the slogan was a stroke of genius. “Yes, that’s us,” American teachers, told their students the next day, “we are united together.” I hope that at least one of the little brainwashed urchins had the sense and moxie to ask, “Oh, Teacher, could we be ‘united apart’ or ‘disunited together’?” Surely, such a child would be punished for asking the question — perhaps having to memorize “Socialism for Kids” or write “Saul Alinsky” on the blackboard 500 times.

The second spotlight illuminated — who else? — Barack Obama, the pride of the Ivy League, the darling of the media, and a man who can only be described as ignorant, stupid, or a liar. In his oh-so-superior speech to the convention, Obama said that Hillary Clinton was the most prepared/experienced candidate for the presidency in U.S. history, adding “better than you or me Bill.” Well, Obama was right on one count, he is certainly the least-prepared person ever to be president. Indeed, there probably has never been another American arrogant enough to believe that, with no applicable work experience, no record of meaningful accomplishment, and academic grades so poor they must be hidden, he deserved the presidency simply because he is Black and could count on the Democratic Party to endlessly and mindlessly champion losers, abortionists, felons, the unqualified, the racist, the lawless, the anti-American, and the authoritarian.

By claiming that Hillary Clinton is the most prepared and experienced presidential candidate in U.S. history, Obama proved himself to be either a victim — always his best role — of the brain-crippling American education system that he and his party built, or a liar willing to do anything he can to finish the destruction of America begun by Bill Clinton and now nearly completed by himself. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with U.S. history would know that just mentioning the names of Washington — the greatest American — both Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, Cleveland, Coolidge, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan makes Obama stand out clearly as the devious anti-American liar he truly is. Preparation for the U.S. presidency requires not only a record of hard work, applied patriotism, and experience worthy of a confident and independent-thinking adult, it also requires success in those categories.

The just-mentioned men met those conditions, Hillary Clinton does not. She was a failure as a first lady in the area of healthcare; she abused and ridiculed federal civil servants who did not suit her; and she presided over a White House that appears to have been more or less a brothel. She was a failure as a U.S. Senator from New York, specializing in supporting Israel, thereby ensuring more war and dead Americans; in securing favors and funding for her favorites in the state; and in helping to lead the republic to unending war with Islam by her strong support for the Iraq war. She was an unmitigated failure as Secretary of State, by knowingly lying to Americans in claiming the Arab Spring meant secular democracy was winning in the Islamic world and that the Islamists were defeated; by championing an unnecessary war on Libya that is destabilizing and Islamicizing Africa, and then refusing to provide adequate security for the diplomats, intelligence officers, and military personnel she stuck in that hellhole and then ignored; and by sanctioning sales that gave foreigners control of key U.S. natural resources, foreigners who apparently then contributed to the Clinton Foundation. So Mrs. Clinton fails the first test for presidential preparedness, which is experience accompanied with success in the endeavors undertaken. Her life’s only notable successes have been in achieving continual failure, protecting a sexual-predator husband, and making sure that 60 million unborn Americans have been murdered by the American Medical Association.

As far as the second test, that of demonstrating oneself to be a confident and independent-thinking adult with integrity, Mrs. Clinton is nothing short of a joke as an adult, and an embarrassment to the republic, especially for those young women who need nothing but their own brains and labor to succeed. Mrs. Clinton’s career from college to this week’s nomination has depended on the good offices of men. A few plausible scenes from her life might read as follow. “Oh, they are saying true but nasty things about me,” says Mrs. Clinton, “send James Carville to attack and browbeat them.” “Gosh, they don’t think I know how to handle the economy,” says Mrs. Clinton, “so I will put my husband Bill in charge of it.” “Oh how terrible,” says Mrs. Clinton, “so many people now know that I am a perjurer, traitor, and liar, send out Lanny Davis to defend me.” “You know, without Bill as my husband the party would have abandoned me long ago,” thinks Mrs. Clinton, “so I’ll stay with him, encourage his philandering, and act as his anti-woman protector by verbally attacking and intimidating the women he molests and physically harms.”

A modern, talented. independent-minded, and confident woman? Hardly. Really, Mrs. Clinton is not much more than a dependent female adolescent who needs a man as her surrogate on every occasion she faces a hard problem, a serious challenge, or a truthful attack. Compared to the readiness to be president of, say, Mrs. Abigail Adams, Mrs. Dolley Madison, and Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, Mrs. Hillary Clinton is not much more than a dissembling, man-dependent non-entity, neither prepared for nor worthy of high public office.

The attack in Nice, France, on 14 July 2015, has set off another festival of death in Europe, complete with candles, flowers, tears, and handwritten notes. This is the current European generation’s consistently effete and feckless answer to the murderous acts of war inflicted on them by Islamist fighters. It is a tradition good for florists, stationers, candle-makers, and handkerchief producers, but it is merely a source of endless mirth for the Islamists, and horror for the few adults remaining in the West.

My own response to the attack was to thank God that it was in Europe and not America, and to ponder why in the world the Europeans have not yet hung and then drawn-and-quartered their leaders after nearly two decades of their abject failure to provide adequate national security. Indeed, the European leaders have invited the Islamists who kill, molest, and help bankrupt their citizens to come to Europe not assimilate but to live on the dole and plot attacks, all in the name of furthering the twin calamities so beloved of the EU — and Hillary Clinton and her party — called diversity and multiculturalism.

The depth of the European leaders’ inability to make contact with reality is seen in the well-coifed person of France’s President Hollande, who, even as he bewailed the Islamists’ victorious raid on Nice, was tracking the travel of the French aircraft carrier he sent to the Middle East to further the West’s unnecessary and self-defeating military intervention in an intra-civilization Muslim war which will pit Islam’s two great sects against each other in a war to the death, if only the West would stay out of their way.

If the West does not abstain it will die, and when its eulogy is written, a two-part question will need answering. First, why, since the Cold War’s end, have European and North American political leaders so adamantly believed that they know more about “true” Islam than any Muslim in the world? Second, why did those leaders think that they could relentlessly interfere politically, culturally, economically, and militarily in Muslim states and affairs, wholeheartedly support Muslim generals, dictators, presidents, and kings who oppress Muslim populations, blindly support Israel in all it does, says, and occupies, identify Muslim blood as eminently more expendable than Western blood, and yet refuse to believe that they were motivating many Muslims to legitimately respond with force in their own defense? Today’s ignorant European leaders are all too similar to the leaders of Rome as it declined toward tyranny. “Nobody knew,” the Roman historian Tacitus said of Rome’s leaders, “everyone pontificated.”

In the United States, the reaction has been similarly nauseating. President Obama and Mrs. Clinton continue to speak as if the Islamists are — like so much of their party — the criminal scum of the earth, instead of a talented and ruthless enemy that has defeated multiple Western field armies, runs a nascent state, continues aggressive expansion around the world, and seems able to attack in the West at the time and place of its choosing. The Republicans — including Mr. Trump, who increasingly seems to value “America First” as a slogan, not a substantive policy — are calling for the use of more U.S. military force and for involving NATO’s minuscule militaries in the Middle East, presumably on the ground.

The depth of ignorance of the two parties about the disaster their leaders have wrought for the United States in the Middle East seems bottomless. Even after two full decades of complete failure in America’s war with Islam, they still think that the only way to win is to continue the interventionist policies and military actions that most motivate and increasingly strengthen the Islamists, be they in Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, or any other group.

If the United States is to survive its war with Islam, it can do so only by facing reality, resolutely putting its own interests first, disengaging from foreign commitments that limit or negate American sovereignty and independence of action, and base no future involvement in international affairs on emotion, sympathy, democracy, or ideology. Several points are pertinent in this regard.

• The United States is bankrupt, perhaps irretrievably so. It cannot possibly afford to fight what now is a world war against the Islamists. The war itself is the result of failed, even brain-dead leadership by George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all of both parties’ 2016 presidential candidates, save Trump, and even he seems headed toward the land of the foreign-policy brain-dead, most recently by choosing the Israel-First governor of Indiana as his running mate.
• The United States government was created for only four reasons; namely, to secure the republic’s continental domain; effectively defend Americans against foreign attack; protect and assist the growth of the Constitution’s regime of ordered liberty and limited government; and facilitate the growth of American business, trade, and enterprise at home and internationally. Since 1945, these four goals have slowly fallen into tatters, and, under the past four presidents, the only true reasons for the U.S. government’s existence still exist, but are no longer being carried out.
• Americans are under no binding obligation to anyone but themselves and their God, and if the U.S. national government has ignored this fact, and bound them through treaties and other pacts to defend, fund, rescue, and democratize other nations, the policies that have done so and, perhaps, the government that has thus destroyed the republic’s sovereignty and independence, must be eliminated. Likewise, Americans are under no constitutional obligation to admit any immigrant, migrant, or illegal alien from any other country on earth if they do not want them in the United States. The refusal of entry can be applied to any foreigner and need be neither explained nor justified. All power, of courses, comes from the people and they temporarily delegate portions of it their elected representatives. On immigration, these representatives have for forty years exercised this delegated power to their own and not the voters’ satisfaction, and so, thanks to these cheap-labor wanters and diversity-and-multiculturalism mongers, the republic is awash and endangered by millions of illegal aliens, IS-or-al-Qaeda-related Arab migrants, and other on-the-dole foreigners who have no intention of assimilating. It is now time to end this national-government-encouraged invasion of the illegal, the unwanted, and the threatening, and thereby restore to the people their right to decide who is allowed to live in America, as well as to reacquaint their elected representatives with the constitutional fact that Americans are their masters, not their servants.
• The substance of U.S. foreign policy must be only material in nature, not ideological, personal, idealistic, or driven by emotion and favoritism. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all ran foreign policies according to principles — the policies of non-intervention and neutrality — they intended to endure indefinitely. They believed that those policies would promote America’s economy and trade, serve to avoid war at almost any cost, and steer the republic clear of what Jefferson rightly described as “entangling alliances.” Today, the U.S. government does precisely the opposite. It has committed Americans to automatic war to defend such irrelevancies as Bulgaria and Israel; it gets U.S. soldiers and Marines killed in the name of spreading democracy, abortion rights, and women’s rights, the spread of which are irrelevant to the republic’s security interests, and attempts to do so undermine U.S. security; and it gets choked up with syrupy emotion and pretended grief over dead Frenchmen, Belgians, Yazidis, Nigerians, Israelis, and countless other foreigners — but not over minority-killed U.S. policeman. After such irrelevant-to-America deaths, the U.S. government offers assistance better used at home to all kinds to foreign regimes, and seems to not know that the only dead people America must fight to avenge are Americans who have been attacked and killed by foreigners. Foreign dead may genuinely pain some tender American hearts, but they are neither a sane nor a constitutional justification for involving the republic in other peoples’ fights.
• After the presidential election, either Trump or Clinton will find that the shelves of the U.S. war-making cupboard are bare. The U.S. military and intelligence services are exhausted in human and material terms from 20 years of constant, politically correct, and always losing warfare. They will also find that the services’ internal cohesion and operational security have been intentionally shredded by Obama through his and Clinton’s flooding of them with sexual deviants of all descriptions and unqualified individuals appointed because of race, ethnicity, or gender, not merit. No nation, government, or institution is ever strengthened by the addition of baseness.
• The U.S. military and intelligence services are too small to deal with what George W. Bush and Barack Obama have turned into a world war against Islam. Clinton, Trump, and the NATO leaders now blithely speak of intensifying the West’s war with Islam but seem to have no idea about what fighting an anti-Islamist world war would mean in term of manpower requirements, economic costs, and casualties. How many men and women, and how much money and blood would it take, do they think, to definitively destroy the Islamist forces now growing and/or fighting in, say, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, Bosnia, France, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen, the Philippines, Cameroon, Tunisia, Morocco, the UK, Russia, the United States, Canada, Mauritania, Albania, Kosovo, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, western China, Turkey, Germany, Sudan, Macedonia, the North Caucasus’ states, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Belgium, Niger, Spain, Italy, the Central Asian republics, Austria, and Bangladesh. To do so, of course, would require the reactivation of conscription in the United States and all NATO countries, as well as enormous amounts of new spending for the war effort, requiring, in turn, deeper deficit spending or economy-killing levels of taxation or both.
• The U.S. and NATO are led by people who have proven, since Osama bin Laden declared war on them in August, 1996, that they find the idea of military victory old-fashioned and repugnant. Presidents, prime ministers, senators, chancellors, generals, politicians, and religious figures cannot comprehend that if you enter a war: (a) it must be a necessary war, not a war of choice, and you must be determined to win it at whatever cost is required; (b) the war will involve killing the enemy, his civilian abettors and supporters, and destroying his infrastructure; and (c) that war is always winnable if you eradicate your foes, or at least kill them in numbers enormous enough to make those remaining alive eager to quit the fight. The leaders noted above, however, seem oblivious to the four rules of war: (a) never go to war unless your country’s survival is at risk; (b) always apply military force at the highest and most indiscriminate level possible; (c) end the war with complete victory and as quickly as possible, speed being the only mercy in war; and (d) withdraw completely from the foreign soil when the war is over, do nothing to help bury the dead or rebuild the ruins, and leave alone whoever is left of the enemy to savor the death and physical ruination they brought on themselves.
• Because William T. Sherman, Phillip Sheridan, or George Patton cannot be recalled from the dead to apply these rules to contemporary U.S. war-making, Americans would do well to consider recalling General James Mattis, USMC, from retirement, making him Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and authorizing him to do as General George C. Marshall did on the eve of World War II, which was to retire almost 200 military officers, ranked from captain to colonel, who were nothing more than deadwood and blocked the promotion of more competent officers. General Mattis ought to be directed to go even further and retire every serving general and admiral who has ever publicly lied by saying that “there is no military solution” to this or that war. There is, needless to say, always a military solution to every war — it is called killing.

In sum, there are today, and have been for 30 years, only five issues that demand implementation by the U.S. national government: (a) the aggressive dismantling of the unconstitutional legal and economic preferences given to women, minorities, legal and illegal immigrants, sexual deviants, etc., and the restoration of the equality of all before the law; (b) a 180-degree change in the republic’s interventionist foreign policy; (c) control and then elimination of the national government’s debt; (d) promotion of the highest possible level of employment; and (e) closing the borders of the United States and a adopting 10-year ban on all immigration.

We must get on with these tasks right now, and dismiss the Potemkin issue of race that Obama and Holder have generated and exploited to further his own racist and authoritarian ambitions, create violence to destroy America’s social cohesion, and take more money from working Americans and give it to slackers of all sorts who want unconstitutional legal preference, not equality before the law. Dismiss also the clearly felonious Hillary Clinton, the shrieking, man-hating Elizabeth Warren, and their women’s movement, which exists only to decide, like Hitler’s judiciary, who is a human being, to protect the “right” to murder the unborn, and to secure for women unconstitutional legal preference, not equality before the law. Most of all, dismiss the establishments of both political parties, men and women whose routine anti-American exploits, selfish intentions, and coarse, nearly limitless greed and baseness were presciently described in a speech to the Roman Senate — about its facilitation of tyranny — that is attributed to the lawyer, statesman, and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero.

“For this day’s work, lords, you have encouraged treason and opened the prison doors to free the traitors. A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the carrier of the plague. You have unbarred the gates of Rome to him.”

To slow, and perhaps stop, the calculated murder of the U.S. constitution, the American republic’s descent into arbitrary government via minority rule, and the Obama-Clinton campaign to promote societal division and racial hatreds that will lead to civil war, the next-elected national government must jettison the destructive ephemera Obama’s administration catered to and falsely identified as life-and-death issues. It then must focus solely on restoring the concept of equality before the law, re-installing a non-interventionist and neutral foreign policy; closing borders and halting immigration for a defined period of years; controlling and then steadily reducing the national debt; and promoting job creation by cancelling the Obama executive orders that have choked the growth of small business.

Time is short. America already has survived much longer than most of history’s other republics, but it cannot bear more progressivism from its authors in the Democratic Party and its cowardly abettors in the Republican. Hillary Clinton and the bipartisan U.S. political elite share one striking characteristic, they both resemble elderly, saggy, hair-dyed, botoxed, and thoroughly spent Madams who ignore the mirror and behave as if they are still dazzlingly beautiful, the most desired, beguiling, and high-price-worthy whores in the brothel. And when they speak of America, they talk as if it is still 1945, thereby proving that they have no clue about either how much worldwide hatred they blithely have won for America, or how devastatingly their policies have damaged the republic’s economy, social cohesion, international standing, military capabilities, constitutional order, and national pride.

Fortunately, while Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and most of the bipartisan governing elite will remain decaying whores until the happy-for-America day of their deaths, America has a chance to recover. To begin that restoration, the next administration need make no “progress” in the Obama-Clinton sense, it need only to reverse what they have done, and begin to restore what the elite has sought to bury; namely, the program of America First, which includes ordered liberty, nationalism, an independent and neutral foreign policy, a powerfully intimidating to military to ensure no foe mistakes U.S. neutrality for pacifism, and sovereign control of borders and all aspects of domestic and foreign affairs. The next administration must also adopt an aloofness that allows the rest of the world’s nations to find their own destinies without having to fend off a self-righteous, lawless, and war-mongering U.S. government that demands they follow its self-serving prescriptions for how to vote, pray, abort, amend scripture, treat women, and, generally, slavishly accept and mirror the actions and ideas of the American governing elite, men and women whose crack-pot theories, hubris, lawlessness, greed, and international behavior have shamed and nearly destroyed the republic and brought unnecessary war to much of the world.

Britain

Waking on Friday to see that the British had voted to unchain themselves from their socialist EU masters in Brussels was a marvelous experience. In so doing, they decided to return to adulthood, and to running their own nation, in their own interests, for better or worse. On both sides of the Atlantic, the leftist media will now thunder about the xenophobia of Britons and their stupid and self-destructive behavior in seeing and accepting the economic costs of reestablishing nationhood. The name-calling will continue but the economic roils will slowly calm, and the nation’s revenues will increase as payments are halted to the EU’s terminally begging and congenitally wasteful adolescent states, such as Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Hereon, Britain’s government also can do more to secure the nation by making and enforcing immigration laws that meet the majority’s demands, by ending military intervention abroad, and by legally deporting those deemed dangerous or subversive, all without the busybody milquetoasts in Brussels gumming up the works.

Overall, the British people have given themselves a chance to again be themselves, respecters of the rule of their laws, English-speaking, self-reliant, predominately Protestant, and traders, bankers, and businessmen extraordinaire. Britons again can be quietly proud but stubborn nationalists, men and women who can now speak about their ancestors, men who were the authors of the freedom that has emanated from the precious commodity — now widely attacked and subverted — that America’s Founders called “English liberties.” These liberties graced and soundly governed life in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States until the ahistorical multiculturalists and diversity-hounds emerged from the cesspool that is the West’s academy and media to wreak havoc on commonsense, Christianity, societal cohesion, and history. Britons may well have a tough economic row to hoe for a while — and so may we, as a result — but they have acted manfully to regain their self-respect, independence, and sovereignty, as well as full control of their budget, society, and destiny. Well done. Now, it is time for Britain’s four children-nations in the English-speaking world to follow suit.

One final aspect of this drama occurs to me. All of the West’s pundits, economists, presidents, prime ministers, pollsters, and media outlets, knew for many months that the British referendum on EU membership was approaching and that many millions of Britons were pissed. And yet when the vote came and commonsense prevailed, the U.S. stock market lost 600 points, with similarly large declines in bourses around the world. Why? Because the West’s arrogant elites regard Western citizens as obedient fools on whom they can experiment with any kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense. For decades they have forced the acceptance of multiculturalism, the fundamentalist religions of climate change and free trade, globalism, diversity, all forms of deviance as other forms of normal, uncontrolled immigration, and laws that do not apply to the elites (See, to date, Hillary and Bill Clinton). In addition, they have pardoned criminals and restored their franchise to vote for their pardoners, they have sent billions of tax dollars to support foreign nations and their often anti-Western interests, they have waged wars to spread the malignancies they regard as democracy and culture, and they have given legal preference to the demands of every non-white race, while damning, legally disrupting, and vilifying the speech, history, patriotism, and religion of whites. These hubristic elites just knew that the citizens they despise would never reach out to either depose them and their ways, or to simply choke them to death. Well, it happened last Thursday — peacefully this time — and so the very well-educated elites are scrambling in shock over the power of men and nations to want liberty, tradition, and history on their own terms, and not on the terms of those who see the world as their exclusive possession and who have so thoroughly cocked it up.

The madness of Father Bush’s retainers

Of the many lessons that have been taught by the 2016 presidential campaign, one of the most useful is the clarity that it has brought to the often-stated, but always denied fact that there is no difference between Republican and Democratic foreign policy. Both parties support military, political, and cultural interventionism; increasing foreign aid; remaining in NATO and other organizations that take the decision to wage war out of the hands of Americans, and, generally, the ongoing and war-causing construction of George H.W. Bush’s New World Order.

This month the two parties’ identical foreign policies were highlighted when two centurions of the elder Bush’s New World Order — and therefore endless war for Americans — endorsed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. Brent Scowcroft and Richard Armitage have hopped on that female felon’s gangster-filled train, with Scowcroft pontificating that Mrs. Clinton’s “longstanding relationships with a wide array of world leaders, and their sense of her as a strong and reliable counterpart, make her uniquely prepared for the highest office in the land.” The only reason Scowcroft could have for saying such a thing is that either he has advanced dementia, or he is on-the-take from the same powerful banks, lawyers, and industries that payoff Clinton for maintaining the foreign policy status quo.

Mrs. Clinton’s only “relations” with foreign leaders are ones of peddling her influence to them and thereby serving their interests not America’s, while enriching herself and he husband, the white Bill Cosby. Her “strong and reliable” nature is one of deceit, arrogance, and bloodthirstiness, best shown by her letting four Americans die in Benghazi rather than admit her Libya policy was a reeking failure, and by her eagerness to get U.S. Marines killed in multiple wars to ensure that every Mrs. Muhammad around the world can vamp, vote, and abort. As to being uniquely qualified to be president, she is unique only in her lack of any qualification but relentless failure. In all of this, Scowcroft follows the path of the execrable Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama for the presidency, thereby inflicting on his countrymen a man who, while Powell was a general, would not have been given the command of a squad.

Hillary Clinton is simply a corrupt liar who is obsessed only with money, Huma Abedin, and wars waged to make sure women retain and expand the right to murder human beings. The doddering and clueless socialist Bernie Sanders, and that screeching, ever-on-the-warpath virago Elizabeth Warren have proven themselves to be complete political whores, who eagerly ditched their so-called anti-Wall Street “movement” to seek the favor of that dowdy, greedy, and debauched Wall Street madam, Hillary Clinton.

“I believe,” Scowcroft said, in concluding his ode to the glory of both parties’ identical foreign policies, “Hillary Clinton has the wisdom and experience to lead our country at this critical time.” What that means is that leading the United States, according to all senior Republicans and Democrats, can only be done by a person who is owned by Wall Street, the arms makers, Israel and its treasonous lobby, and the Saudis. They must be willing to intervene in other peoples’ wars, and thereby keep America always at war; remain in treaties that negate America’s ability to decide whether or not to go to war; and give tens of billions of dollars to foreigners, while a quarter of American kids are malnourished and U.S. veterans die waiting for medical treatment.

Seems like all roads lead to Mr. Trump for anything that resembles putting America first at home and abroad.

We are likely to hear much crowing about the martial prowess of the U.S.-Europe trained, Iranian-led, and Shia-dominated Iraqi Army as IS withdraws — if only temporarily — from Ramadi and Fallujah. Cities, however, do not equal power in an insurgency. They more accurately impose a significant burden, one that requires the expertise to manage a not always supportive population, provide social services, potable water, electricity and gas, road repair, garbage collection, etc. It also requires something close to a trained bureaucracy, police force, and conventional army and air force for effective defense.

IS leaders knew these realities from the start, having been taught most cogently by Osama bin Laden, and having seen the disastrous city-occupying experiences of the Red Army, Afghan Islamist commander Ahmad Shah Masood, and post-2001 U.S. leaders in Afghanistan. IS chose, however, to throw the dice and take a chance by seizing the cities prematurely, believing that a credible effort to begin making their Caliphate project a reality, and not only an aspiration, would maintain and probably increase the Islamic world’s financial, spiritual, and manpower support for their jihad. IS leaders may be losing its cities, but with them they are losing their greatest liability, garrisoned cities that are sitting ducks for enemy aerial attack.

Shed of the cities, IS will return with a vengeance to its strongest suit, nationwide insurgencies in Iraq and Syria, and — thanks to the liberal multiculturalists, diversity mongers, and nation-builders who run Western foreign, immigration, and refugee policies — an enormously expanded international military capability. Though IS took it on the chin and heart in seeing its initial Caliphate-building projects slip away, this defeat is not nearly as serious for IS as the West is and will be claiming that it is.

How was the Islamic State removed from the cities? Well, as the superb IS media will tell the story, certainly not by fellow Muslims. IS media will simply use the truth in its messages, which is that the Syrian and Iraqi armed forces — mostly apostate Alawites, Shiites, and treacherous/money-grubbing Sunnis — were trained and armed by the infidels, the Unites States and most of its NATO allies; led by Iranian and Russian general officers and advisers; and supported by the air forces of Russia, the United States, some NATO countries, and the apostate/traitorous Arab tyrants. Using what is a factual description for much of the Sunni world and anyone willing to face facts, IS media will use the tried-and-true bin Laden script; namely, that in war you win some and lose some, but the important thing is to stay in Allah’s fight and keep fighting so that Allah eventually will allow the mujahideen to win. Indeed, bin Laden never enjoyed an array of scripturally exploitable and Islam-and-Caliphate-hating enemies that remotely resembles that which IS confronts.

If the cities are lost to IS, the war will revert, for a time, to a more traditional Islamist insurgency, one which U.S., NATO, and Russian forces have long ago proved they cannot defeat. The U.S. government ignored the one chance to reduce IS to the point where those it threatens — Israel, the Arab tyrants, the EU, and Iran and the Shia world — might be able to defeat it. As was noted here before, the IS decision to seize and hold cities gave the U.S. military a chance to do things at which it has historically excelled; namely, (a) the complete destruction of a nation’s economic, industrial, social, electricity, and transportation infrastructures, so that everything has to be rebuilt from scratch, and (b) the indiscriminate slaughter of the greatest possible numbers of IS leaders, fighters, and their civilian supporters. The U.S. national government ignored this winning combination and chose — as Obama always does — to be effete and feckless, and so IS will live to fight another day, and, once regrouped, will be more than a match for any foe still in the field.

Now is the time — listen up, Mr. Trump — for the United States to get out of the Middle East as quickly and completely as possible, certainly before the IS post-cities insurgency resumes in Iraq and Syria. There is nothing left in that theater for the United Sates except additional costly and U.S. Marine-killing defeats. While we are at it, the republic should both withdraw from Afghanistan — the prototypical “lost cause” — and recall each of the numerous penny-packets of U.S. Special Forces from Africa that Obama has deployed for domestic political impact and not anti-Islamist military affect.

The U.S. national government’s war against the Islamists — overseas and perhaps at home — is clearly lost, and just as clearly out of either its control or the control of any Western power or Russia. As Obama and his NATO sidekicks remain bore-sighted on Iraq and Syria, for example, Islamist forces — both IS and al-Qaeda — are gaining power in the Balkans, the North Caucuses, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Yemen, and Pakistan, and are building manpower and organization in Europe, western China, India, and Bangladesh. Moreover, IS and al-Qaeda are waging war and contesting for power in Libya, the other North African states, West Africa, Somalia, Kenya, and Tanzania, and appear to be gaining toeholds in central and Southern Africa.

A three-continent war against the growing Islamist movement is something only a delusional madman would want to ensnare the republic, so naturally that is exactly what Obama and Hillary Clinton did. Fortunately, the entire Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-made mess can be sidestepped by the national government if it would do the only thing it is elected to do — protect America and its citizenry first and stay out of other peoples’ wars. And the first requirement of that duty is fourfold; (a) close and control U.S. borders; (b) end all immigration to the United States for five-to-ten years, thereby negating the simpering, teary-eyed cries of discrimination made by clueless people like Paul Ryan, all Democrats, and most pundits and academics; (c) bring U.S. forces home to prepare to fight the Islamists domestically in what will be a tough, costly struggle against a foe that already has killed or wounded many more U.S. civilians inside the continental United States than were killed in all of America’s wars since 1917; and (d) urge all Americans to arm themselves with the most powerful weapons they can afford, having seen how Obama’s administration has made it impossible to cope with the domestic Islamist threat via law-enforcement agencies alone.

Now, this commonsense approach will be hard on the bipartisan governing elite’s interventionists, so to let them down easy I think it would be a grand thing to create an armed, volunteer battalion — perhaps the “Battalion of the Expendable”? — of those who want America to wage unending interventionist, nation-building wars and who want to void the 2^nd Amendment and so deny U.S. citizens the ability to defend themselves against the Islamists, an incompetent, cowardly, and/or PC-palsied national government, and the many former U.S. military personnel — all partially responsible for America losing two wars to the Islamists — now urging unconstitutional gun-control measures so the citizenry cannot defend itself against either the Islamists or the oppressive national government that has created a shadow army of 200,000 heavily armed bureaucrats to use against them.

Start this project with the 51 State Department employees who want their fellow citizens to wage a nation-building war in Syria because the poor, dear little things find Asaad’s regime repugnant; add the staffs of the National Review, Washington Post, New York Times, Commentary, and the Weekly Standard; mix in arrogant and sniveling anti-Americans like Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos; throw in experienced but always defeated soldiers like General McChrystal and other military retirees who want to unconstitutionally deny weaponry to Americans whom they and the U.S. military have proven incompetent to defend; and complement this group with a Hodge-podge of John Bolton, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Levin, Senators McCain and Graham, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, George Clooney, George Soros, and the top-tier leadership of AIPAC, the Council of Foreign Relations, and anyone else who wants to start unnecessary, interventionist wars that will kill and maim other people’s kids, not their own. Once gathered, dress them in camouflaged uniforms, give each of them an AK-47, ammunition, and some MREs, and provide them transportation — after relieving each of his or her U.S. passport — to the war zone of their choice. Then, as they fly off to their death-by-nation-building, rejoice in the knowledge that for once, in the long, bloody, and financially ruinous history of unnecessary U.S. interventionism, the people who truly deserve to die will be doing the dying.