Enemies of America: Bloomberg, Stern, and Rand Paul

There must be few occasions in history when a Fifth Column was as openly disloyal and flamboyant as is Israel First in the United States, advocating at every turn that Americans become involved in wars that are none of their concern. These Jewish and non-Jewish Americans have so corrupted the U.S. political system and media that they feel perfectly at ease in acting in ways that are certain, in the future, to get some of their fellow citizens — civilian and military — killed by Islamist insurgents. They also aggressively seek to turn more of the Muslim world against the United States, thereby deepening the war America already is losing to the Islamists. And all of this is done in the name of a country that could not be more irrelevant or more detrimental to genuine U.S. national security concerns.

In the past weeks, Americans have seen Michael Bloomberg travel to Israel to lend his support to his country of first allegiance.  Bloomberg is the great, rich, soda-pop forbidding buffoon of American politics, but apparently that kind of thing sells well in Israel. He probably is only the first of the Jewish-American politicians and businessmen who will travel to Israel to showboat and tell Israelis they are there to express America’s everlasting and unanimous support for their struggling and only democracy in the Middle East. Bloomberg’s words and those of other Israel-Firsters will have no impact on the war — Israel will kill who it must, for as long as it needs to. Their words, however, will, and are absolutely meant to, further incite the Islamic world and the growing army of Islamist fighters to hate and kill Americans. The applause that the words of Bloomberg and his ilk will earn in Israel and among disloyal U.S. citizens at home will be repaid by the Islamists with bullets, bombs, and a budget-draining, bankrupting war both overseas and in North America.

Bloomberg and his comrades want Americans to believe the United States and Israel are in the same boat, that they are brothers in arms fighting ever-growing numbers of Muslim madmen. Hogwash. If the United States is in the same boat as Israel it is because Bloomberg and the American Fifth Column of Israel Firsters have worked tirelessly to put America there — and they have succeeded through corrupting U.S. politics, and especially the U.S. Congress. If you need proof, simply look at what the Congress was up to last week. It is preparing to give Israel $200 million for its air-defense system, while not directing sufficient funds or manpower to close America’s southern border, which is being flooded with illegal aliens, violent gang members, terrorists, and other sorts of scum. For the Congress, it’s damn Americans to hell as long as the Israel-First organizations keep their “campaign contributions” flowing.

We also have heard, according to Real Clear Politics, the radio person Howard Stern say that to be “anti-Israeli is to be anti-American.” Now, one cannot expect too much from someone who considers vulgarity as entertainment and depravity as a worthy lifestyle, and truth to tell, he was in the right ball park. Stern had all the right words, but they were mixed up. Correctly arranged the words would have come out of his mouth saying that to be pro-Israel is to be someone who is anti-American and who delights in seeing Islamists kill U.S. service personnel and civilians.

Bloomberg and Stern are typical of the dregs who are Israel-Firsters. Wealthy, elitist, and influential here in America, they push for Israel to kill as many Arabs as possible and worry not a bit that their advocacy kills both Israelis — now — and Americans — later. Neither will ever move to Israel and share the dangers of the country and people they supposedly love, and when the Islamists’ war comes to America they will be able to hire security personnel to make sure their worthless hides survive.

And then there is Rand Paul, another first-term politician who mistakenly believes — like Obama — that he has the talent and experience to be president. Because of his father’s vast negative experience with the uniformly pro-Israel U.S. media and the much-censored American political system that pro-Israel Americans have corrupted, he has eagerly sold out out to the Israel-Firsters and the bipartisan interventionists. Siding with both, Rand Paul has supported U.S. and European involvement in the Ukraine, sponsored the “Stand With Israel Act” in Congress, and, generally, has done nothing that will help prevent future U.S. intervention in wars in which we have nothing at stake — like Israel-vs-Palestine. I seem to recall that Mr. Paul attended the Kentucky Derby with Rupert Murdoch, who may well have advised him that Israel is more important than U.S. security and American lives. And one has to believe Mr. Paul has since met with Roger Ailes and other FOX NEWS senior managers and got briefed on how he must behave and speak, and who he can publicly associate with, if he is to avoid being ignored by FOX as his father was to America’s detriment. I guess Rand Paul is proof that the apple sometimes does fall pretty far from the tree.

Finally, I do owe Senator Paul a thank you. He recently was criticized for having a non-interventionist book list — described as anti-Israeli by his critics — on his website and, magically, it disappeared almost immediately. Among the books on the list was one of mine, and I can only say how delighted I am to no longer have a place on Senator Paul’s website. As long as Senator Paul is marching in lockstep — or is it goose step? — with the Israel Firsters and against America, he and I have far different national security concerns and, even more, far different national allegiances.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Face facts, U.S. democracy-crusading causes wars — it’s time for American neutrality

“Modern war with all its consequences is too tragic and too devastating to be approached from anything but a purely American standpoint. We should never enter a war unless its is absolutely essential to the future welfare of our nation.” Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, 15 September 1939

This week, some of the world is engulfed in bloodshed that is playing out against the background music of Woodrow Wilson’s howling madness. Wilson’s “Making the World Safe for Democracy” symphony and “Self-Determination” nocturne have now been playing for almost 100 years, and few works by other men have caused more human costs or more unnecessary wars. Wilson’s demented mind produced a product which, rather than spreading democracy as promised, has simply spread war.  The equation is simple: spreading democracy causes war.  This morning, for example:

–1.) Rival militias are fighting and killing each other near the international airport in Tripoli in another episode in the unrelenting economic and human disaster that has been caused by the Obama/McCain-led, NATO campaign to install democracy in Libya.

–2.) A Malaysian airliner and its passengers lie scattered across fields in eastern Ukraine in another racheting-up of the war started in that country by the ignorant but arrogant interventionists and the democracy crusaders of the EU and the Obama administration. This situation, of course, has led the Neocons to call for “stronger action” against Russia to protect what does not exist, Ukrainian democracy, and to stand up to that non-threat to the United States, Vladimir Putin and Russia. (NB: The culprit here is Malaysian Air — and any other airline — that flies passengers over war zones to save money on fuel.)

–3.) Iraq is disintegrating into sectarian civil war as the very predictable consequence of the Republican/Neocon removal of Saddam Hussein and a decade of democracy building in that country. We can look forward to the same situation after we and the West Europeans help the great democracy-loving Syrian resistance — better entitled the mujahedin — destroy Asaad. Then, using Western-provided weapons and supplies, it will turn on and destroy the Jordanian regime.

–4.) The war in Gaza burns right along as always with Israelis and Palestinians merrily murdering each other. This war has gone on for 60-plus years because Washington and its European allies keep intervening, first in favor of Israel, then in favor of the Palestine, then back to Israel, and so on and so on. Now is the time to stand back and let the two sides fight it out to the finish. Democracy in Israel or Palestine is worthless to American interests. Let the better war-fighter win, and then let America have no ties to the winner.

All of these wars and near-wars have been brought to us by the contemporary American and European believers in Woodrow Wilson’s academic theorizing and ignorance of of the world outside the American South. Wilson also was a profound bigot who was as cock-sure as today’s most ardent racists in Western capitals that he could and should force Slavs, Africans, Latinos, and Arabs to behave as he wanted them to behave, either through eloquent persuasion or gunboats and the Marines’ bayoneted rifles.

The Founders did not create the United States to act as Wilson and his policies have acted; that is, as the catalyst that foments unnecessary wars. But a catalyst for war is exactly what our bipartisan political elite has been for the last thirty years and more. The sad truth is that many of our politicians, diplomats, generals, and religious leaders are war-causers. None will leave well enough alone; none trust foreigners to work out their own futures; and none seem to care how much the unnecessary wars they cause will cost Americans in lives, dollars, and affection/respect.

These men and women take it as their righteous mission to intervene in the affairs of others and work to make them into people just like themselves, whether in terms of worshiping secular democracy, self-determination, women’s rights, religious tolerance, human rights, or some other one-size-fits-all abstraction that no young American man or woman should ever be called on to fight and die for overseas. This Wilsonian practice amounts to insanity and was long ago recognized as such by one of the greatest Americans. The improvement of our way of life is more important than the spreading of it,” Colonel Lindbergh told his countrymen. “If we make it satisfactory enough, it will spread automatically. If we do not, no strength of arms can permanently impose it.”

The vital point that these men and women deliberately ignore — along with most of the media and the academy — is that most of the violence and warfare that goes on in the world has absolutely no impact on genuine, life-and-death U.S. national interests. It is no skin off America’s nose if all the Israelis kill all the Palestinians, or vice versa. Likewise, there would be no material impact on North America if the Obama-EU intervention in the Ukraine ended in a civil war in that country, with the Europeans and Russians arming their respective allies. Only a tenured, Ivy League academic could argue with a straight face that what happens in Libya is important to the United States. And Iraq’s shattering is likely to lead to a Sunni-Shia regional war which — because the U.S. political elite keeps intervening in the Muslim world and cowers at the idea of killing Islamist fighters in requisite numbers –may be the best way of temporarily protecting America against what has become a truly international Sunni insurgency, against which we will one day be forced to rearm and fight to the death.

Tomorrow morning, in fact, President Obama’s national security adviser could honestly inform him that the rest of the world’s wars have put no life-and-death American interest at stake; that none of the combatants merit our aid in money, arms, or rhetorical support; and that no U.S. military personnel need to be put at risk. That adviser also might suggest to Obama that the negative impact the wars have on investors and the markets is due not to the wars themselves, but to the fear that he and his NATO chums will involve themselves in the current wars and — given their Wilsonian mindset — inevitably make things worse.

A clear and simple statement that America will not become engaged in the ongoing wars — followed by prolonged presidential and senatorial silence on the issue — would steady the markets and rightly define the wars as being none of America’s concern. If Obama is too busy fund-raising to write such a statement, he could borrow some words from Mr. Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Henry Seward. Being as brazen with the truth as he is, Obama could even tag the statement as the “Obama Doctrine” and be confident that the close-to-worthless U.S. educational system has not made one American in ten thousand knowledgeable about Secretary Seward.

The president could begin his statement by saying he and all Americans regret that so many of the world’s peoples are killing each other, but we all must accept the simple fact that man is a fallen creature who is hard-wired for war. He could then penitently acknowledge that the interventionist U.S. political elite — which includes himself — has been instrumental in causing each of the wars now dominating the headlines. He could finish by admitting that the majority of Americans despise their political leaders’ financially disastrous and always bloody interventionism and so henceforth — in Secretary Seward’s words — Washington will follow the lead of its citizens, and this means that “the American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference.”

Now, that would be Obama’s first good day’s work since becoming president.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Time for America to bid a final farewell to Israel and Palestine

“[The United States has] a fateful tie to the Israelis from which we have, in contradistinction to the Israelis, everything to lose, and nothing to gain.” George F. Kennan, Diaries, 25 April 1978.

“Our form of government, inestimable as it is, exposes us, more than any other, to the insidious intrigues and pestilent influence of foreign nations. Nothing but our inflexible neutrality can preserve us.” John Adams, c. 1809.

As the renewed Israeli-Palestinian war rages in Gaza, America is presented with an ideal moment to run — not walk — away from its suicidal commitment to both sides. Surely, no sane American — except the Neocons, whom it would be absurd to consider either sane or loyal Americans — could have missed the fact that what is going on in the current war has had absolutely no immediate impact on the United States.

The war is occurring in a far away place that is no longer of any strategic interest to the United States because the combination of Washington’s relentless, war-causing and Islamist-motivating interventionism and Obama’s cowardly surrenderism have already given the entire region to the Islamists and ensured — thanks to Jewish-American Neocons — Israel’s ultimate doom. Therefore it matters not a lick to any but disloyal Americans whether the Israelis kill all the Palestinians, the Palestinians kill all the Israelis, or, in the best case scenari0, they mutually destroy each other. At the end of the war they all simply will be dead foreigners of whom we had no need and for whom we need not bid any teary farewells. Peoples who want to fight religious wars deserve whatever they get, and these two peoples are determined to fight their religious war until one side or the other is destroyed. Well, so be it, let us get out of it now.

There is a rub for the United States, however, and that reality makes complete U.S. disengagement more urgent than ever before. That rub lies in the fact that each bomb or missile the Israeli air force uses in Gaza will eventually yield a dead American soldier or Marine and/or a dead civilian. This is not a fact that President Obama or Secretary of State Kerry will use to inform the American people about what is at stake for the United States in the long run, because they — along with most of their party and the Republican Party — really could not care less about our nation’s security as long as campaign contributions and media support keep flowing  from disloyal Israel First, U.S. citizens and their fundamentally anti-American organizations. As long as that graft keeps flowing their way from the Israel Firsters, they are all more than willing to motivate our Islamist enemies by backing Israel to the hilt.

All of these officials will seek to hide their corrupt relationship with U.S. citizen, Israel First leaders by blathering on about the need for a cease-fire, a two-state solution, and restraint from both sides. What is it, do suppose, that makes senior elected and appointed American officials live in the fantasy world that sees an amicable solution to this problem as a possibility.  The answer is bribery, as these people are all listed as members in good standing on Israel First’s bountiful payroll list. Because of the dire need to uphold what is left of the Constitution, we must permit these enemies of America to prattle on, but recognizing their flagrant disregard for genuine U.S. national interests we ought to just ignore them.

It is exquisitely clear, that Israelis and Arabs are going to fight each other until one or the other is annihilated, so let them fight.  But we must get our fingerprints off of this non-problem for the United States. A good first step is to stop listening to all of the media pundits — I wonder how many hold Israeli passports? — who justify Americans eventually being killed because of Israel’s current military actions by arguing that Israel as the “only democracy in the Middle East” and therefore must be supported no matter the cost. What kind of an insane argument is that? What possible impact would it have on genuine U.S. interests if there were no democracies in the Middle East?  How much worse off would our national security be? Would the end of the only democracy in the Middle East threaten U.S. security one-thousandth as much as the failure of the last three presidencies to control U.S. borders?  Of course it would not. The absence of the Israeli democracy — and U.S. support thereof — would go unnoticed vis-a-vis genuine U.S. national security interests, save us a ton of money, and terminate one major source of our Islamist enemy’s motivation to attack America.

One of the newer and more troubling angles that has emerged in this iteration of the Israel-Palestine war also must be terminated. That is the increasing support among American intellectual and church leaders for the Palestinians. Presbyterians disinvest in stocks if they benefit Israel and university professors rain down hate on Israel because it defends itself against Palestinian attacks. These religious and academic folks are as big fools as are most senior U.S. officials. None seem capable of recognizing reality: THERE WILL BE NO SOLUTION TO THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT UNTIL ONE SIDE WIPES OUT THE OTHER.

The Palestinians are not going to accept eternal Israeli domination of their day-to-day lives, economy, politics, and foreign-and-defense policies, nor will they peacefully accede to the constant Israeli theft of their land. Nor should anyone expect or urge them to. Israel, on the other hand, has every right in the world to defend itself in whatever manner it deems necessary to protect its territory, populace, borders, and apparently endless quest for Lebensraum. And no one should expect or demand the Israelis to stop pursuing what they adamantly believe to be their nation’s security and survival.

BUT THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND HERE, and there is no U.S. interest in intervening in the affairs of these peoples who love and feel duty bound to make war in the name of their respective God. Because no nation-state on this planet — including the United States — has a “right to exist,” let these two states kill each other until one proves that the other had no right to exist. We best look out for the durability of own country’s existence, which at the moment — thanks to the policies of our bipartisan interventionists and the traitorous behavior of the the Neocons, Israel Firsters, and those U.S. citizens who support both — seems not to be something we can count on for very much longer.

America’s Founders knew that the viability of the nation they created was very far from a sure thing, and that involvement in unnecessary foreign wars rapidly eroded that viability. They therefore sought — and urged their posterity to seek — to ensure that they did not formulate policies or take actions that enmeshed America in other peoples’ wars;  indeed, they sought to ensure that America would never engage in war unless genuine national interests were at stake.

The Founders’ sound, neutrality-dominated approach to foreign affairs is nicely summarized in a sermon preached by a Harvard-educated, Protestant pastor — Harvard and Protestants still loved America at that point — in Boston in June 1793.  “God in his Providence,” Peter Thatcher, D.D., said,

has placed us in a remote part of the world, and if our own brethren in other countries ‘fall out by the way’ we will endeavor to reconcile them, but we will not become partners in their quarrels. They have a right to choose their own governments and manage their own affairs without interference. God does not call us to war. We are not attacked or endangered; until we are, we have no right to spill our own blood, or that of our children. Let us then study the “things that make for peace.” Let us unite in repressing those restless spirits who cannot see a quarrel going on without inserting themselves in it.

Amen, Rev. Thatcher, Amen and bravo.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

On July 4th, recall that the 2nd Amendment is for destroying tyranny

“But as liberty consists only in being subject to no man’s will, and nothing denotes a slave but a dependence upon the will of another; if there be no other law in a kingdom than the will of a prince, there is no such thing as liberty.” Algernon Sydney, 1698 (1)

In just the past weeks Americans have been treated to retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens, Hilliary Clinton, and Fox News’ Bob Beckel decrying the continued existence of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What is it with such supposedly intelligence people? Do they really believe that the 2nd Amendment is unnecessary? Do they think it is only about guns for hunting and personal defense? Can they possibly believe that the Founders would have included this amendment in the Bill of Rights just so Americans could stock up on venison?

Let as assume that Stevens, Clinton, and Beckel are not the arrogant, near-addled liberal ideologues they appear to be in public. And then let us simply and charitably conclude that they — poor things — are typical products of the grotesquely inadequate and utterly failing U.S. educational system, and that they have neither familiarity nor respect for the intentions of the Founders when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Let us then move on to explain to them the absolutely clear intent of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The 2nd Amendment is an offshoot of the English Bill of Rights (1689), which included an article making it the right of each Protestant Englishmen to be armed; the Protestants’ trust of Great Britain’s Papists at the time being correctly minimal. Our Founders, being determined to create a nation truer to British liberty than Britain then was, took the article from the English Bill of Rights and improved it by making its application universal for all citizens regardless of confession.

In the 2nd Amendment, the Founders clearly recognized that citizens needed weapons for the defense of persons and homes, for hunting, for participating in the state militias the Constitution mandated (and which should be reestablished), for repelling marauding Indians and the atrocities they routinely practiced, and, most important, for rebelling against and eliminating any politician or political grouping that, having won power at the polls, proceeded to to build a tyranny. This, it seems, ought not to be too hard a concept to grasp even for the likes of Stevens, Clinton, and Beckel, and yet they show no sign of knowing or caring anything about the Founders’ intent or American history.

Now, the Founders, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, were seeking to create an effective and durable national government, one that would be able to govern and defend the nation and promote its prosperity without violating fundamental liberties. They also sought to create a three-branch government with each branch armed with enough power to check any tyrannical tendencies emerging in the others. The Founders expected this structure to work as long as it was made up, by and large, of honest men of good will who respected the views of all and sought consensus where it was possible. Nonetheless, they knew that history proved that such a result was far from a sure thing, and they feared that the separation of powers might one day be ignored and one branch might usurp powers from the others and become a tyranny. If a tyranny emerged, the Founders knew that Americans would have at hand two tools for use in righting the situation. One was the motivation Americans would have to rebel against tyranny because of the absolute right to self-defense that is found in Natural Law. The other was the arms-to-kill-tyrants they would always possess because of the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment.

Needless to say, the Founders did not see this right to rebellion as a measure to be used with any kind of frequency. Indeed, they were prudent men who expected and demanded obedience to the law from the citizenry as long as the national government obeyed the law, promoted prosperity, and defended the nation. Rebellion was a legitimate option in the face of growing tyranny, but it was to be used by Americans only as their last resort, and only after the accumulation of a lengthy record of actions that clearly denoted tyrannical intentions.

What would such a record look like? Well let us imagine a package of actions taken over a several-year period that might qualify as proof of intended tyranny. And to ensure that the nervous nellies do not go off half-cocked and claim this article is calling for rebellion now, let us constitute the package with actions so outrageous that no sane, intelligent, or competent person would undertake them unless he/she really did intend to create a tyranny to replace our constitutional system.

Let us imagine, then, that in less than a decade a specific political grouping and its leader:

–1.) Preached the need to help improve the prosperity of the U.S. middle class, but refused to sanction a project that would create more than 40,000 high-paying jobs because a rich man offered that grouping $100 million for partisan political purposes if they stymied the project.

–2.) Refused opportunities to move to energy self-sufficiency, thereby freeing the United States from all dependence on and military commitments to foreign tyrants who hate America and fund those who attack the United States and its allies.

–3.) Lied to Americans about the nature and motivation of the most lethal enemy they currently face, and down played the threat that foe presented to the United States, even as it grew in numbers, motivation, media savvy, weaponry, and geographic reach.

–4.) Drove the national government’s deficit to unprecedented heights to promote its political prospects, and made no effort whatsoever to bring that ruinous expansion to an end.

–5.) Boasted constantly that they would ignore the U.S. Constitution, enforce only laws they approved, bypass the peoples’ representatives, rewrite laws, and rule outside the Constitution by something akin to dictatorial decrees. And then fulfilled the boasts.

–6.) Took the country to war, or injected it into in situations that could lead to war, without the formal congressional declaration of war mandated by the U.S. Constitution.

–7.) Intervened politically, militarily, and economically in places of no genuine interest to the United States, thereby earning sharpened hatred for America and increases in both the U.S. debt and the chance of war.

–8.) Allowed official representatives of the United States to be killed while serving in a foreign country because, for electoral reasons, they did not want Americans to know that a major aspect of their foreign policy had failed.

–9.) Used the government’s tax collection agency to violate the 1st Amendment by harassing and suppressing political opposition groups and then destroyed the evidence of those actions.

–10.) Intended to use health-care legislation to erode religious freedom guarantees under the 1st Amendment.

–11.) Waged an endless war against the peoples’ absolute right to lawfully keep and bear arms because that right provided Americans the means with which to eliminate tyranny.

–12.) Intentionally failed to control U.S. borders and so created an economic and social disaster for the U.S. citizens living in America’s southwest, and allowed the unopposed entry into America of foreign groups who refuse to assimilate, and unknown numbers of impossible-to-identify people who intend to stage domestic attacks.

–13.) Deliberately shredded the 4th Amendment’s requirements by ordering national government agencies formed to destroy America’s foreign enemies to unconstitutionally collect the electronic communications of all U.S. citizens.

–14.) Initiated a brazen and well-publicized plan to have cabinet ministers — led by the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer — develop ways that the political grouping’s leader could evade the U.S. Constitution and rule by diktat.

Clearly, only an imagined political grouping that was bent on installing a tyranny in the United States would have undertaken in so short a time such Constitution-wrecking measures or, as Mr. Jefferson said, such “a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object” — namely, tyranny. Thank goodness, we do not have such a grouping loose in America.

But what if we did? What if — though it is surely hard to imagine — Americans in the future encounter a governing political grouping and its leader behaving as if political power was given to them permanently by the people, and not as a trust to be held as long as they ruled lawfully and followed the will of the people? Would Americans be bound to accept the tyranny and suffer under its despotic mandates? Well, let us consider the words of one of our Founders most revered instructors in political philosophy, the Englishmen John Milton. Writing in 1651, Milton argued

“Certainly, if no people in their right wits ever gave power over themselves either to a king or to any magistrates for any other purpose than the common good of all, there can be no reason why, for exactly the inverse purpose, to prevent the utter ruin of them all, they may not take back again the powers they gave, and this as well from a king as from other magistrates: nay, and it may be with far greater ease be taken from one than from the many. And to commit to any mortal creature a power over themselves on any other terms than upon trust were extreme madness; nor is it credible that any people since the creation of the world, who had freedom of will, were ever so miserably silly as either to part with the power absolutely and entirely, or having once entrusted it to their magistrates, to recall it unto themselves without weightiest reasons. But though dissensions, though civil wars, arise thence, surely no royal right arises thence to withhold by force of arms that power which the people reclaims unto itself for its own.” (2)

So Milton’s answer, and that of our Founders, is that no free people are required to meekly and effeminately acquiesce in the face of a political grouping and its leader that the people perceive as being bent on betraying the public trust and installing a tyranny. Indeed, again as Mr. Jefferson put it, “it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw of such Government. and to provide new Guards for their future Security.” Armed rebellion to confront and destroy tyranny, then, is a legitimate option if a people perceives that their political leaders intend to establish tyrannical rule.

It is for this reason that the Founders left all Americans an inheritance as precious as the 2nd Amendment. For they believed, as did Seneca, one of the ancient Roman writers they valued most highly, that “There can be slain/No sacrifice to God more acceptable/Than an unjust and wicked king.” (3) Perhaps John Milton said the same but more clearly when explaining that “Justice don[e] upon a tyrant is no more but the necessary self-defense of the whole Commonwealth.”

Notes:

–1.) Thomas G. West, (Ed.). Algernon Sydney. Discourses on Government. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1996, p. 402.

–2.) John Milton. Areopagitica and other Political Writings of John Milton. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1991, pp. 237-238.

–3.) Ibid., p. 224

–4.) Ibid., p. 94

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Damn Iraq, start caring for America First

“But we in this country have a right to think of the welfare of America first…. The time has come when those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must band together and organize for strength. We have been led toward war by a minority of our people. This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people.” Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, 23 April 1941

The fine strategic analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (ret’d) wrote in one of his early books that because the end of the Cold War had made the world safer for conventional war, insurgency, and terrorism, Americans would have to look after their own security and learn to watch others die with equanimity. Because we have not done the former, we can now only do the later. Our failure to secure North America — read, control our borders — ensures that the Islamists will bring their war here. President Bush’s argument that we needed to fight them overseas so we would not have to fight them at home was always meant to be a distraction, a plausible-for-the-gullible argument that allowed him to fight two wars he wanted to fight but never intended to win. President Obama used the same style of rhetoric, but like Bush never intended to win either war; indeed, he fairly panted in his frantic search to find a way to surrender to the Islamists.

At bottom, neither of these oh-so-sensitive, humane, 21st-Century men could state the clear and cruel truth — after all what would the media and their European friends say? — that the way to win a war is to kill the enemy and its supporters in whatever numbers are necessary to move them to acknowledge that the game is not worth the candle. Killing on this scale is a lousy option, but as long as our Islamist-motivating foreign policies remain the same — especially having forces on the Arab Peninsula and playing the always compliant, cowering lap-dog to the Saudi Arabia and Israel — we have no choice but killing until the Islamists quit (unlikely) or are eradicated (doable).

For now, however, the beginning of wisdom is to look at what is going on in Iraq and Syria and see it clearly. In both places all of those folks that multiple U.S. administrations have identified as enemies of America are killing each other. In Syria, the Assad regime, Iran, and Lebanese Hizballah are killing Sunni mujhaedin from all over the world, as well as their local allies and supporters. In turn, the Sunni Islamists in Syria are killing Assad’s troops, Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and Hizballah fighters. This is a perfect circumstance for the United States, all our enemies are killing each other and it is not costing us a cent or a life.

Over in Iraq, we see much the same marvelous phenomena occurring. Multinational Sunni mujahedin and Saddam’s former military personnel are fighting and killing Maliki’s dictatorial regime, its Shia military forces, and their Iranian military supporters. And, as in Syria, Maliki and his gang are killing our Sunni Islamist enemies. In Iraq there also is the potential for a delightful bonus coming to fruition. If the United States stays out of the affair, the renewed war in Iraq may trigger a widespread Shia-vs-Sunni civil war in which our Muslim enemies — as they are defined by our bipartisan political elite — may begin to kill each other for a prolonged period and at unprecedented levels, and, again, at no cost to us in lives or dollars.

So let us take both a deep breath and Lt. Col. Peters advice and sit back and watch what is going on in Syria and Iraq with equanimity and absolutely from the sidelines. Cheer for neither side, answer no one’s call for help — especially not one from the near-frantic Neocons who now know they sank their beloved Israel with the 2003 invasion of Iraq — and pray that Obama does not cooperate with Iran to restore Maliki’s Shia tyranny and thereby earn the eternal enmity of all of the Sunni world.

But even if this recipe is followed America is far from out of the woods. We have two options:

–1.) A Sunni-Shia religious war would be a useful thing for U.S. national security interests — though the higher energy prices it brings will hurt more than necessary because Obama halted our move to self-sufficiency — but only because it would buy us some time to prepare for more war against the Sunni mujahedin. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are willing to stop intervening in the Muslim world in a demented effort to export that least exportable and so most useless of commodities — democracy. As a result, the time we garner from a sectarian war in the Muslim world must be used to rearm our broken military and to reinstate conscription so that we can field a million or more military men and women in a particular region — my guess is West Africa is next on tap — and, like the Huns of yore, desolate that region and inhabitants in a manner Kaiser Wilhelm II would have heartily endorsed, or,

–2.) We can find an adult man or woman capable of being a leader who can deal constitutionally with reality. He or she must recognize and explain to Americans that Obama and his party — with Republican assistance — have wrecked this country economically and militarily; have all but destroyed its social cohesion; have deliberately stoked racial animosities; and have remade the federal regime nearly into a tyranny. This means we have a lot of work to do at home if the republic is to be resuscitated, and this reality makes mandatory a foreign policy of non-intervention, a quick contracting of our international commitments; and — especially — a drastic curtailing of the ability of foreign nations to dictate our international behavior. Four actions would constitute a first step in the right direction:

–a.) Give 12-months’ notice to the Europeans that the United States is leaving NATO and then begin withdrawing our military forces from Western Europe. Seventy years of protecting Europeans who hate us, actively work against our interests, and who have gutted their national-defense capabilities because they prefer that the United States protect them is enough self-flagellation for all Americans.

–b.) Build the XL Pipeline, issue as many drilling permits on federal lands as possible, and introduce additional tax incentives to accelerate the attainment of energy self-sufficiency. This would soon allow us to tell the Saudis and their fellow Gulf tyrants to do the only thing they might be capable of doing well — to go and pound sand.

–c.) Immediately end all diplomatic, military, and economic relationships with Israel and Palestine. Ties to both undermine U.S. national security, motivate our Islamist enemies, and cost America lives and money; indeed, the disappearance of one or both would go unnoticed in terms of genuine U.S. national interests and would save us some money to boot. An essential corollary to this action is to constitutionally break the back of the disloyal Israel-First U.S. citizens and their organizations which have corrupted our political and media systems. One way to do this is to determine how many of them carry Israeli passports. With that data in hand, we should give them a choice to surrender the citizenship denoted by one or the other passport, and then permanently bar from any position of governmental or public trust those who choose U.S. citizenship but had knowingly obtained the other passport by pledging allegiance to Israel. (NB: This process, of course, should be followed for all U.S. citizens who have made the effort to obtain a foreign passport, be it a passport from Ireland, Armenia, Mexico, Lebanon, or anywhere else.)

–d.) When steps a, b, and c are complete, Washington should declare America’s intention to end foreign intervention and war-making unless clear and irrefutable U.S. national interests are at stake, and also state that the United States henceforth will be neutral in all wars that do not impact those interests. At the same time, warn the world that if we are attacked or if military action is needed to protect genuine U.S. interests we will wage war quickly, without pity, and via the application of unrelenting and overwhelming lethal force. The U.S. Marines motto should become that of the nation: “No better friend, no worse enemy.”

A political leader cognizant of reality; capable of explaining it to Americans; and willing to execute the above actions through our constitutional system might just have a shot at pulling the shreds and tatters of our shattered republic back into whole cloth, as well as to avoid the catastrophic situation toward which both parties are now leading us; namely, an endless, worldwide war with Islam in which we would first complete our bankruptcy and then be defeated. But time is short because, as George F. Kennan once warned his countrymen, “[p]rovidence has a way of punishing those who persist long and willingly in ignoring great realities.”

Today in Iraq, Kenya, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, and across North Africa “long and willingly ignored great realities” are not just knocking at America’s door. Rather, the Islamists are preparing to tear it down and will continue to do so as long as Washington keeps intervening in matters that are none of its business, irrelevant to U.S. security, and of interest only to lobbies and organizations whose first loyalty is not to America. It is time for the United States to cut loose from outdated and unneeded international commitments; cynical, exploitive, and resource-draining allies; and disloyal citizens. It also is time to secure North America and to begin a national debate on whether we want to survive as a free and prosperous nation or prefer to die as fools by playing the avenging angel for countries and causes that do not merit the expenditure or an American life or dollar.

As Colonel Lindbergh said in 1941, Americans “have a right to think of the welfare of America first.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment