Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

M.F. Scheuer
Mclean, Virginia

28 September 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is none.

Endnotes

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

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

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

THE LOSERS:

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

THE WINNER:

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

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

Endnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnote

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

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

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

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

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.”