Mr. President, the lesson of your Hamburg visit is to get America out of NATO

In terms of America’s genuine national interests, the central takeaway from the G-20 Summit in Germany has almost nothing to do with what went on in the Summit’s discussions and declarations. The Summit produced what it always produces, hot air and political posturing. President Trump, however, did what he needed to do for America and calmed down our ties with the Russians.

I read this afternoon that the fossilized commentator David Gergen said that this was the first time that America was not the leader of the Summit and the Free World. My view, for what it is worth, is that that is simply great news. Being the leader of the free world means that U.S. citizens pay the freight for Europe’s security, and the defense of numerous Arab tyrants, with their taxes, and with their children in their wars. Losing the title of “Leader of the Free World” can only mean that the United States is safer, and that “America First” can yet be made a reality. One sure way of knowing how well Mr. Trump did in defusing tensions with Russia, is to listen to the attacks launched on his meeting with Putin by FOX commentator John Bolton and Senators Graham and McCain, each a Neocon, an Israel Firster, and a war-causing, democracy monger.

More important, however, was President Trump’s speech in which he said that the most important issue at hand was whether the West was willing to save itself. This theme encompasses the key issue: Is NATO is worth a tinker’s damn to the United States?

In Hamburg, Mr. Trump saw for himself the negative answer to that question appearing in the form of violent and dissolute youth destroying property on the streets of the city. He now knows that his national-security aides have lied to him about the willingness of the EU and NATO states and their populations to defend themselves. Those states may spend more money on defense, but save — perhaps — for Britain, Poland, Hungary, and Romania, most of the other NATO and EU countries have bred out of their populations patriotism, civic duties and responsibilities, and the willingness to defend liberty. Indeed, they have created educational systems that have taught three generations of young Europeans to hate Western civilization and to be ignorant of and/or hateful toward the history of their own countries.

Overall, the EU has been the engine that has made so many of Europe’s young people barbarians — witness the condoned barbarity of Hamburg’s young — and facilitated the admission of millions of Third World barbarians to join them in destroying Europe. (NB: Americans should take no comfort in the fact that there is an ocean between themselves and Europe. Their leaders in both parties, the media, the churches, and the academy are doing the same things the EU is doing, only they are about a generation behind the EU-created nightmare that is preparatory to civil war.)

No matter how much the non-English-speaking, NATO countries increase their military spending, they will never be able to field armies capable of defending anything without U.S. conventional, nuclear, and human power. And because the U.S. military has so few ground troops to apply conventional power, only the nuclear option is pertinent. The young criminals that Americans saw on Hamburg’s streets burning cars, looting shops, and throwing potentially lethal projectiles at the police and innocent bystanders would never rally to Germany’s defense; they would more likely support those who sought to invade and occupy it. The media report that these young gangsters wounded about 400 German police officers, and the police apparently were ordered not to respond except to squirt water and pepper spray at the violent thugs every once in a while. The correct response to this kind of mass violence, which endangered the security of a major city and port, and also put its law-abiding population at risk, is to shoot-to-kill anyone seen hurling or preparing to hurl a lethal projectile, burning a car, or looting a shop. The German failure to so ensures that the next time the criminal protestors take to the streets — whether in Germany or later this week in France — the carnage will be worse.

What Mr. and Mrs. Trump saw on the streets of Europe, then, was a microcosm of the EC’s military-age population, and in it there was not a potential soldier to be seen. That there are patriotic and liberty-loving youth in the EC is certain — note those who voted for Brexit, those who cheered Trump in Poland, and those who supported Marie Le Penn — but they seem to be small in number, and are either already in the military or routinely ostracized from society as far-right wingers or even fascists. For the United States, there can be no commonsense-based expectation that the EU could field an army that would not be overrun — along with our Europe-based forces — by a multi-army Russian invasion .

This situation ought to give pause to those who claim NATO is a strong and essential part of U.S. defense strategy. NATO is a hollow and so dangerously fragile egg; it has almost no military worth without the United States protecting it. If past is prologue, the recent defense-spending increases by NATO states will dry up in a few years, and to recreate a population that is civic-minded, patriotic, nationalistic, and liberty-loving is the work of generations. In addition, Neocon claims that America and Europe share the same values is another lie. Where do you see support in the EU for Adam Smith’s freedom troika of life, liberty, and property? Here are just a few examples of the attitude of the EU and NATO and their member governments toward those key Smithian elements of freedom.

–The EU and Life:

–The death sentence British and EU courts issued to a deathly ill 11-month old, by refusing him continued life-support and not allowing the baby to be brought to the United States for experimental treatment.

–The refusal of most European governments to prosecute Muslims who rape and otherwise sexually molest young children and women, and a media that does not report such attacks.

–The EU and Liberty:

–The imprisonment of the eminent historian David Irving, who questions the extent of the holocaust.

–The imprisonment of native Britons — like Tommy Robinson — who oppose their government’s welcome, economic favoritism, and special legal protection for Muslim criminals and terrorists.

–The EU and Property:

–The German government either seizing private property and using it to house Muslim refugees, or inundating rural towns with Muslims who outnumber their populations.

–The British government reserving a share of new houses for Muslim refugees, preventing native Britons from purchasing them.

–The German government’s tolerance for the Hamburg violence which destroyed so much private property.

NATO is death trap for the United States. A massive Russian military incursion into the EU and NATO countries would quickly crush the small NATO forces that would oppose it; that is, if those forces did not run from the Russians. At that point, the U.S. — under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which surrenders America’s sovereignty and independence — would have no option but to use nuclear weapons in the defense of nations and peoples that, with a few exceptions, will not defend themselves against either internal nor external enemies. That seems like an insane situation for the United States to be locked into, especially when the values of Europe’s governments and peoples are so clearly antithetical to those of Americans.

Americans have been faced with this automatic-war option previously. In 1919, for example, President Woodrow Wilson tried to ram the League of Nations Covenant through the U.S. Senate — then, unlike now, composed of a goodly number of adult patriots — and suffered defeat at the hands of that body’s non-interventionists. Article X of the Covenant committed the United States to go to war if another member of the League was the target of an offensive war. In other words, the great Democrat Wilson wanted to remove the decision for war from where it was vested by the Constitution — in the hands of the citizenry through its elected representatives — and deliver it into foreign hands beyond Americans’ control. NATO’s Article 5 does precisely the same thing, committing America today, in fact, to nuclear war for Europe states to whom we owe nothing and with which we have little left in terms of common values.

One of the final nails in the coffin of Wilson’s republic-killing, pro-League agenda was a speech by Idaho’s Republican Senator William E. Borah, who was a resolute non-interventionist and, that rarest of God’s creatures, a successful one. The entire speech is worth reading, but the following paragraph, in particular, is as pertinent today as it was in the debate over the League of Nations in 1919.

But your treaty does not mean peace—far, very far, from it. If we are to judge the future by the past it means war. Is there any guaranty of peace other than the guaranty which comes of the control of the war-making power by the people? Yet what great rule of democracy does the treaty leave unassailed? The people in whose keeping alone you can safely lodge the power of peace or war nowhere, at no time and in no place, have any voice in this scheme for world peace. Autocracy which has bathed the world in blood for centuries reigns supreme. Democracy is everywhere excluded. This, you say, means peace. (1)

Neither the League of Nations’ Covenant nor the NATO Treaty meant peace for the United States. The former meant the end of American sovereignty and independence, automatic  war, and foreign control in 1919, and so was properly scotched by the Senate. In today’s world, the NATO Treaty means the same things, and it is time to be ushered out the door as quickly as possible.

Endnote:

–1.) William E. Borah, “Speech on The League of Nations,” 19 November 1919, http://www.historycentral.com/documents/Borah.html

 

 

 

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Is HULU joining the fake, corrupting, and leftist media to mislead Americans about 9/11?

On 19 December 2015, I wrote in this space that I had been asked by the author Lawrence Wright to help him prepare a television docudrama about the years leading up to Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks for a company called HULU. (NB: After some research,  I understand that HULU is widely purported to be a prolific and discerning producer of television programming.) In the above-noted 2015 article, I wrote that I had ignored Mr. Wright’s request and explained why. I have included that entire article as an appendix below.

Over the past several weeks, I ran across a number of articles on the internet that recount the actors being hired to act in Mr. Wright’s docudrama, which the HULU brains trust seem to have bought from Mr. Wright to turn into a series to air later in 2017. Several of these articles included the following synopsis of the story, apparently as it pertains to the character that plays my part; using the first initials of my first and last name, the character is called Martin Schmidt. Oddly, the other actors in the film who are mentioned in the articles appear to be using the true names of people I worked with, such as George Tenet, John O’Neil, etc. Does Mr. Wright’s decision to make up a false name for a living and easily identifiable person immunize him from the laws of libel, defamation, and slander? Perhaps it does, but we shall see.  Anyway, here is a pertinent quote from one of the articles I mentioned above. (Italics added).

“Peter Sarsgaard will play Martin Schmidt, a CIA analyst who invariably believes he’s by far the smartest person in the room. Under orders to share intelligence with John O’Neill (Daniels) and the FBI, Schmidt opts instead to horde information under the misguided notion that the CIA is the only agency equipped to battle potential terrorist threats.” (1)

After reading this passage, I understood why Mr. Wright is calling this a docudrama, and my own wisdom in steering clear of the project. He is calling it a docudrama because at least this part of his story is a complete, utter, and easily provable lie. Now, having spoken to Mr. Wright on numerous occasions several years ago while he was drafting his book The Looming Tower — and then reading that fantasy on its  publication — I am intimately familiar with Mr. Wright’s duplicity and abhorrence for truth, as well as his very selective and always anti-CIA use of public information that is available about 9/11, Osama bin Laden, and al-Qaeda.  In my view, his book amply proved that nothing that Mr. Wright says, writes, or produces on these issues can be accepted without checking the facts, not least of all because, as we shall see below, he apparently never checks facts himself. In the above passage, for example, he claims “Martin Schmidt”  was a “CIA analyst”.

Assuming that “Martin Schmidt” is me — and it seems it could be no one else — Mr. Wright is lying about a fact that is easily checkable. I worked at the CIA from September, 1982, until November 2004. During that period, I was an analyst from September, 1982, until December, 1985.  After December 1985, I worked on, and then managed, covert operations in the Directorate of Operations. In other words, a mere nine words into the foregoing synopsis, Mr. Wright has knowingly lied to his audience and to those paying for his film. Does anyone at HULU bother to check facts or accuracy before they buy a property?

This is a small but telling point. The bigger, more important, and history-disfiguring lie in Mr. Wright’s docudrama, however, comes at the end of the above passage (Italics added).

“Under orders to share intelligence with John O’Neill (Daniels) and the FBI, Schmidt opts instead to horde information under the misguided notion that the CIA is the only agency equipped to battle potential terrorist threats.”

This is particularly important in terms of history; the citizenry’s trust in the CIA’s all-out effort, and the integrity its work against UBL, before 9/11; and, in personal, and I suppose selfish terms, what my children and grandchildren will think about me and what I did to try to defend the republic. Mr. Wright’s promotional material also claims that his docudrama “takes a controversial look at how the rivalry between the CIA and FBI inadvertently might have set the stage for the tragedy of 9/11 and the war in Iraq.” (2) That means, I assume, that my — or rather, Martin Schmidt’s — decision to “horde information” and hide it from the FBI led directly to 9/11 and the Iraq War.

Naturally, I am eager not only to defend myself, but also the officers I had the privilege to lead; our colleagues in the field who risked their lives to locate bin Laden; and the pre-Obama Agency that I dearly loved. But I am not going to do that. Instead, I will let the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ms. Mary Jo White, explain the nature and extent of my own, my unit’s, and the CIA’s cooperation and information-sharing with the D0J lawyers and FBI officers assigned to work with CIA against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

In so doing, I think, it will be apparent that Mr. Wright is nothing more than a two-bit liar and a devout Clinton acolyte when it comes to my and CIA’s pre-9/11 behavior as it has been described in the above promotional material for his docudrama. If Mr. Wright has decided to lie on these easily verifiable issues, one wonders what other lies he has built into the rest of his docudrama, or his books for that matter. HULU executives, should you not be wondering the same?

Wright’s above-mentioned lies cover the period from the creation of Alec Station in December, 1995, until I was replaced as its chief in June, 1999. The document written by Ms. White that is presented below will, I think, clearly demonstrate Mr. Wright’s intentional deceit, which appears to be the pivot for his docudrama. Mr. Wright’s lie therefore invalidates the portion of his docudrama that covers 43 of the 60 months — or almost 72-percent — of the chronological period apparently encompassed in the docudrama. Other CIA officers — former and current — are better positioned than I to know if there is any truth in the final 28-percent of the docudrama.

You do have to tip your hat to Mr. Wright for at least one reason, however. He presumably will walk away from his docudrama with a substantial paycheck derived from his scamming of HULU, its executives, and its investors, stockholders, and audience by selling them a fantasy under the the title of docudrama. I guess some television moguls are not as smart and savvy as they are cracked up to be. But do not worry, HULU brass, I will keep an eye out for more of Mr. Wright’s promotional materials. I will try to identify for you any additional lies therein, lies which you are paying for and which will be used to mislead — indeed, propagandize — HULU’s audiences.  That Mr. Wright appears to be yet another leftist, fake-media shill is no surprise to me, so I may have a lot to report. It will be interesting to learn whether HULU’s management is interested in discovering, and then correcting, the manner in which they are being skinned.

Following, then, is a letter I received in May, 1999, from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ms. Mary Jo White. It clearly demonstrates, I think, that Mr. Wright’s docudrama is grounded in his deliberate, blatant, and easily proven lie, a lie that shreds his credibility and gives him a well-deserved place in the pantheon of blackguards who are recognized as iconic purveyors of fake media.

U.S.. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

Southern District of New York

The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007

May 24, 1999

Michael Scheuer

Central Intelligence Agency
Langley, Virginia

Dear Mike:

I write to express my profound gratitude for your
outstanding work and leadership over the last four years in the
investigations of Usama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, al
Qaeda.

As you know, this Office began a criminal investigation
into Usama Bin Laden and the al Qaeda network three years ago,
working in conjunction with the New York Office of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). Since the first day, you and
your colleagues welcomed members of our office to participate in
discussions with you and your colleagues as to how the separate
but related law enforcement and intelligence investigations could
coordinate to make sure that neither did anything to compromise
the other and, where legal and appropriate, to enhance each
other. I know from first hand knowledge that early on in the
case — when the Bin Laden network was not in the public eye —
the prosecutors in my office were awed both by your incredibly
diligent work ethic and your determination to make your mission a
successful one, as well as the efforts you made early on in the
case to coordinate your work with the law enforcement effort in a
manner that in my experience was unprecedented in this country’s
history. It was obvious from the work of your staff who labored
hard with tremendous resolve that your diligence and
determination were contagious. That effort — combined with the
accommodations you made at critical times to allow the
evidentiary needs of law enforcement to be protected — made it
possible for Usama Bin Laden to be indicted by a federal grand
jury in the Southern District of New York in June 1998. Without
your diligence, leadership and cooperation, your law enforcement
partners would simply not have been able to obtain such an
Indictment and for that my Office and the public will always be
in your debt.

The diligence and professionalism of you and your
staff, and your willingness to work hand in hand with Special
Agent Daniel Coleman and the prosecutors in my office where and
as appropriate, also made it possible to charge many of the
suspects indicted so soon after the horrific East Africa Embassy
bombings. Law enforcement had a running start on that
investigation because you had been not only willing, but eager,
to share information with us from the beginning. I also know
that no one has logged more hours than you did to work against
the Bin Laden network. I know that your prodigious labors had to
take much time away you could otherwise have spent with your
family. Having recently met with many of the victims’ families,
rest assured that your efforts to prevent terrorist acts, and
your willingness to help us hold those who carried out past
attacks responsible, have had a very real impact on your fellow
Americans as well as the citizens of Kenya and Tanzania and other
countries. I would be honored if you would allow me to present
a plaque to you at a time which would allow both you and your
family to be present as they have shared in your sacrifice. We
would very much like to express our appreciation to them as well.

In short, you have been a leader and a valued colleague
in the fight against international terrorism. I cannot overstate
the significance of your staff’s work and their dedication to the
preservation of our nation’s security. As a symbolic but
heartfelt memento of the effort put forth by you and your staff,
I present you with one of the original warrants obtained for the
arrest of Usama Bin Laden on June 10, 1998. To my Office, it
represents a watershed in how the law enforcement and
intelligence communities ought to cooperate and we thank you for
making it possible.

Sincerely yours,

MARY JO WHITE

United States Attorney

cc: The Honorable George Tenet
Director,
Central Intelligence Agency

———————————————–

–Endnotes:

–1.) http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/827975-looming-tower-series-peter-sarsgaard

–2.) http://deadline.com/2017/05/alec-baldwin-george-tenet-the-looming-tower-hulu-series-1202082758

–APPENDIX:

Hollywood to again whitewash Clinton’s culpability for the 9/11 attacks?

I suppose it was to be expected. Another presidential election cycle, another Hollywood effort to whitewash Bill Clinton’s singular responsibility for the attacks of 11 September 2001, an effort also probably meant to aid Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential ambitions.

First, there was the two-part television miniseries called “The Path to 9/11”, which was aired by ABC in the United States on 10-11 September 2006. Apparently worried that the film’s maker might be going to tell the truth about Clinton’s direct personal responsibility for leaving Osama bin Laden alive and at large so that he could stage an operation that killed nearly 3,000 dead Americans, the media reported that the Clinton organization and its lawyers intervened with ABC to cleanse the film of any attempt to explain — our even suggest — that the ex-president was accountable for the deaths, which he is. Indeed, Clinton’s culpability is so obvious, and the evidence thereof so abundant, that the film was made even after the late-felon Sandy Berger stole some of the documentary proof thereof from the National Archives to protect Clinton’s reputation and his wife’s political viability.

Next, in 2012, came the “Zero Dark Thirty” movie. This film shined the respective apples of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and reportedly was supported by Obama administration briefings that included classified national-security data which was compromised whether or not it was used in the movie. But then, as Hillary Clinton has so definitively proven, U.S. national security matters not at all to Democrats and their Hollywood allies if some vote-losing truth can be hidden or at least distorted long enough to win presidential elections.

Now, there is a third film project about 9/11 that is very likely to provide a second whitewash by making the American-killer Bill Clinton appear as a ready-to-act, would-be hero who was ill-served by the U.S. intelligence community, and especially the CIA.

Late in November, 2015, I received the e-mail below from Lawrence Wright, author of the purportedly non-fiction work, The Looming Tower. I should note that Wright contacted me after I resigned from the CIA because I had been CIA’s Chief of Alec Station (December 1995- June 1999), the officers of which, with their courageous CIA colleagues overseas, gave Bill Clinton at least ten opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden from May, 1998, until April-May, 1999. Two of these opportunities would have been executed by CIA, the other eight by the U.S. military using CIA intelligence. (NB: For an open-source confirmation of many of these opportunities, see The 9/11 Commission Report. The media appear to have skipped these pages.)

So, here is the e-mail mentioned above:

——————————————————————————————-
–(1) Mon, Nov 30, 2015 4:23 pm
From Lawrence Wright
From Lawrence Wright lawrencewright@XXXXX
To Mike Scheuer scheuermf@aol.com
Cc Alex Gibney pag@XXXXXcom, Daniel Futterman danielfutterman@XXXXXcom

Dear Mike,

I wanted to alert you to the fact that I have sold a series to Hulu about the run-up to 9/11, based in part on my book, “The Looming Tower.” It is a dramatic series, not a documentary. I am working with the Academy Award -winning director Alex Gibney, and writer Dan Futterman, who has two Academy Award nominations for his work.

Mike, you’ll be a character in this series, because of your role at Alec Station. Alex, Danny, and I would be grateful for the opportunity to talk with you in person in order to get a clearer understanding of your experience.

We were hoping to make a trip to the DC area the week of Dec. 14, and would like to talk to you while we’re there. Is there a date when you could meet us that week? For our purposes, the 16th or 17th of December would work best.

Many thanks for your consideration on this.

Larry
———————————————————————-

After reading the note, I decided to neither respond nor participate. I have had a good deal of experience with Mr. Wright. While he was preparing the Looming Tower, for example, I had a goodly number of telephone conversations with him — all of which I taped — during which I answered his questions and tried to explain the multiple chances the CIA had given Clinton to eliminate bin Laden. I mistakenly thought that Mr. Wright was a serious writer, not a Democratic shill, but the book he produced is so far from the truth about what happened intelligence-wise before 9/11 – at least as I experienced it, and I was pretty involved — that it is quite near a soap opera-like parody of reality, albeit spiced up with bits of sophomoric psychological analysis of the people he describes, Americans and Islamists alike. The Looming Tower, in fact, may be a perfect book on which to base the fictional and likely reality-free dramatic series Mr. Wright refers to in his note.

So, as Mr. Wright noted above, the American people soon will be treated to another piece of what is nearly certain to be pro-Clinton propaganda about the “run-up to 9/11”. No doubt it will be glitzy and entertaining, and it will damn the U.S. Intelligence Community — especially the CIA — because, as Mr. Wright said on Fox News Sunday on 1 October 2006, Clinton was “poorly served” by the U.S. intelligence agencies. [1]

Well, Americans can watch this coming film and think what they want, but there is one man who knows the truth about the run-up to 9/11. Fortunately for the nation and for its historical record — safer now  with Berger dead — this one man publicly explained that truth to a live audience on the day before 3,000 Americans died at al-Qaeda’s hands; they died, of course, only because their president repeatedly and knowingly refused to try to defend them.

“I nearly got him. And I could have killed him,” Clinton told a meeting of businessmen in Australia, “but I would have had to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.” [2]

Clinton, for once, told the truth [3], be it only in the first ten words of the quote. While Mr. Wright may be right when he says I am Prussian-like, pious Catholic — I assume that is not a compliment, but it does have a nice ring to it — the women and men of CIA’s Operations Directorate performed magnificently from 1995 until Clinton left office, giving him at least ten opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and — on many of those occasions — several of his senior lieutenants as well. Had Clinton acted, he almost certainly would have foreclosed chances for the 9/11 attack, and he would have made it much less possible for George W. Bush to exploit the citizenry’s post-9/11 anger and ardor for revenge to win support for the mad, Mrs. Clinton-advocated invasion of Iraq.

So go see Mr. Wright’s movie, but keep in mind that if it is anything less than a scathing and fact-based indictment of Clinton’s personal culpability for the 9/11 attack, its casualties, and most of the U.S. disasters in the Muslim world that have followed, the film will be not a drama but a fantasy that defies the truth avowed by the man who knows both the whole truth and the fact of his own guilt, namely, Bill Clinton.

Indeed, with Clinton having told the truth, what is the point of another 9/11 movie? Clinton has acknowledged that 9/11 occurred because of his self-centeredness and moral cowardice, not because of an intelligence failure. It seems that Wright and his Hollywood buddies could save themselves a lot of work by getting Clinton to send a simple Tweet saying “Scheuer has been honest and absolutely correct about the many chances CIA gave me to capture or kill bin Laden. The 9/11 dead are my responsibility, not CIA’s.”

The would-be film makers then could move on to produce a film about the more important question of why Clinton and his senior advisers — Clarke, Tenet, Berger, etc. — thought it far preferable to protect the lives of bin Laden-supporting foreigners than to even try to protect those of American citizens. They might also delve into why Hillary Clinton found it preferable to abet the murder of four U.S. officials in Benghazi rather then tell Americans that her failed and juvenile post-Arab Spring policies, and the lead role she played in the U.S. military intervention in Libya, have brought the United States an ongoing national-security disaster that is almost as great as the invasion of Iraq.

Ah, but to imagine that either the Clintons or contemporary Hollywood would ever tell the truth is, as Sam Spade might say, “the stuff that dreams are made of.”

————————————————–

–1.)http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/10/01/transcript-counterterror-experts-debate-clinton-claims-on-fns.html

–2.) http://abcnews.go.com/US/bill-clinton-hours-911-attacks-killed-osama-bin/story?id=24801422. One must wonder about the workings of Bill Clinton’s mind. He thought it was not morally correct to defend Americans by killing bin Laden and perhaps 300 al-Qaeda or Taleban supporters, but his moral compass allowed him to be content and happy with allowing 650,000 Iraqi children to die of disease and malnutrition from the sanctions he and his European friends imposed on Saddam, a brutal man but one whose country posed no threat to the United States. Clinton also found it morally acceptable to take part in a Balkans’ war that was a zero threat to U.S. national security and to thereby slaughter Serbs willy nilly from 20,000 feet, a people who posed no threat to the United States. Finally, what on earth could possibly possess Bill Clinton to believe that he was or is in any way a “better” or more decent man than Osama bin Laden? After all, Bin Laden sought to defend Muslims, Clinton allowed Americans to be undefended and murdered. Though they are slender, Mr. Wright ought to turn his talents for psychological analysis on Clinton.

–3.) Given Clinton’s uniquely truthful statement, logic suggests that some of the members of his administration and some of the senior U.S. intelligence officials who testified under oath before the Congress and/or the 9/11 Commission probably are guilty of perjury.

———————————————–

 

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell

I have to admit that on most occasions President Trump’s tweets make my day. Aside from the fact that the tweets are absolutely necessary for him to keep in touch with the voters who elected him, the tweets demonstrate that there are very few holies for him in a contemporary American society that is being overwhelmed and intellectually paralyzed with newly invented and utterly demented holies.

President Trump’s tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump’s supporters, and  most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists — the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel “Here’s Trump’s Tax returns” Madow of MSNBC, for example — have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them.

Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security, as well as that of their womanish political protectors like Senator Shumer, Speaker Ryan, the Marxist moron Senator Sanders, Senator Graham., and the rest of the girly men who are so prominent in Congress. Nowadays, clowns like Mika and Joe throw rocks, and Trump, praise God, responds by throwing boulders that reduces these creatures, whose only skill is reading the news-scripts smarter people write, to a quivering state in which they whine and whimper about how unfairly the president is using the bully pulpit to attack them.

I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding “full equality” in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There’s not a lick of truth in that assertion.

Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father’s name. Mika and the noble steed she rides — I think his name is Joe––have been damning the president, his family members, anyone associated with him, and those who voted for him since long before last November’s election. Trump now chooses to respond in kind, and ol’ unhinged and stitched-up Mika is reduced to multiple on-air breakdowns, while the rest of those demanding “equality” in the public square rally to her defense because Trump had the nerve — and savvy — to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman.

Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals — and, not infrequently, as much more than equals — in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named “I can say and do what I want, but you can’t attack me because I’m a woman.”

When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL’s killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika?

But instead of these heroic, self-confident women serving as role models, we now have the great, brave, equality-seeking Mika, who is bent on being womanhood’s role model, even while she acts as a clearly aging and cowering crybaby, and is now drowning in crocodile tears because Trump thoroughly thrashed her at own game.

Likewise, we have Susan Rice — apparently the great “unmasker” — denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama’s orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she’s a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia’s evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch.

These three women are the Ms. Flotsam, Ms. Jetsam, and Grandma Detritus of a vast herd of child-like women, journalists, blacks, and minorities of all kinds who do not want equality in the public square — which requires courage, hard work, and a certain manliness — but rather want all the benefits that would accrue there to brave and well-balanced adults, while not recognizing the right of anyone they publicly hate, castigate, lie about, and dehumanize to respond in kind.

As Nathan Detroit, Sam Spade, or some other savant once said, “Dames is trouble”, and, as I say, a whining bitch remains a whining bitch until she grows up and acts like a man.

 

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

President Trump: Wise up and learn what national government “meanness” really means

Mr. President,

Last week’s media reporting was filled with reports that you have described the House’s health care bill as “mean”. Now, if you think that bill is mean, you are not even close to being in the same ballpark as the bulk of your countrymen. There is so much meanness that has been directed toward Americans in congressional legislation and executive actions already on the books, that whatever you see in the House’s healthcare bill is no more a drop in the bucket of accumulated and deliberate national government meanness toward Americans.

In terms of healthcare, there is not much meanness in either bill — House or Senate — but rather a great deal of natural and unavoidable floundering because the national government has no business, competence, or money to be involved in any form of  universal medical care, save for some assistance through Social Security for senior citizens and the disabled. As always, anything the national government gives away in healthcare services will be inordinately expensive, bankrupting, and generally ineffective.

But, I am in the minority on this issue, and so must ultimately acquiesce in the madness that contends a national healthcare program is a “right”. There is, however, a way to find funding for some of the expense of the looming healthcare debacle by identifying some of the true meanness the national government has inflicted on the citizenry, eradicating it, and using the savings to help pay for healthcare.

Let me suggest, Mr. President, that you first take to the television and tell the American people the absolute truth; namely, that the whole healthcare debate is taking place in a framework of America’s complete bankruptcy, a situation in which there is no room for new expenditures, especially of the unpredictable kind involved in healthcare. If the Congress, the Senate, and you, Mr. President, are intent on saddling our posterity with monstrous additional expenditures, perhaps that debt can be partially paid for by cutting government meanness. Let me list a few of the mean — even cruel — policies and programs of the national government that merit annihilation.

–1.) Foreign Aid: Even as the nation now sits sinking in bankruptcy, the 535 members of the Congress, with your signature, continue to give tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to foreigners. There is not one cent that is given to foreigners in economic, healthcare, educational, or military aid that could not be far better spent at home. The unutterable meanness inherent in the sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to foreigners since 1945 has been an absolute disgrace, considering the assistance that money could have rendered to Americans who are hungry, sick, unemployed, and at risk from antiquated infrastructure. That is Mr. Trump, is truly a severe and utterly premeditated form of governmental meanness.

–2.) Charitable Deductions: As you and the Congress draft a tax-reform bill, there should be major changes made in regard to what kind of charitable donations are eligible for a tax deduction. Now, no one wishes to discourage charity or to put a roadblock in the path of those want to donate, but it is an insanity to give tax deductions to people who donate to charities and other organizations that spend all or part of their income overseas. All charity deductions deny revenue to the national government, and this loss of revenue ought to be fully welcomed when those funds are spent at home to help Americans. There is, however, a spectacular meanness in the depriving the bankrupt national government of additional, desperately needed revenue by giving tax deductions to U.S. citizens who donate to foreign charities, or to domestic charities that spend their money abroad, and thereby deprive the national government of tax revenue needed to assist the republic and its citizenry. When reforming the tax code, Mr. President, do not permit charitable deductions for donations by individuals and corporations that are intended for use outside the United States. The money donated to the Catholic Church, for example, should deductible only if it is spent in the United States. The Catholic Church — and similar Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim institutions — should be made to report their total annual income and where it was spent, and deductions for donors should only be allowed for that part of their income spent in America. The same rule should be applied to donations to the World Wildlife Fund, Médecins Sans Frontières Save the Children, and any other charity, NGO, foundation, or religious institution that is based in the United States and sends funds derived from tax-deductible donations overseas. Again, a charitable deduction should be allowed to a donor only if the donation is spent entirely in the United States. Ending the ability of Americans to earn tax deductions for donating to their favorite foreign projects, causes, religions, organizations, people, and governments, Mr. President, will erase another meanness that has been imposed on Americans by their national government.

–3.) End U.S. participation in the Afghan war: This war is irretrievably lost, Mr. President, only your generals are delusional enough to think they can win a war they, Bush, and Obama never intended to win. At this point, it cannot be won by 10,000 more U.S. troops, or 500,000 more troops, for that matter. Indeed, our presence in Afghanistan accelerates it complete destabilization, and causes increased Islamic militancy there and in the region. Withdraw all of our troops Mr. President, and end all varieties of aid to the Afghan government, pullout all U.S. civilian officials and contractors, and destroy all U.S.-built military facilities there so they cannot be used by the Islamists, or by the Russians or Chinese when they inevitably move military forces into Afghanistan. There is only one task that must be accomplished before this complete evacuation. As you know, Mr. President, there is a vast hue and cry across the United States about the “Opioid epidemic”, which is, as I understand it, fueled by synthetic drugs, opium products refined from poppies, or a combination of both.  Now, it is the loathsome, indefensible truth that the U.S. government and its military have occupied Afghanistan — the world’s largest producer of heroin — since late 2001 and have not permanently destroyed the Afghan heroin industry and as many of its workers, smugglers, abettors, and leaders as possible. There is no better example of the national government’s rampant and deliberate meanness towards its own citizens than to keep reinforcing — with dollars, lives, and limbs — a long-lost war, and to allow U.S. generals and diplomats to blithely refuse to, first, destroy the main producer of the heroin that is ravaging this republic, and, second, to make the ground in which the poppies are grown unusable for centuries for agriculture, just as the Romans did in Carthage.

–4.) Republic killing programs: Although the following examples of national government meanness are probably the smallest in terms of dollars spent, ending them would terminate what are perhaps the the greatest sources of deliberate meanness in the national government’s behavior — the for-profit murder of infants, lies portrayed as news, blatant ideological indoctrination, and the intentional destruction of the republic’s history, English-language primacy, culture, equal treatment under the law, and Christian faith. End this deliberate national-government meanness, Mr. President, by permanently defunding National Public Radio (NPR), the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the Department of Education, and Planned Parenthood. The allocations of taxpayer money to these organizations have largely destroyed American culture, reduced several generations of students to mindless, lazy, and leftist automatons, and murdered nearly 60,000,000 young Americans. NPR, PBS, and the Department of Education are nothing more than recruitment tools for the Democratic Party; the globalists and their fascist goals; the Nazi-like climate fanatics; the air-headed advocates of the delights and nobility of sexual perversion, and the anti-religion left and their echoes in the media. The NEA funds artists bent on attacking United States, the Christian religion, the republic’s history, the Constitution and the Union it created, and the primary importance of the rule-of-law and common decency. NEA has made a largely pornographic and racist shit-hole of depravity from what was once American art. Likewise, the NEH has help to produce an educational system that is seeking to destroy the republic and replace it with minority rule, the end of free speech and self-defense, and the absolute rule of the society-and-culture-eating maggots known as diversity and multiculturalism. Planned Parenthood, of course is nothing more then a Stalin-like butcher shop in which infants are murdered, and their parts sold for profit. The national government, Mr. President, should not be using tax revenue to fund these organizations. Their sole intent is to destroy the republic and all citizens that disagree with them. They are the very core of the national government’s meanness, and so cutting all of their funding will not only help fund healthcare, and perhaps provide our now-wounded republic with a chance to heal, it also will stop their enthusiastic breeding of uneducated, amoral, and violence-prone enemies of the republic.

Lord knows, Mr. President, that the foregoing cuts cannot fund the economically ruinous national healthcare program that is on the table. But the cuts could be used for some funding for the health program, while at the same time draining from the national government behavior some of the hallmarks of is meanness and outright cruelty toward the citizenry.

All we and you have is lemons, Mr. President, so you can only make the best of them. Go down the healthcare road if you must, but limit the debt it adds to the current $20 trillion bottomless pit. Take the funds from ending the foregoing “mean” programs and use them for healthcare. In doing so, you also will begin to cut back the immense meanness that has been inherent in the national government’s treatment of its citizens for the past half-century and more, and perhaps you might even begin to restore what the Founders argued was a key to maintaining the republic; that is, a strong sense of popular affection for the national government.

 

 

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

No armed response to the Democrat’s rifleman — at least not yet

The Sanders’ Democrat who calmly shot Representative Scalise and others today is just the first installment of what the leading Democrats and their funders, George Soros and his ilk, intend to do this country until they can control all of it.

All of the violence, from the start of the 2016 presidential campaign until this day, has been conducted by Democrats, and enabled by their national leaders’ and the mainstream media’s words, suggestions, and depictions of non-Democrats as non-humans, as well as by various Democratic mayors who have prevented their police forces from protecting peaceful opponents of the Democrat Party. The Christian-hating weasel Bernie Sanders is especially responsible for this widespread violence because, as an avowed socialist, he knows that socialism cannot possibly take control of a geographically immense nation without enormous and indiscriminate street violence, which becomes even greater and more lethal and indiscriminate after the socialists take power.

Whether or not today’s shooter was acting alone or at the Democrats’ direction, you can bet your lunch money that the next step is for the leading Democrats and Soros to quickly identify a high-profile Democrat who is, from their point of view, expendable, and then have him or her killed by a hired gun. Before this murder, of course, an electronic trail will be quickly but thoroughly manufactured and put online so that it will appear that the Democrat-paid killer is a Republican, conservative, or libertarian. The human scum that run Facebook, Amazon, Google, Twitter, and Apple can surely manage this task. Naturally, the Democrats will murder their hired killer, basing this action on the reliable Clintonian doctrine that dead men tell no tales.

As noted, today’s attack is just the start of proliferating Democrat-perpetrated violence. But it is not yet time for small “r” republicans to strike back. Indeed, there must be no armed response in the name of avenging those who were wounded today by the Democrat’s rifleman at the Alexandria ball field. The time may well come for an armed response, and, if it does, it should not be conducted in a womanish, tit-for-tat manner, but as a massive and merciless armed onslaught against the Democratic Party’s leaders, organizers, violent youthful slugs, media shills, and funders. But not yet.

For now, the very best way to stem what seems likely to be a gradual increase in the level of Democrat-sponsored violence across this country — which can only lead to civil war —  is for President Trump to order Attorney General Sessions to use the FBI and the Department of Justice to indict and arrest — without bail — every last Democrat for whom there is sufficient evidence of law-breaking. As noted  in the last piece published on this site, this kind of well-grounded and efficient law-enforcement activity would decapitate the Democratic Party.

Such action is the only way I can think of to reassure non-Democrats that they will not be censored, harassed, beaten, or killed because of their thoughts, words, faith, or political beliefs, and that the vicious forces that Democratic leaders and the mainstream media have aligned under their party’s banner are not above the law. Indictments, bail-less arrests, trials, convictions, if guilt is proven, and incarcerations are about the last tools with which to head off another civil war.

This law-enforcement campaign must get underway now. Another attack by a Sanders-inspired or Clinton-inspired operative on one or more non-Democrats may start the now-looming civil war. The same can be said about what George Soros and his kind are almost certainly planning; namely the above-mentioned murder of a prominent Democrat, after one or more of the high-tech giants have ensured that an internet trail is in place that will pin the murder on  on a non-Democrat.

So keep your powder dry, fingers off triggers, and pray and publicly demand that Trump and Sessions do their duty. If the fail to do so, there will be time, arms, and justification enough to destroy the internal enemy en masse.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment