Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

Tyranny seldom arrives in a country rapidly and fully grown. Military coups against freely elected governments — like the one supported by U.S. Democrats and Republicans in Egypt — are frequent in history but seldom bring permanent changes for the better in government. They are often simply preludes to sporadic violence and ultimately civil war.

In America, our Founders, and especially General Washington, did all they could to ensure the military remain subordinate to political leaders. To this day their work has been successful, although one wonders what our service personnel are thinking after sixty years of being sent to war by presidents of both parties who are eager to spend their lives but have no intention of winning.

One must especially wonder what goes on in the minds of our soldiers, Marines, diplomats, and intelligence officers now that they cannot be certain that future presidents and their cabinet officers will make even minimal efforts to protect them while deployed overseas. Perhaps more than the abject defeats Bush and Obama pinned on the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq, America’s defense establishment writ large must wonder what comes next after Obama, Brennan, Biden, and Hillary “The Butcheress of Benghazi” Clinton sat on their arrogant duffs and refused to send additional security to Libya until official Washington had the opportunity to watch Americans die on a live video feed, and then see Congress’s bipartisan refusal to name and bring to trial those responsible for what looks very much like negligent homicide.

But because the U.S. military in the ranks is a disciplined, obedient, and fiercely loyal organization, and because it is led largely by time-serving generals who resolutely refuse to resign and speak out about the unconscionable waste of young lives that occur when presidents routinely go into wars they do not intend to win, the threat of tyranny-via-coup in America is — for now — quite negligible.

Tyranny in America, however, is coming in small steps for which both parties are responsible, but for which the Democrats — because of their dominant historical traits: slavery, secession, segregation, and socialism — are best qualified and most focused on installing. Let’s look at small parts of two much bigger national-government programs — tax collection and foreign aid.

If current Obama-administration leaks turn out to be true, the FBI is going to conclude — without any significant investigation into the issue — that the attack of Obama’s IRS on American conservatives and the 1st Amendment did not amount to criminality. If that decision to made, you can count it as another deliberate step along the path toward the tyranny Obama and his party want to establish. Does anyone in their right mind really believe that “rogue bureaucrats” at the IRS launched a definitively unconstitutional attack on conservatives, their organizations, and the Constitution without the initiative and sanction for that illegal offensive coming directly from the White House? Find such a person, and you have found an idiot, a Democrat, a Progressive, or a non-Tea Party Republican. (NB: This last sentence may be redundant after the word idiot.)

And then there are the new regulations that add not to the IRS’s efficient collection of taxes, but to its power to control and limit Americans’ political organizations, speech, and actions, regulations than can be used by Obama or any future president to paralyze or persecute his political opposition. Since neither party has moved to eliminate these regulations, there appears to be no choice for Americans but to regard IRS officers as the White House’s political operatives and thus the clear enemies of most Americans and their liberties. Indeed, individuals willing to work for the current IRS can only be considered enemies of the Constitution and as a kind of political police who slither about like slugs snooping for any person who dares oppose and work politically to defeat the incumbent government.

With tar-and-feathering sadly out of vogue, what can be done by citizens to deal with this sort of tyranny? One possible solution would be for the Congress to summon enough courage to make all IRS officials — men and women — wear distinctive uniforms so citizens can identify their enemies and stay as far away from them as possible. I would suggest as appropriate a very shiny black uniform with bright yellow facings around pockets, seams, collars, and cuffs. The shiny black would denote the depravity of any American citizen who joins a service that has been redesigned to destroy the 1st Amendment and to take the earnings of working people and give it to the Democratic base, the 50-percent of Americans who pay no taxes. The yellow facings would testify to the fact that only cowardly bullies would persecute their fellow citizens because they are safely backed and protected by unconstitutional laws enforced by Obama’s Gauleiters at DOJ and FBI.

A mandate for uniforms is unlikely, however, as neither Democrats nor most Republicans want citizens to have a fair chance to beat the tax-sucking tyranny they are installing. Therefore, the average citizen must take action on his own and ostracize IRS officials from all possible social, religious, and organizational venues. Keep them off of school boards, PTAs, Protestant vestries, local government institutions, Catholic parish councils, scouting organizations, theater groups, little leagues, animal-rescue groups, etc. And if you cannot do this, either stay away from groups that have current or former IRS officials as members or be a silent Sam in their presence, as well as in the presence of their children, who, to please Il Duce — sorry, I meant to write “the president” — IRS officials will task to do their listening and report back on what you think and say. Bill Clinton almost killed the concept of shame in America, but perhaps the much-needed shaming of IRS officials might revive the concept and make it useful until that happy day when tar-and-feathering again becomes mainstream.

And then there is foreign aid. Let’s take a look at Syria. Everyone in the United States and around the world seems to know that America is broke, with the exception of the elected members of both U.S. political parties. Notwithstanding the country’s apparently inexorable death-by-debt, these oblivious nabobs will spend whatever it takes to make themselves believe they are good people because they give the taxes of hardworking Americans to venal and incompetent foreigners.

This week the media reported that Washington had pledged $380 million dollars to help Syrians who are displaced as a result of the war they wanted, started, and are waging against their own government. Now, there are clearly Syrians who need a burger and a blanket, but by what possible interpretation of the Constitution can it be legal to for Washington to steal money from Americans — that is, tax them — and then use it, not to improve their lot or better the country’s defense, but to dole out to foreigners inconvenienced by the war they started?

Foreign refugees of all kinds, in all places, and at all times deserve help, but that help must be provided out of the goodness of peoples’ hearts, hearts that are moved to act by the once far-more-common human trait known as charity — and charity is not remotely the job of the U.S. government. Let Obama fork over his book royalties and the money he no longer spends on cocaine; let Kerry pony-up part of his wife’s ketchup capital; let McCain donate some of his wife’s money; let Pope Francis divest himself of his Church’s priceless art works and luxurious castles; and let everyone else donate — or not — as they see fit. But do not spend the taxes of Americans on foreigners whose plight is self-inflicted rather than on the dire needs of their own country and fellow citizens.

If the denizens of official Washington have a surplus $380 million they can frivolously give to foreigners, that money clearly should never have been collected by the lamentably corrupt IRS in the first place. If such a surplus exists, it ideally should be returned to the taxpayer. If it must be spent, it should be used to reduce malnutrition among American children and to help maimed U.S. military veterans. In the latter case, care for these young men and women is increasingly defaulting to private sector and non-profit voluntary organizations because the Veterans’ Administration is both callous and incompetent, and because ever more tax money is needed for Obama’s rapidly expanding food-stamp program which funds slackers, illegal aliens, and those deserving-to-starve individuals who tell the press they are just too weary, depressed, and sad to continue looking for work. After all, the Democratic Party’s core supporters — not legless young Marines — must come first.

And if $380 million seems like pocket change to anyone, perhaps a light might be focused on South Sudan, where our elected representatives and Il Duce — sorry, I mean President Obama — have poured more than $1.3 billion since 2011, according to the Congressional Research Service. Why South Sudan? Well because a U.S.-led intervention there, featuring an Israeli-like land theft, furthered the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton/Susan Rice civilizational war on Islam. They, their European buddies, and their UN hit-man simply stole 40-percent of Muslim Sudan’s territory and 75-percent of its oil resources and gave it to a few venal tribes that hate each other — witness today’s astounding levels of graft and deepening inter-tribal war there. These Sudanese beneficiaries of IRS collection have proven their inability to govern, while demonstrating an unlimited talent for corruption and murder.

Not coincidentally, South Sudan is another favorite cause of Hollywood’s ever-expanding community of foreign policy geniuses and so Obama’s lavish dispensing of U.S. tax dollars on a country and people utterly unimportant to the United States, and demonstrably unfit for self-government, earns the Democrats increased contributions from Hollywood’s leaders, those creatures whose only demonstrable talent is to teach America’s pre-teens — via movies, video games, and other media — the sheer fun of killing people for sport.

Tyranny comes, in essence, through the actions of a national leader who does what he wants to do, because he wants to do it, no matter what the letter and spirit of the laws say. For example, an American tyrant could use his tax-collection system not only as a revenue gatherer, but as a tool for persecuting and silencing his political opponents. An American tyrant could also — with his willing bipartisan lackies in the government’s other branches — extract exorbitant taxes from citizens and then give them to foreigners, an action that clearly tells hungry American kids and crippled soldiers and Marines that, to quote an old and dear friend, they have few votes and so “can go piss up a rope.”

The English republican writer John Milton argued that tyranny usually arrives and entrenches itself not with murders and treason, but rather stealthily and gradually. Today we Americans are watching the truth of John Milton’s words unfold.

In 1799, George Washington wrote that the “views of men can only be known, or guessed at, by their words or actions.” Well, in recent weeks I have learned that to express a view that damns either a U.S. foreign policy that is defeating the United States or the makers of that policy is to be a racist, an extremist, a bigot, an anti-Semite, an assassin, an ultra-conservative, and any other number of things described by the slurs and epithet that are the products of the ever-adolescent minds always plentiful among Democrats, the Israel-First gang of war-mongering Neoconservatives, and the budding young journalism students at Georgetown University. The latter seem to think journalism is quoting what other journalists say without ever reading the material over which they are having an effeminate, David-Frum-like hissy-fit.

Let me be clear, I am not upset, angered, or cowed by this criticism. I should say, rather, that I welcome their ignorance-based hatred and urge them to keep it coming. I promise to keep up my end of things.

Having had my say, now let us take a look at the excerpts that have been published from a new book called Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, written by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. In his memoir, Mr. Gates gives his readers telling confirmation of what has been plain but ignored or distorted by most of the media and many Americans since Barack Obama became president; namely, that Obama and Hillary Clinton are the knowing murderers — for personal and party political purposes — of the young men and women who serve America in its military forces.

On this issue, Gates’ work is a welcome first-hand complement to Bob Woodward’s earlier, leak-based Obama’s Wars. Both authors have done Americans a service by underscoring how obvious it was that Obama did not care what happened in Afghanistan — or to the men and women fighting there — as long as he could time the U.S. military defeat he apparently wanted America to suffer there to provide the Democratic Party with as much political advantage as possible. Gates’ book also refines with specifics the general impression that is left by Woodward’s book; namely, that Joe Biden, in regard to foreign policy, really is the egregious twit we have all seen in the Internet video of him dancing and singing in what appears to be a drunken stupor.

For readers of my writings and books, the foregoing is no surprise. Since resigning from the CIA in late 2004, I have argued that both Democratic and Republican leaders start unconstitutional wars which they do not intend to win and so get our soldiers and Marines killed and crippled for nothing. These leaders likewise waste the lives of our young on “enlightened causes” that are not only absolutely irrelevant to U.S. national security — such as human rights, spreading democracy, and, most especially, women’s rights — but the pursuit of which clearly damages our security and amounts to the waging a civilizational war against Islam, one that is identical to that Obama, Clinton, and their party are waging on Christianity.

Both Democratic and Republican leaders are profligate with the blood of our young; regarding the latter, think of Senators McCain and Graham, and other Israel-Firsters like John Bolton, Bill Kristol, and Eric Cantor. It is a continuing surprise that American parents do not universally and aggressively advise their sons and daughters to refrain from joining the U.S. military until the country‘s leaders show that they (a) will revert to constitutional war-making; (b) will allow our forces to win the wars they start; and (c) will not get our kids killed and maimed so that Ms. Mohammad can vote, sleep-around, and abort.

While there is plenty of bipartisan blame to go around, Mr. Gates’ book — and earlier Mr. Woodward’s — adds a new dimension to the emerging portrait of America’s two most prominent tyrants, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Both addressed the issue of the Afghan and Iraq surges from purely selfish and elitist political perspectives, obviously caring not a bit about how many service personnel were required to die or be fitted for prosthetic devices to further their political careers and benefit their political cronies and campaign contributors.

Like monarchs of old, they cavalierly decided which and how many young Americans needed to die to promote their pursuit of power and personal glory. And American parents must never question them about the murderous behavior that kills their children in wars not meant to be won. It is none of their business; they must just shut up and grieve.

Mrs. Clinton demonstrated this monarchical attitude when she exploded in dismissive rage after a legislator dared to ask why she deliberately left America’s representatives in Libya unprotected and ripe for murder. Mrs. Clinton’s reaction in that incident is reminiscent of the estimable actress Flora Robson. Playing England’s Elizabeth I in the fine 1940 film called The Sea Hawk, Robson’s conduct of English foreign policy is questioned by the Spanish Ambassador and she, in turn, explodes, reminding the Spaniard that, “The Queen need justify nothing!” What the then-Secretary of State told Congress about her murderous role in the Benghazi attack was that “I’m Hillary, I need justify nothing.”

Obama supported the 2011 Afghan surge because he needed the Afghan war to continue into 2014 so that he could end it in time to benefit Democratic candidates in the mid-term congressional elections. Mrs. Clinton opposed the Iraq surge in 2007 because she was about to run against Obama for the presidency. She was more than willing to deny U.S. forces in Iraq the reinforcements they desperately needed — thanks to the idiocy of that war and the small-footprint theory of Secretary Rumsfeld — and so she was cruelly ready to abet her candidacy by allowing U.S. casualties to mount.

The same clear logic applies to Mrs. Clinton’s American-killing performance in Libya. She was content to let — and probably watch on video — Americans die in Benghazi because if she and Obama had fielded sufficient force to protect those Americans they would have highlighted the fact that both have lied consistently about the growing Islamist threat to the United States. The men who died unnecessarily in Benghazi, quite simply, died to get Obama reelected and to protect Mrs. Clinton’s political future.

For both Obama and Clinton, after all, the bottom line is that few of those dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya went to the Ivy League, and so they are not among that self-designated coterie of elitists who believe they are born to rule rather than govern Americans, a group that regards the Constitution as antiquated and optional. For Obama and Clinton, America‘s soldiers and Marines are simply riff-raff who do not share their righteous aspiration to dictate how Americans should their lives with less and less liberty and have their hard-won earnings redirected to slackers, addicts, deranged socialists, and illegal aliens; in other words, those who the Democrats eagerly bus to the polls on election day. And, of course, no child of theirs would be allowed to risk his or her life to defend America, they will instead be educated — as were their parents — by the American professorate on the proper methods of destroying the republic.

What Mr. Gates has described and what Mr. Woodward saw, but a little less clearly, is that Obama, Clinton, most of the Democratic Party, and those who vote for them regard U.S. service personnel as pawns in their political game, pawns who really deserve little more in life than to be the cannon fodder that helps to advance the “enlightened” reign of such tyrannical elitists.

And do not buy for a minute the tripe being spun by the Democrats’ media flacks who are claiming that it was only the generals that Obama and Clinton distrusted and that they really loved and cared for the troops sent to fight America’s most lethal enemies. That is a transparent lie. Both Obama and Clinton had the number of America’s myriad of yes-men generals and had no reason to distrust or fear those time-servers. After all, these be-starred men and women never are going to die on the battlefield nor ever have enough courage to resign and speak out against the feckless, often illegal war-making of such wretches as Obama, Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Bill Clinton, war-makers who never intend to win the wars they start but are content with getting get tens of thousands of America’s young killed and maimed before they decide to lose the war and retreat.

In the case of the present administration, Obama and Clinton neither feared the generals nor cared about the troops, ambassadors, and intelligence officers on the ground in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Because of that reality, they are responsible for getting our soldiers, Marines, diplomats, and intelligence officers killed and crippled. If Obama and Clinton were not themselves the killers of these Americans, they clearly were the callous, political-advantage seeking facilitators of the killers. If Ernest Hemingway was still alive and saw this performance, he would surely have had the materials to write a history of the Obama-Clinton era entitled The Scum Also Rises, Volume II. (NB: Volume I would have covered the career and impact of the Neoconservatives.)

And so what is the remedy for this lethal elitism, selfishness and, deliberate, clear-eyed murder? One sure answer, of course, is that the remedy is never, ever the national government, which always thirsts for more power and is eternally the enemy of liberty. It must at all times be watched and hemmed in closely by the electorate.

The only truthful answer is that the remedy lies in an educated and vigilant electorate, in voters who are always ready to throw out, in the manner they deem appropriate, the members of either party who refuse to enforce the law, who refuse to obey the Constitution, and who refuse to avoid unnecessary wars and the useless murder of their soldier-children. “The only real security of liberty in any country,” wrote James Iredell, a too-little-appreciated Founder from North Carolina, in July 1788,

“is the jealousy and circumspection of the people themselves. Let them be watchful over their rulers. Should they find a combination against their liberties, and all other methods appear insufficient to preserve them, they have, thank God, an ultimate remedy. The power which created the government can destroy it.”

So the remedy lies in you and I and all those Americans who refuse to watch silently as the likes of Obama and Clinton knowingly bring Americans defeat, death, and more war abroad, while institutionalizing bankruptcy, tyranny, and minority-rule at home. It is, after all, much better to speak out, agitate, organize, and vote now for the preservation of America and its liberties, then to be cowed into silence by those who know little and care nothing about America, and then be forced to act only when it is too late to rely on the ballot box.

Two recent pieces I published on the advance of tyranny under President Obama have earned replies from several of Obama’s brilliant, willing, and forelock-tugging subjects, as well as from the omnipresent Israel-Firsters. Regarding the latter, see item C below for ridicule of the University of Manitoba, where I went to school. The Fifth Column of U.S.-citizen Israel-Firsters always focus on that school when they write to me. I guess they dislike Canada. The “sieg heil” in item A and the Nazi stuff in items D and E speak for themselves.

I am stunned by the brilliance and insight of the six notes below from loyal lickspittles of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Israel. Indeed, I momentarily considered giving up the fight against such shimmering intellects. But being old, stubborn, and a bear of little brain, I guess I will keep slogging forward, and perhaps even broaden the field of commentary. For after all, if, as the great English republican John Milton wrote, “nothing is more suitable to the law of nature than that tyrants be punished,” perhaps it will come to pass that their supporters merit some share of the same punishment.

Finally, I apologize to readers for the vulgarities in items B and C below, but I was reluctant to keep this he-man’s ravishingly clever wit from you.

A.) — Original Message —

From: Michell <michell_belson@myway.com>
To: scheuermf <scheuermf@aol.com>
Cc: mfs47 <mfs47@georgetown.edu>;
Sent: Sun, Jan 5, 2014 7:35 pm

Subject: Even for a dumb fascist, you have to be a moron to compare yourself to Jefferson and Madison. Mussolini maybe, Franco definitely.

sieg heil!!

B.) — Original Message —

From: Mike Leary <varmjl@verizon.net>
To: mfs47 <mfs47@georgetown.edu>
Sent: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 6:33 pm
Subject: POTUS Assassination Suggestion

Guess what pal? I’m gonna slice off your balls and stuff one up each nostril, you fucking asshole.

C.) — Original Message —

From: Mike Leary <varmjl@verizon.net>
To: scheuermf <scheuermf@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 11:01 pm
Subject: Re: POTUS Assassination Suggestion

Your liberal use of exclamation points confirms my expectation you have a third rate mind you pussy.

D.) — Original Message —

From: Scott Ralph <oolitic@gmail.com>
To: mfs47 <mfs47@georgetown.edu>
Sent: Sun, Jan 5, 2014 9:16 pm
Subject: You are a pathetic shit

Got a Benghazi bee in your bonnet you low-functioning arsehole?

You are so filled with shit were you to be administered an enema you could be buried in a match box. I long for this day.

University of Manitoba! Fucking laughable.

E.) — Original Message —

From: Scott Ralph <oolitic@gmail.com>
To: scheuermf <scheuermf@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: You are a pathetic shit

For those brown-shirt wearing simpletons that view all opposing views with a seige mentality and fabricate issues over Bengazi et al. I would suggest Lorazapam and Lithium.

With modern pharmachology there is no reason for delusional nazi hacks to feel upset.

F.) On Jan 6, 2014 6:48 PM, “Scott Ralph” <oolitic@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow. Laughable pap. Have you no talent?

My goodness sakes, what a lot of people have been upset by the last piece I wrote, one that condemns — nay, damns — President Obama and UK Prime Minister Cameron for deliberately paving the way for the West’s defeat by the growing Islamist movement. Several people seem especially apoplectic about the quote I used from the English republican Algernon Sydney in which he warned that a country’s people must not tolerate a national leader who negates the country’s security, ignores the law, and/or makes his own law, adding that if such a lawless individual cannot be brought to book by the law, there are other means to do so, including violence as a last resort.

Now, unless you thrill at the thought of America as an authoritarian state — one determined, for example, to crush the Little Sisters of the Poor for their religious convictions — or of its evolution into a monarchy formed by the Democratic Party, whose history is signally marked by a lust for authoritarianism, how could you possibly be upset by my reminder that the Founders of our republic took to heart the lesson that it is the citizen’s duty to resist the growth of arbitrary government which was taught by Algernon Sydney, John Milton, and other leading English republicans?

Well, no matter. Lets bring the subject closer to home and examine the following words by an American opponent of arbitrary government:

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

A renowned Protestant minister named Jonathan Mayhew wrote those words in 1750 in an sermon/essay called “Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers.” For present purposes, just replace the word “king” with the word “president” and you will have the situation which America is today approaching.

Obama and those of his lieutenants who oversee what the president seems to consider his personal plantations here in America openly announce which laws they will enforce and which they will not. They also unilaterally rewrite laws to make them what they want, which is always to expand presidential power. And they quietly issue hundreds of presidential-power-expanding “regulations” which are penned and enforced by the same breed of authoritarian, America-hating bureaucrats, men and women who have graduated from U.S. university and law-school systems in which the bulk of the professoriate share those America-killing characteristics and inclinations.

Clearly, Mr. Obama, in a paraphrase of the Rev. Mayhew’s words, is on the verge of “un-presidenting” himself not only by putting himself above the law, but also by making himself the sole source of some laws. If this process continues, American citizens are duty bound to act in the manner they deem most useful to stop the consolidation of arbitrary power in, and its exercise by the national government.

At the risk of adding to the apoplexy of some readers, it would be well for Mr. Obama, his lieutenants, and their abettors in Congress from both parties to recall the words of a man who wrote a document whose words still command some right to the attention, respect, and eventual action of the American people:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, 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.”

Words like the foregoing must be unbearably exasperating to both Democrats and Neoconservatives. If more people read them and then delve deeper into what the Founders said and did to acquire and preserve liberty, they will never be able to accomplish their goal of enslaving this country, the former to use as a laboratory to test their political and social authoritarianism, and the latter to ensure that Israel — their country of first allegiance — survives and has America’s young men and women to fight its wars.

Let us hope Americans begin to read the Founders and think about what they intended for our country. In such a case, the days of the usurpers in all parties, as well as their acolytes in the media and the academy, would be numbered.

“We can neither endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.”

Titus Livy

Over the past months, media commentary on the massive and aggressively intrusive electronic collection effort being mounted by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its British counterpart, GCHQ, has focused on the constitutional issues raised by the two governments’ wanton violation of the personal privacy rights of hundreds of millions of their citizens. And this surely is an important aspect of the problem, although the Obama administration clearly has no use for the U.S. Constitution in any venue, preferring to simply enforce the laws it likes and let the rest molder, while simultaneously shredding the 4th Amendment and attacking the 1st and the 2nd Amendments. That Eric Holder and Barack Obama have not been impeached, moreover, suggests that the impeachment provisions of the Constitution are a dead letter; that they apply only to individuals named Nixon; or that they do not apply to Black Americans supported by such towering giants of fatuousness as Oprah, Chris Matthews, Fareed Zakaria, Piers Morgan, and Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and their band of American-killing Viragos.

But there is an equally important dimension of the NSA-GCHQ issue that has been discussed not at all either by the media or by the politicians in all U.S. and UK parties that abet the lies of President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron. Leaving aside the illegality of the collection for a moment, let us focus on the most basic motivation for the on-going, vacuum-like collection operation; namely, the UTTER DESPERATION engendered in Obama and Cameron by their being aware that much of the Muslim world is now either at war or supporting war against the West, and that the Islamist enemy is beyond their ability to control or contain, let alone destroy.

Obama and Cameron have followed the lie-strewn path toward the West’s destruction first blazed by Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Obama and Cameron greatly exaggerate the supposedly disastrous impact of Bin Laden’s death on al-Qaeda and the Islamist movement, while, like their predecessors, maintaining that fountain of falsehood that spews forth nonsense about the motivation of the mujahideen being their hatred for liberty, Budweiser, freedom, and Iowa’s primaries. As this deceit flows, the Islamists and their war on the West have become much more popular in the Muslim world, as witnessed by their astounding geographical expansion and manpower growth since 2001, as well as by their easy defeat of the U.S. and British militaries in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama and Cameron also know that their unquenchable thirst to intervene in the Muslim world has yielded lethal results for their own people. Foregoing an adult-like silence, they, like mindless adolescents, cheered on the “freedom-loving democrats” in Tahrir Square, promoting and deepening the chaos that led to the Islamists’ stripping Egypt’s arsenals of modern weaponry and freeing thousands of veteran and talented mujahideen who were incarcerated in Mubarak’s prisons. Those men and weapons are now in active service from Algeria to Afghanistan to Nigeria to Syria.

The Western World’s self-proclaimed leaders next joined with France’s Nicholas Sarkozy to intervene in Libya to bring freedom to the tens of millions of Libyan democrats, only to find that there were no democrats and that they had again augmented the Islamist movement’s weapons inventory and manpower, while leaving Libya on the edge of becoming an Islamic state.

Ever blind to the costs of unwarranted intervention in the Muslim world, Obama and Cameron backed the amateurish French invasion of Mali — which will further spread the Islamists’ war in Africa — and then acquiesced, with silent joy, as the Egyptian military overthrew the Islamist Morsi government after its victory in a free and fair election, thereby forever ending any possibility that the West can convince the Islamic world that it will allow Muslim self-determination. The West-approved Egyptian military coup revalidated al-Qaeda’s leader al-Zawahiri’s 2005 advice that self-determination for Muslims and the reinvigoration of their faith can only come out of an AK-47‘s muzzle.

Most recently, Obama and Cameron have shown Muslims that, for the West, Israel always has carte blanche to steal Palestinian land, as Netanyahu rapidly expands settlement building. And they have again demonstrated their willingness to condemn Americans and Britons to endless war by deciding to arm the Islamist insurgency that will eventually rule Syria. This self-defeating arming occurred because Islamist leaders there were smart enough to push forward a few Syrians who chirped some nifty phrases about the glories of democracy. As always, the U.S. president and the British prime minister took the bait, they remain — like Bush, Clinton, and Blair before them — the Islamists only indispensable allies.

The foregoing can only be called a world of trouble, one in which the Islamists’ war on America and its allies is gaining strength and geographical reach, and is brimming with confidence in Allah’s beneficence after He allowed the mujahideen to easily defeat the U.S. superpower in Afghanistan and Iraq. To confront this growing religious war, Obama and Cameron have decided not to use their militaries effectively — too much bloodshed for such effete, worldly wise sophisticates — but to rely on the basically defensive capabilities of their intelligence communities, such as electronic intercepts and the drone and Special Forces attacks they facilitate. Sadly, these tools are no more than irksome if lethal pinpricks to the growing Islamist movement, and do nothing to slow, let alone halt its growth.

For America, the UK, and their NATO allies a day of reckoning is meandering toward them; its approach is slow and steady because of the extraordinary patience bred in Islamists and Muslims generally by both the tenets of their faith and reliable Anglo-American military failure. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Cameron, and Blair, have eased the Islamists’ way by refusing to kill enough of the mujahideen and — as important — of their civilian supporters to persuade them that their game of religious war is not worth the candle. And, in any event, once NATO leaves Afghanistan, is not at all clear where Western military power can in the near term be brought to bear to deliver the requisite slaughter. (NB: Over the longer term, this will not be a question. The U.S. and British militaries eventually will be deployed to destroy the mujahideen operating inside the United States and the UK as a consequence of the non-enforcement of existing immigration and border-control laws, laws which, in America, Obama is now trying eliminate altogether.)

Thus, in the name of championing such Islamist-favoring concepts as human rights, interventionist foreign policies, politically correct speech, the war-prolonging proportionality of Just War theory; and the absurd goal of zero civilian casualties, Obama and Cameron know they are losing the war the Islamists are waging against their countries, and in their desperation they have few weapons to use save the above-cited ones, weapons that now and again kill a few mujahideen, and others — especially the universal electronic surveillance of citizens — that will inconvenience the Islamists but gradually destroy the civil liberties of Americans and Britons.

In their palpable desperation, Obama and Cameron will expand the use of those weapons and, by doing so, they will protect the growing power and durability of our Islamist enemies, while undermining the constitutional structure, the rule of law, and the civil liberties which, since England’s Glorious Revolution (1688-89), Anglo-Americans have built and defended against the despotic drift of their rulers with argument, protest, and — if at last needed — violence.

As they head further down the road of losing wars and wrecking Anglo-American liberties, Messrs Obama and Cameron and their supporters in all parties would do well to read the words of the great 17th century English republican Algernon Sidney, a man who was revered on both sides of the Atlantic, who greatly influenced America’s founders, and who was executed by the British Crown for what it described as sedition. “There must therefore be a right,” Sidney wrote,

“of proceeding judicially or extra-judicially against all persons who transgress the laws; or else those laws, and the societies that should subsist by them, cannot stand; and the ends for which governments are constituted, together with the governments themselves, must be overthrown. … If he [a political leader] be justly accounted an enemy of all, who injures all; he above all must be the publick enemy of a nation, who by usurping power over them, does the greatest and most publick injury that a people can suffer. For which reason, by an established law among the most virtuous nations, every man might kill a tyrant; and no names are recorded in history with more honor, than of those who did it. … They [the people] know how to preserve their liberty, or to vindicate the violation of it; and the more patient they have been, the more inflexible they are when they resolve to be so no longer. Those who are so foolish to put them upon such courses, do to their cost find that there is a difference between lions and asses; and he is a fool who knows not that swords were given to men, that none might be slaves….”

Thomas G. West (ed), Algernon Sidney. Discourses Concerning Government. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1996, pp. 221, 227, and 434.

The history of the Democratic Party can be concisely captured by referring to its steadfast allegiance to the four S’s — Slavery, Secession, Segregation, and Socialism. During the Obama presidency we have seen how hard old habits die, even for a Black man whose race was the long-time victim of Democratic Party‘s bone-deep authoritarianism. Under this Democratic president we have seen a war waged on several fronts against America’s young. Indeed, the Democrats’ historic taste for and belief in slavery have resurfaced with a vengeance and indiscriminately under the Obama administration; whether white, black, yellow, red, male, or female America’s young are dieing and being forced to work for Obama and his lieutenants as they seek to maintain their party’s hold on political power.

How so? Well, America has never had a president and administration so eager to kill unborn Americans. Even with post-1973 science having proved irrefutably that the unborn are human beings, and even though American law always has defined them as U.S. citizens, Obama and his colleagues have strengthened at every point they could the absurd notion that unborn humans are the chattel property of the woman who bears them, and so can be disposed of — that is, murdered — at her whim. And, in what must be considered a masterpiece of Orwellian language, Obama and his team — and most Democrats since 1973 — describe this federal government-issued license to kill as a woman’s “right,” a means by which she manifests her equality with men. They then damn any one who questions the logic, sanity, or justice of this argument as an “extremist.” Only in an America in which a political entity as devoted to the four “S’s” as the Democratic Party could opposition to the cold-blooded murder of fellow citizens unable defend themselves be identified by the country’s best-educated as “extremism.”

If this is indeed a right, it is a right gives each woman the right to be a slave-owner and a Nazi. Such a “right” really is no different than the rights sanctioned by the Dred Scott decision and the Nuremberg laws, each of which legally defined certain categories of people out of the human race in order to enslave or kill them. Since 1973, the application of this “right” has produced precisely the same results as Dred Scott and the Nuremberg laws, though in numbers so immense — 55 million and climbing — that they make those acts seem rather tame and minimally destructive of humans.

Next we have Obama’s murderous use of America’s military young for his and his party’s partisan political purposes. He kept U.S. soldiers in Iraq — a war which should never have been started — long after he had announced the war was un-winnable but just long enough to pile up heaps of dead and maimed American youngsters in order to make their withdrawal timely and useful for electoral purposes. Now we see Obama and his team keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan long after he decided to surrender to the Islamists in that that war, and thereby knowingly enhance the strength, lethality, self-confidence, and ambitions of America’s most dangerous enemies by returning to them their key safe haven. Our troops are the cream of America’s young and they ought not to be used by any president as if he was their owner. Obama, however, seems to regard them — as he does the unborn — as chattel to be disposed of as he and his advisers see fit to advance Democratic Party political prospects.

Finally, we have Obama and his advisers seeking to financially enslave this generation of young Americans, and each generation that follows it, in order to pay for his health care program. Obama and his lieutenants are starting slow in this area, but the evidence of coming coercion — beyond the mandatory fine young people pay if they prove not to be servile — can be seen in West Virginia, where university students reportedly will not be allowed to matriculate unless they enroll in Obama Care This amounts to a 4-year term of indentured service for the privilege of paying extortionate tuition for a mediocre education offered by anti-American ideologues of Obama’s stripe.

And make no mistake, these young people are not being threatened and ultimately coerced to forfeit their salary, savings, and future for the elderly and sick. They are being used to fund health care for the core groups — dare I say “plantations” — of the Democratic party: the slackers and high-school dropouts, who prefer food stamps and heath care to working for a living; those who engage in high-health-risk sexual practices; those immigrants who are in America — legally or illegally — and have no intention of ever working or fitting into American society; and those in the Ivy League, Hollywood, the media, the leftist rich, and most schools and universities who — like Obama — consider themselves superior intellectuals earmarked by some demented destiny to implement their pagan, socialist, and anti-human ideology in the United States.

They first mean to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and then — safe to be tyrants, though cowards all — they intend remake in their own worthless image those Americans who still work hard, who believe in and are willing to fight to defend liberty, and who have learned the Founders’ key lesson; namely, that the federal government must always be seen as an enemy of freedom and therefore must be kept in check and opposed to the hilt whenever necessary.

Perhaps it would be best if Obama and his Ivy-League elite studied the words of a man they hail an icon of their party and with whom they share a liking for slavery, but who actually is a man they do not in the least understand. “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will be often exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all,” Jefferson wrote in 1787, adding “what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance.”

It may well be time for Obama and his party of petty tyrants to heed these words of their icon, before other of his words become, in time, even more pertinent. “The tree of liberty,” Jefferson also wrote in 1787, “must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

And it is just as important for the Republicans to read Jefferson’s words because they are as bad and perhaps worse than the Democrats. As the decades of Democratic abuse of America’s young unfolded, the Republicans have been utterly craven, seeking to save the young, the Constitution, and the republic with words alone when in opposition, and doing virtually nothing substantive to arrest the republic’s decline when they hold power.

Today, the Republicans cower, mumble, and equivocate when called “extremists” by those heroic Democratic champions of murdering the unborn; they follow like murmuring sheep the shrill martial words of Senators Graham and McCain and so get young Americans uselessly killed and maimed in wars that are either unnecessary or ones they have no intention of winning; and they are barely brave enough to raise economic points and words of I-told-you-so to oppose the coming, liberty-killing indentured servitude of America’s young in the name of Obama Care. Indeed, the Republicans seem increasingly like those gassy, self-righteous, and hell-bound rhetoricians described by the great Protestant writer John Bunyan:

“Hearing is but the sowing of the seed: Talking is not sufficient to prove that the fruit is indeed in the Heart and life; and let us assure ourselves, that at the day of Doom, men shall be judged according to their Fruit; It will not be said then, Did you believe? But were you Doers or Talkers only? And accordingly shall you be judged.”

If there is a hereafter, the Democrats will burn because they were the Doers that killed the republic, the Republicans because they were the Talkers who abetted its murder. And such will be a well deserved fate for both. It is enough to make an agnostic hope there is a God.

The material below the dotted line is the written version of my part in a six-member panel’s presentation to the House’s Homeland Security Committee on 9 October 2013. I ran late on 8 October 2013 and so failed to provide the committee’s members with a typed-up version of my opening statement before the hearing. I submitted it to them on 10 October 2013.

As things turned out, my tardiness did not really matter. The committee’s Chairman was knowledgeable, polite, and interested in what each panel member had to say, agreeing with some and challenging others. The rest of the Committee — at least those who showed up — was a train wreck or ignorance, arrogance, partisanship, and incompetence.

The Democratic members used most of their allotted time to chastise the Republicans for the government’s shutdown. The three Republicans who spoke to me — especially one from New York — had no interest in what I said about the growing certainty that the Islamists’ war soon will be fought, in part, in North America. Instead, the Republicans used most of their time to satisfy their AIPAC paymasters by praising and defending Israel, for whom they have what Alexander Hamilton would describe as a “womanish attachment.”

One lad from South Carolina also added a short homily on how the religion of Moses and Abraham made the United States and Israel one and the same. And another fellow from Utah was bent on getting me to name the names of people at the CIA who know what is blisteringly obvious to all but the 535 members of Congress — that our ties to Israel are a clear and increasingly mortal threat to U.S. security, its economy, and the lives of Americans because it is one of the central motivations of our Islamist enemies. I refused to play ball. Utah’s contemporary version of Tail-gunner Joe McCarthy also added that he “knows” all Muslims hate all Americans, their freedoms, and women’s rights and that is why they are attacking us. He must have been briefed by that preacher from South Carolina, or by Senators Graham and McCain, the Knesset members masquerading as U.S. Senators. (1)

Finally, in what has been a genuine and touching surprise, I have received several dozen e-mails from Americans who said they appreciated what I had to say to the committee. I want to thank them publicly for their kind words, and say that while they encourage me to continue speaking out, I must confess that I think there is little hope of preventing combat against Islamist forces in the United States in the years ahead. The quite large Homeland Security Committee probably is a pretty good microcosm of the attitudes of both the House and the Senate on these issues, and, if this judgment is correct, most of these ladies and gentlemen do not give a damn about the safety of American lives and property here at home.

Indeed, after listening to some of the members of this committee, as well as to the last three presidents and many others in Congress and the media for the last fifteen years, it seems likely that many would silently welcome attacks in the United States so they could say “we and Israel and now in the same a boat.” They then could go on with their daily businesses of war, taxing, and graft as usual.

What this means for Americans is that time is running out, and that there is every reason for them to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment as soon and as fully as possible. It seems likely that within the foreseeable future Americans will be called to defend themselves against Islamist fighters and/or an oppressive federal government that too-late sees that its deliberate lies about Islamist motivation, its willingness to facilitate U.S. military defeat overseas, its failure to control U.S. borders, and its groveling to Israel and the Saudi police-state have combined to bring war to our shores and that the only response it has is severe martial law — which is better known as tyranny.

One hopes that Phillip Bobbitt was right in his fine new book about Machiavelli’s thought when he argues that, in times when a republic’s leaders “become unsuitable,” one of the great strengths of a republic lies in “the ruthlessness of the public, which can replace its leaders according to the demands of circumstances.” (2)

Notes

1. http://homeland.house.gov/hearing/hearing-al-shabaab-al-nusra-how-westerners-joining-terror-groups-overseas-affect-homeland
2. Phillip Bobbitt. The Garments of Court and Palace. Machiavelli and the World He Made. New York: Grove Press, 2013, p. 90

See also

• Notes on U.S. and western jihadis returning home

1.) As America enters the seventeenth year of the war that much of Islam formally began waging against it in 1996, American and other Western Muslims have been traveling to support and/or fight alongside the mujahideen since the mid-1980s.

• The first Western jihadis went to fight with the Afghan mujahideen against the Red Army in the mid-1980s.
• Westerners continued to trickle into the jihads in such places as the North Caucasus, Somalia, and the Balkans in the 1990s, but the big increase in their numbers occurred after Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in August, 1996, and especially after al-Qaeda’s impressive victories on 9/11.
• Today, Syria and Somalia seem to be the most prominent destinations for U.S. and Western Muslim fighters, although some have turned up in North Africa and the Sahel as well.

2.) From the 1980s through today, U.S. Muslim citizens who go overseas to fight jihad return to America with several attributes, some old and some knew, but all strongly held.

• They return home, of course, with the same religious faith that motivated to travel abroad to fight, but it will be strengthened by the simple fact that they were on the winning side.
• Since 1996, America has been engaged in what is preeminently a religious war for those who are waging it, not withstanding the deliberately misleading protests against this reality by our last three presidents.
• That American Muslim fighters have traveled, fought, survived, won, and returned home safely proves two things to themselves, their families, and their religious communities:
• God was pleased by their actions and ensured they were successful.
• And for the younger people in the U.S. Muslim community — especially for young males — they will become role models in terms of an individual fulfilling his religious responsibility to defend Islam.
• They also will return with increased talent in the use of small arms and explosives — a teachable talent — and with increased skills at building covert organizations. They will likewise return with confidence that victory is possible. They and their colleagues know that they inflicted humiliating defeats on the U.S. and NATO militaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that knowledge will boost morale and recruitment.
• Finally, the American fighters will return with a greatly enhanced knowledge of and contacts with other similarly minded men from across the Muslim world. All of the jihads to which American Muslims travel are fought by locals and an assortment of other men from countries that span the globe. The Americans will come home fully aware that the movement bin Laden started and led is now truly international in scope, and is quickly growing in numbers and geographical reach. They also will come home with a list of contacts among their fellow mujahideen from whom they can seek advice or more material forms of assistance.

3.) As I noted at the start, the subject of our discussion today is about a phenomenon that is nearly 40 years old. It is clearly more dangerous today than ever before, but the factors that cause the problem — the factors that motivate young Muslim Americans to jihad — have been the same over time.

• And while there are a number of factors that motivate these young people — including Saudi-sponsored and funded religious education in the United States, and the bonds of family, clan, tribe, and nationalism that remain strong and vibrant even after immigration — the first and most important motivation for these American Muslims to go to war is the bipartisan and interventionist foreign policy of the U.S. government and the existence of Israel and numerous un-Islamic tyrannies in the Arab world, all supported by the United States.
• Indeed, since Laden declared war on America in 1996, al-Qaeda and its allies have had — from their perspective —only two indispensable allies: Allah and U.S. and Western interventionism.

4.) To conclude my opening statement, I would say that while what American Muslim mujahideen bring back with them from jihad is important, what they find in the United States upon returning is will be much more important in motivating what I believe will become combat situations — like the recent event in Nairobi and others much worse — in the United States over the next decade.

• And what they will find on their return will be a steady-as-she-goes interventionist U.S. foreign policy which has been a constant for more than thirty years.
• We will be continuing to unquestionably arm, support, and justify Israel.
• We will continue to support tyranny in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Algeria, and elsewhere in the Muslim world.
• We will continue preaching democracy but stand ready to immediately intervene to undermine fairly elected governments in places like Palestine and Egypt.
• And certainly most dangerous for U.S. national security, we will continue to prosecute the clash of civilizations, initiated by President Bush and accelerated by President Obama and Mrs. Clinton, designed to impose secularism, democracy, and women’s rights on an Islamic world ready and willing to fight forced Westernization to the death.
• In terms of the length of our war with Islam, this attempt to teach our little, brown Muslim brothers to be just like us will lengthen the war every bit as much as the unprovoked and unnecessary military interventions in Libya, Mali, and Iraq.

5.) And if you think that I place too much emphasis on the motivation provided to U.S. citizens and other Western mujahideen by U.S. and Western interventionism, I would draw your attention to the reality that, to the best of my knowledge, neither we nor any of our NATO partners have yet to capture a Western Islamist fighter whose words or documents have shown a motivation to attack based on hatred for liberty, elections, or gender equality. Invariably, they attribute their motivation to U.S. and Western military intervention in the Islamic world and U.S. and Western support for Israel and various Muslim tyrannies.

1.) Question: Is it justifiable for America to go to war in Syria to get President Obama out of the box he created for himself by talking about a “red line” in the Syrian civil war, a conflict in which no genuine U.S. national interests are at risk?

Answer: No. Obama’s inexperience in foreign affairs and his seeming personal arrogance got him — and America — into this mess, and so little a man is he that he now refuses to accept responsibility for foolishly drawing the red line, instead blaming it on “the world.” Let him swing.

2.) Question: Will America’s credibility as a great military power be denigrated if it does not attack Syria?

Answer: No. We have already lost most of that credibility because Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, and their generals waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq they did not intend to win. The wanton waste of American military lives and money by these men, and their willingness to admit defeat to men armed with weapons from the Korean war, have largely destroyed America’s military credibility among allies and foes alike. Compared to failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, a failure to attack Syria is small potatoes.

3.) Question: Is it unacceptable for one side in a civil war — as in Syria — to use every weapon it needs to try to ensure its survival against an enemy who started the civil war and whose military power is supplied by the Islamist fighters who are at war with America and the West? In other words, must the legitimate government of Syria — which we and all the world recognized before the Syrian opposition started the civil war — commit suicide rather than defend itself and prevent the slaughter of Syria’s million-strong Alawite community?

Answer: No. The right to self-defense is the first law of nature and the Asaad government has as much right to exercise it as does — as Washington always and correctly insists to be the case — the Israeli government.

4.) Question: Is it acceptable for the great majority of Americans — who polls show are opposed to a Syrian war — to be ignored by both houses of Congress because they cannot offer the same slate of enticements that are available to their elected representatives from pro-Israel U.S. citizens and organizations, as well as from the Saudi and other Gulf regimes and their subordinates in the lobbies of the U.S. oil and arms-making industries?

Answer: No. Unless, of course, our country exists only to supply money and cannon fodder for attaining the foreign policy goals of Israel, the Saudis, and other Gulf tyrants while they stand safely on the sidelines.

5.) Question: Do American parents whose soldier-children were killed or maimed in Afghanistan and Iraq deserve to have their and their children’s sacrifice made a mockery of by having U.S. military forces ally themselves with and try to deliver victory to the same mujahideen who killed and maimed their offspring? Do the families of those killed and maimed on 9/11 merit the same treatment?

Answer: No.

6.) Question: Is it acceptable for Congress to fail to demand that the Executive Branch publicly explain to the American people the domestic threat that is posed by the substantial terrorist capability that Iran and Lebanese Hizballah have built inside the United States, a capability resulting from open borders and bipartisan political correctness, and one that could be activated if U.S. forces attack Syria?

Answer: No. If honest, such a briefing from the Executive Branch would make every American aware that border-control is a key national-defense requirement, as well as demonstrate to them how negligent both parties have been for decades in regard to their responsibility to protect the country by controlling its borders.

7.) Question: Does it make sense for Obama to undertake military action against Syria — which poses no threat to the United States — when he refused to use the U.S. military to try to save the lives of the Americans in Benghazi whom he and his lieutenants were watching on live video being attacked and finally killed?

Answer: No.

8.) Question: Would a decent man, respectful of the electorate’s wishes, distribute videos of the gas attacks in Syria in attempt to shame Americans into supporting his unnecessary war?

Answer: No. But Obama consistently has shown that he, his party, and their media accomplices will exploit the deaths of others — take the shootings in Colorado and Connecticut — to try to achieve their ideological goals, such as negating the 2nd Amendment.

9.) Question: Should the Congress and media continue to allow Obama to use his politically well-calculated ardor for an unnecessary war to distract Americans from his administration’s scandals, such as IRS attacks on Conservative groups and his administration’s expansion of NSA programs that have all but shredded the 4th Amendment?

Answer: No.

10.) Question: Given polling data that shows an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose an offensive war against the Syria regime, will the interventionists in both political parties begin to see that Americans are sick to death of both the unnecessary wars they start — such as Libya and Iraq — and the necessary wars they undertake but do not intend to win, such as Afghanistan? Will they begin to see what their constituents clearly see, that all unnecessary wars inevitably undermine the nation’s liberties, its economic prosperity, and its social and political cohesion?

Answer: No. As Secretary of State Kerry said this weekend, the bipartisan interventionists who want an offensive war against Syria are “humane and decent” people who — by implication — are much smarter and more moral persons than the people who elect and pay them, and whose children will die in their wars.

If you did not see Bret Baier’s program on FOX TV in the 6pm (Eastern) hour last night, and hear his Syria-focused discussion with U.S. Army General Jack Keane (ret’d), please try to pull it off the Internet and listen.

While mostly a rehashing all the we-must-attack-Syria things that have been said across the media in the past week, Mr. Baier had the common sense — and, may I say, the moral courage — to point out to General Keane that more than 60-percent of the American people oppose any U.S. military involvement in Syria. Mr. Baier asked if that finding ought to be an important influence in King Obama’s pending decision on whether or not to go to war.

A bit dismissively, General Keane responded that polls showing the strong and historically consistent non-interventionist beliefs of the American people should play no role in a U.S. president’s decision on an issue of national security. In essence, General Keane told Mr. Baier and all other Americans to be quiet, go home, eat a cookie, watch TV, and let the vaunted U.S. military — which, on recent evidence, could not beat the Mclean, Va, neighborhood watch committee — and our interventionist, bipartisan governing elite do as they wish regarding war with Syria. After all, these arrogant and self-proclaimed aristocrats always know what is best for a taxed-to-death riff-raff that is only needed every four years to elect someone running on a “no war” platform that will be utterly and cynically discarded once the presidency is won.

General Keane told all Americans, with admirable truth and bluntness, precisely how little influence they have on a federal government that is constitutionally their servant, and how little influence any American has on any president-cum-monarch’s ability to go to war whenever he pleases. Neither Keane, nor King Obama, nor that destroyer-of-Arizona John McCain give the ass of King Obama’s royal rat — they call the rodent “Holder” — about what the folks think who will be doing the paying and dying in the aristocracy’s coming war in Syria.

And the Congress, of course, has been almost silent while our current monarch leads us to war, having long ago unconstitutionally delegated its exclusive power to declare war to the president, and fearing a reduction in their stipends from Israel-First if they do anything that is, shall we say, America First, such as stopping the war and thereby obeying their constituents, defending the republic and it constitution, and taking a first step toward restoring legality and sanity to American war-making.

Very well done, Mr. Baier. Perhaps unconsciously, you let all Americans hear from the horse’s mouth a concise description of the fact that they are wholly irrelevant to the governing process, and even more impotent when it comes to the war-making process that will kill their soldier-children and increase and waste their taxes. You provided a short but memorable piece of television, and one which ought to leave its viewers with a voice speaking softly but clearly in the back of their minds, a voice saying an old American truism: “But when a long train of abuses & usurpations, evinces a design to reduce them [Americans] under absolute despotism it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, & to provide new guards for their future security.”

These days, truly food for thought.