Those who flout the republic’s laws, fan the flames of rebellion

“But while there are so many laws of our ancestors’ devising, and many that the deified [Emperor] Augustus enacted, the former have become ineffectual because they are forgotten, the latter (which is worse) because they have been flouted. This has only bolstered confidence in the life of luxury. For if you hanker after what is not yet forbidden, you may fear its being forbidden in the future. But if you have transgressed in a prohibited area and not been punished, there is no fear or shame after that.”  Tacitus, The Annals (1)

One of the themes that has been consistently focused on in this space has been the lawlessness of all parts of the national government. Now it seems that this rank lawlessness is accompanied by ignorance and/or contempt for the law and the Constitution. It is an amazing fact that this lawlessness, ignorance, and contempt are entrenched not only in elected politicians and senior Federal civil servants, but also in those who are entrusted with enforcing the law, the FBI, the Supreme Court, and Federal Judges.

Take the FBI. Under Director Comey — Tacitus might call him the “flouter-in-chief “– the FBI has proven itself to be the protective police for the American political elite. Now, each time he speaks, Comey’s words conjure those directed at a political opponent by perhaps the greatest non-interventionist of the early republic, Virginia’s John Randolph. “He is a man of splendid abilities,” Randolph said of his foe, “but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight.” (2)

It is, of course, old news, but Director Comey has established his legacy as the man who told all non-elite Americans that he will enforce the law against them, but not against their betters. A first-year prosecutor could have gotten an arrest warrant for Hillary Clinton with nothing more than three facts: (a) she set up an unclassified e-mail system to avoid the law requiring the retention of federal records; (b) she deliberately trafficked in classified information on that unclassified system and sent classified information to people who had no clearances; and (c) she lied to the Congress under oath on multiple occasions. Director Comey, however, must be too long out of law school to recall the fundamentals of his profession. Our, perhaps, he is happy to enforce the law against non-elite citizens, but is either fearful for his life if he takes on the elite, or he is being paid off by that entity. There does not seem to be a third possibility.

The Supreme Court has written its own well-deserved death warrant. During the ratification debate in 1787-1788, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, and other Federalists assured the citizenry that the anti-Federalists’ warnings that the Court would become a judicial tyranny, beyond the control of the people, were unfounded and indefensible. They even ridiculed their foes for fear-mongering.

But Hamilton and his centralizing colleagues were dead wrong, and the anti-Federalists were prescient republicans. The Federalists and especially the Anti-Federalists probably never imagined a citizenry so supine that it would allow — without undertaking armed rebellion — the republic to be ruled by nine unaccountable judges, many of whom, in the contemporary era, are often no more than berobed legal charlatans who twist the Constitution and the laws into shapes and meanings that are absurd and unsupportable by commonsense and human experience, let alone credible legal scholarship.

But that scenario is at hand. Witness Chief Justice Roberts’ argument and vote in support of Obama Care. Both would have earned him a failing grade in law school because Roberts’ seemed to know neither the law nor the Constitution. The first-year prosecutor mentioned above would have rendered a much more legally substantive and defensible decision. In a very real sense, all of the monetary costs, social divisiveness, wasted time, and political animosities in which the republic is now ensnared on the issue of healthcare are the direct responsibility of Chief Justice Roberts’ lawlessness and, apparently, his utter lack of commonsense and moral courage. Roberts’ is a most worthy successor to the civil war-fueling chief justice, Roger B. Taney.

Most recently, the national judiciary’s rife lawlessness has been seen in Federal judges blocking the implementation of President Trump’s attempt to protect Americans from at least a portion of the ongoing flow of violent Islamists — many under the guise of immigrants and refugees — into the United States. The clarity and constitutionality of the law under which Trump acted is irrefutable; indeed, his predecessors as president chose not to use the law fully and so knowingly exposed Americans to domestic attack. The judges who blocked this national-defense action knew that there is no valid legal basis for their actions, and so they have fled the legal arena for the more highly publicized field of self-made celebrity-hood and amateur mind-reading.

To please the bipartisan political elite they serve and protect, the judges found the non-existent in the Constitution. There is, for example, not a word in that document that provides a basis for believing that the 1st Amendment’s religion clause can be applied in any way to non-U.S. citizens residing in foreign countries. The Constitution was written by Americans for Americans, and any attempt to apply it as protection for overseas foreigners is either a form of madness, or a chauvinistic imperialism of a kind that could only be held by those who believe themselves superior beings fit to rule all of mankind. There was not a bit of this kind of totalitarian thinking in those who wrote the Constitution, but, sadly, it is today an all too common and debilitating mental malady among those power-hungry individuals who believe the synonym for judge is deity.

Not satisfied with finding something in the 1st Amendment that does not exist, and, with it, willingly endangering Americans, the two Federal judges also violated the legitimate and obvious protections for free speech contained in the 1st Amendment by basing their decision on what then-candidate Trump said during the presidential campaign. They, in essence, defend their unconstitutional action by (a) deciding that Mr. Trump is the only American who has no free-speech rights under the 1st Amendment and that he, and the republic, can be punished by the courts for his words; (b) believing that they can publicly abuse him for something he said, even though it has no legal bearing on what he does to legally execute constitutional immigration laws; and (c) claiming that they can read his mind — sort of law by tarot cards — and know without doubt that his supposed anti-Muslim beliefs, and not the obvious requirements of national defense, motivated his actions.

This is a judicial performance Mr. Orwell could have used in his book: judges using an unconstitutional attack on Trump’s free-speech rights to prevent the protection of Americans and their families. It would have been applauded by Stalin and Mao, and is being applauded by their ideological successors, Obama, Clinton, Soros, Sanders, Warren, and most of the media. That performance, however, cannot find legitimate justification anywhere in either the Constitution or the legal system founded thereon. It is simply another egregious example of the Federal judiciary’s lunacy-tinged and self-aggrandizing lawlessness.

Thomas Jefferson, as was his habit, swayed back and forth between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. But on the reality of the Federal judiciary’s potential for tyranny, he was more often on side of the latter; that is, on the side whose dire warnings have proven accurate. “The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary,” Jefferson wrote in 1821. “That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains….” (3) Two years later, Jefferson laid out more fully his belief that the judiciary posed a clear threat of tyranny to the republic and so the end of republicanism. “At the establishment of our constitution,” Jefferson said,

“the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a free hold and irresponsibility in office, that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.” (4)

Having decided to side always with the bipartisan political elite, and immunize it from criminal charges, it is increasingly apparent that the FBI, the Supreme Court, and the Federal judiciary are the enemies of the citizenry, and of the republicanism on which America was founded, and without which it cannot survive. Also clear is that they are eager to keep pressing attacks on each, blatantly, repeatedly, and with an air of smug, god-like superiority. They seem to be absolutely confident that they are bulletproof and noose-proof, and so are free to continue their deepening lawlessness and deliberate destruction of the Constitution without fear of reprisal. They are in for a brutal surprise.




–1.) Tacitus, The Annals. Oxford World Classics, (2008), p. 123

–2.) John Randolph, “Congressional Speech,”

–3.) Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammon, 18 August 1821

–4.) Thomas Jefferson to Monsieur A. Corray, 31 October 1823


Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Mr. Trump: Re-intervention in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan kills the chance to revive America

Mr. President:

I was driving home Friday afternoon (10 March 2017) and listening to Oliver North doing an interview on FOX. North was delighted that we now had 5,000 troops in Iraq and 1,000 in Syria and — he said — more would be going to each. North also gleefully praised you for “listening to your generals.”

Colonel North, Mr. President, is — like John McCain — a brave man but a war-loving ninny. He sees America’s glory only in military activity abroad, not, as the Founders did, in protecting liberty, prosperity, and social cohesion at home, and in maintaining the affection of the citizenry for the republic and its limited government.

During the campaign you once said something like “I know more about the war against the Islamic State (IS) then the generals.” You were right then because you have two qualities they utterly lack: (a) substantial commonsense and (b) a sure knowledge, deep in your bones, that to put things right at home, the non-interventionist facet of America First is of supreme importance. You should put a minimum of confidence in your general officers, as they, and all of their predecessors back to 1945, have not won a war, and now, because of Obama, are fully engaged in turning the U.S. military into an LGBT resort.

Additionally, you should put zero confidence in all of TV’s retired generals — now in their  well-paid dotage — who have been right about absolutely nothing since 9/11. They have pontificated about the “cowardly enemy” and “the surge” and about the coming victory over the Islamists, while the lives and limbs of U.S. Marines and soldiers were shamefully wasted in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that no general or president intended to win.

For God sake, Mr. President, get a map of  Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, look at it carefully, and then realize that:

–6,000, 60,000, or 600,000 Marines and soldiers — the latter two probably not possible without renewed conscription in America — would not be sufficient to win the war, because the wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are wars of all against all. Our so-called allies in each are united in only one thing: they hate the United States, but will take its weapons, blood, and money until each faction of this motley bunch believes it is ready to make a grab for complete power. When that time comes, they will turn on any residual U.S. forces we are foolish enough to leave behind.

–Captured cities are great irrelevancies in this war. Your generals took all the major cities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they still definitively lost both wars. If you held Mosul, Aleppo, and ar Raqqa tomorrow morning, Mr. President, what would you have? The answer is simple, Sir, three completely wrecked cities, peopled by the sick, hungry, unemployed, and orphaned, and IS forces fading into the wilderness from where they will do what they do best, fight as guerrillas. In this situation, U.S. forces would be responsible not only for feeding, clothing, healing, defending, and rebuilding the cities and their people — which amounts to a sharply deeper U.S. debt — but also for keeping Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Russians, Kurds, Sunnis, Alawites, and Shias from turning on each other and starting an even more bloody than that fought against IS. Mr. President, you would have a festering, prolonged, unending, manpower-intensive, and utterly bankrupting disaster on your hands.

–There are no democrats on in all the players in Syria and Iraq, even if your intelligence services and generals tell you there are such supposedly noble creatures present. If IS is driven into the wilderness and Asaad’s government falls — and it will, because its military has been bled white — only Islamists will form the next government. The Islamists are the best fighters in the war and they will never, ever, permit any part of Syria to ruled by Kurds, Alawites, or Shia. Indeed, in a battle against this combined apostate-atheist enemy, the Islamists will find a reliable glue for rough unity, and they will draw support from Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey. The bottom line is that U.S.military intervention in Syria — and in Iraq and Afghanistan — will yield, at best, either a Sunni or Shia theocratic tyranny, almost certainly the former.

–There are no genuine, life-and-death U.S. interests at risk in Syria and Iraq. Whichever sect forms a government in Damascus and Baghdad — and in Kabul, for that matter — will become enslaved to the needs of governing, while still fighting an Islamist insurgency. Road construction, re-electrification, restoring irrigation systems, oil production, providing potable water and medical care, rebuilding war damage, and a hundred other tasks will — with the IS insurgency — consume both its attention and meager resources. And if the Islamists succeed in rebuilding anything, they also acquire (a) something they do not want to lose, and (b) items that give even your generals a target they can understand: easily visible, immobile, and susceptible to air power. If a future Islamist government in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan becomes a threat to any genuine U.S. interest, an intense U.S. aerial campaign can demolish any reconstruction the Islamists have done in a matter of weeks, and thereby return them to trying to fight the IS insurgency and apostate-atheist forces, as well as to govern an again destitute population.

–There are no reasons why the U.S. government should take any actions to get the Russians and Iranians to withdraw from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Rather, it should be making every effort to ensure that Russia and Iran remain players in all three. Russia’s President Putin leads a country that is an economic shambles, a demographic nightmare, and, increasingly, a top priority target for the Islamists. Putin, instead of waging a short, decisive campaign in Syria, has pulled Russia’s military punch and is now stuck. Our withdrawal from Syria would leave him stuck fast, and he still has a mandatory and surely fiscally disastrous military intervention to conduct in Afghanistan. Mr. Putin, in reality, is containing himself and Russia without any assistance from the West. Regarding Iran, the mullahs will ensure their own demise if they try to create the Iran-to-the Mediterranean Shia imperium that your generals, the Necons, and Israel-First and their mainstream media shills are always howling warnings about. Any effort by Iran to acquire and maintain this kind of empire will pit 200 million Shia against 1.58 billion Sunnis in a sectarian war which would seem to favor the Sunnis.

Mr. President, you were right during the campaign, your instincts about America’s Islam war are far better than those of your generals. Indeed, you would be better off speaking — with no generals present — to some serving and recently retired or separated field officers and gunnery sergeants. These men and women have actually risked their lives in combat against the Islamists, and they would give you the true skinny about what the republic is facing and why it is in danger of getting stuck like Putin. This is a benefit you will never derive from listening to your generals.

There is, Mr. President, no upside in continuing and expanding U.S. military intervention in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan. The only things to be gained for the republic in such a continuation are more dead and maimed military personnel, more debt, more Islamist hatred and domestic attacks, and — if you are , as North said, listening to your generals — more humiliating military defeats. Perhaps the last chance for America to again become, as you say, “great”, will be lost if you discard America First’s non-interventionism, which you know is the key to the republic’s survival, and thereby ensnare U.S. forces in the murderous and none-of-our-business Syria-Iraq-Afghanistan morass.


Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

A lesson from two George Bushes: Never give the elite the benefit of the doubt

–“And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject.” John Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 13 (1)

–“General revolts and rebellions of a whole people never were encouraged now or at any time. They were always provoked.” Edmund Burke, 1777 (2)


Sentiment is human weakness that always is an obstacle to clear thinking, or at least it always is in my case.  I have always given George H.W. Bush and and George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt because I thought both were patriots and decent men. The former flew more than 50 combat missions during World War II, and the latter seemed sadly trapped in, and manipulated by, a nest of Neoconservative and Israel-First cretins. Since early in 2016, however, I have come to see how stupid and blinding it is to let sentiment hide the clearly visible truth that the Bushes are not America’s friends.

The elder Bush was a disaster for America, his only accomplishment being that he kept the White House from the Democrats for a 4-year term. He is the author and first implementer of the totalitarian idea of a “New World Order”, which began what is now nearly 30 years of constant war for the United States. He laid the ground work for the current confrontation with Russia by greatly expanding NATO and unleashing Western greed to suck anything economically worth having out of the former USSR; he added countries to NATO that are irrelevant to U.S. security but sit right on Russia’s border; he squandered most of what President Reagan had accomplished; he fought an unnecessary, half-fought, unwon, and Islamist-benefiting war against Iraq; and he ran a reelection campaign against the whore-loving buffoon Bill Clinton that looked like it should have been in one of the lesser Marx Brothers movies. Finally, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Bush refused to endorse Trump, and his closest confidants suggested he preferred Hillary Clinton. Revalidating the McCain Rule that great physical courage does not connote even moderate brainpower or commonsense, it was all downhill for George H.W. Bush after the second Great War ended. Sadly, that decline ended up by delivering the United States to the malevolent hands and minds of Clinton and Obama, as well as to those of his  son.

George W. Bush outdid his Dad in terms of negative accomplishments, his only accomplishment being that he kept the White House from the Democrats for eight years, and even that success was minimal as his performance allowed the presidency of the execrable Obama. The younger Bush picked up his father’s interventionist mantle and waged a effeminate war against al-Qaeda, a genuine enemy of the United States, and a half-witted, small-footprint, losing, and utterly unnecessary war in Iraq, a war whose negative impact on U.S. interests has yet to be fully seen. Then, after his silence during Obama’s eight years of military and cultural interventionism, pathological lying and racism, and Constitution-shredding, he joins his Dad, and his clueless yet extraordinarily arrogant bother Jeb, to publicly and clandestinely oppose Trump as Republican presidential contender, Republican candidate, president-elect, and president. Most recently, George W. Bush has been out hawking a book of his paintings and hobnobbing with Michelle Obama and other such mindless, virago-like Democratic women and celebrities, and mindlessly basking in the praise of these racist and authoritarian Amazons who would gladly spit on his grave.

As if this long record of Bush anti-Americanism was not enough, George W. Bush this week took the time to instruct President Trump to avoid adopting an “isolationist tendency” because it would be “dangerous to national security.” By avoiding unnecessary interventions and wars and minding its own business, Bush said, the United States creates a vacuum that “is generally filled with people who don’t share the ideology, the same sense of human rights and human dignity and freedom that we do.” (3)

Well, God bless George the Younger. In his reliably bumbling way, he has allowed Americans to see — in the 30 words quoted above — that the intent of post-1945 U.S. foreign policy has not been to defend them and their republic but to use the taxes and children of American workers to endlessly intervene abroad to rid the world of people and governments that “don’t share our ideology” and who do not have the same “sense … [of] freedom we do.” Bush is not referring here to the ideology and sense of freedom possessed by Americans, but rather to those that the internationalist/globalist/interventionist elites, like the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, most European leaders, Bill Gates, George Soros, and untold numbers of other rich and highly educated people, want to impose on all peoples — including Americans — so they can rule people as they see fit and without the possibility popular resistance.

Coincidentally, as this piece was being completed, the younger Bush’s war buddy, Tony Blair, published a piece in the New York Times which calls on “centrist progressives” to hold their ground and defeat the populists and nationalists. “Today,” the Globalist-shill Blair wrote,

a distinction that often matters more than traditional right and left is open vs. closed. The open-minded see globalization as an opportunity but one with challenges that should be mitigated; the closed-minded see the outside world as a threat. This distinction crosses traditional party lines and thus has no organizing base, no natural channel for representation in electoral politics.  ..

So this leaves a big space in the center. For the progressive wing of politics, the correct strategy is to make the case for building a new coalition out from the center. To do so, progressives need to acknowledge the genuine cultural anxieties of those voters who have deserted the cause of social progress: on immigration, the threat of radical Islamism and the difference between being progressive and appearing obsessive on issues like gender identity.

The center needs to develop a new policy agenda that shows people they will get support to help them through the change that’s happening around them. At the heart of this has to be an alliance between those driving the technological revolution, in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, and those responsible for public policy in government. At present, there is a chasm of understanding between the two. There will inevitably continue to be a negative impact on jobs from artificial intelligence and big data, but the opportunities to change lives for the better through technology are enormous.

Any new agenda has to focus on these opportunities for radical change in the way that government and services like health care serve people. This must include how we educate, skill and equip our work forces for the future; how we reform tax and welfare systems to encourage more fair distribution of wealth; and how we replenish our nations’ infrastructures and invest in the communities most harmed by trade and technology. (4)

I added the italics to Blair’s words to make the point that the Western and global elites have not a clue about what is going on all around them, and what is increasingly likely to happen to them. For Blair, there is not a mortal divide between those who believe  progressive government is the answer, and those who know that progressive government, if fully developed and entrenched, will be the greatest slave master in history. No, Blair sees the divide as being between the “open-minded” progressives and the “close-minded” hay seeds who “have deserted the cause of social progress” and cannot understand that progressives know what is best for them, a prescription that includes unlimited immigration; suppression of religion, nation-states, and nationalism; more intrusive government control of their lives through improved “government services”; and, naturally, larger taxes and welfare payments to ensure a “more fair distribution of wealth,” which, as always, means more money given to groups that are generally composed of the scum of the earth and will always vote for those that pledge to keep them forever on the dole.

Throughout history, watching the demise of those who speak about and treat the great mass of people as if they are inferior human beings, and who are then utterly shocked when they find the inferiors’ bayonets in their bellies, always has been a most enjoyable experience. Blair, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Gates-Soros-Davos billionaires, and the rest of the Globalist clique are blithely and arrogantly striding down a path marked “Pointy Ended Road”, their trip having been blessed, ironically, by the applause-craving and hell-on-earth-creating Bishop of Rome. They will arrive at that road’s dead end, hopefully soon, to find that the great unwashed understand all too well that progressives intend to impose a global tyranny on formerly free peoples, and they will be shocked to find themselves in a fight to their well-merited deaths. No cavalry will come to their aid, of course, because such forces always are composed of the children of the people they mean to rob of their wages and property, and then enslave.




–2.) Edmund Burke, Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, 1777.

–3.) 2 March 2017


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

Trump was right, Sweden is being wrecked by Muslim violence, the U.S. media is hiding it

President Trump’s remark about Sweden and Muslim refugee violence was absolutely correct; Muslim violence of multiple ugly sorts is a nightly occurrence in Sweden. But those American journalist fellows — you know, the guys who are intentionally putting bulls-eyes on their backs — will not write talk about it because:

–The want to protect the lying feminist that heads the Swedish government.

–Sweden proves that Muslim immigrants are a societal and law-enforcement disaster for the receiving country.

–Journalists and the Democrats want to inflict on America the same social breakdown-via-Muslim refugees that is happening in Sweden and almost all of Europe.

–They are dumb-shits like Angela Merkel.

Below is a description of the ongoing and apparently accelerating attacks by Muslim refugees on Sweden’s society. It is written by a senior Swedish police investigator who the Swedish government is now trying to silence by investigating him for “inciting racial hatred”. Presumably, Judge Sven Orwell will handle the case for the government.

Naturally, the story was picked up by an independent journalist and from Russia’s fine RT news service. (1, 2, 3) They apparently have time to cover real news and promote public safety, probably because they don’t have to take time off to pick up pay checks from the Clintons.

“A Swedish police officer recently offered up a little more truth than people are used to when he posted an epic rant on Facebook about immigrant crimes plaguing his police department and his country.  In the beginning of the post, the police officer said that he was “so fucking tired” and warned that “what I will write here below, is not politically correct.”  With that warning, below is brief taste of what followed courtesy of RT:

“Here we go; this is what I’ve handled from Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment.”

Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, Mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again. Christopher… what, is it true? Yes, a Swedish name snuck in on the edges of a drug crime. Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again.”

Countries representing all the crimes this week: Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown, unknown country, Sweden. Half of the suspects, we can’t be sure because they don’t have any valid papers. Which in itself usually means that they’re lying about their nationality and identity.”

The Facebook post was published by Peter Springare, a senior investigator at the serious crimes division at the Örebro Police Department with 47 years under his belt.  Springare noted that what he had to say could harm an officer’s position and/or pay grade which is why most officers never speak out.”

Makes you kind of long for the sound of rounds being chambered, does it not?





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

But Senator McCain, you and most of the media are enemies of the American republic

For the past several years I have been considering an article to address the issue which the media is constantly whining and wondering about; namely, the killing of journalists overseas in war zones and elsewhere. I have hesitated until today because I write with some directness, and did not want to seem to be endorsing such activity. But I really think that the question should be asked not as “Why are journalists being killed overseas?” but rather as “Why is it that more journalists are not being killed overseas and domestically?”

The killing of journalists in overseas war zones is easy to understand. Almost all journalists seem go to war zones with no intention of assisting their readership to understand what is going on from the only angle that counts, and that is the military. Instead, they go to war as the enemy of everyone who is fighting in the war. They are embedded in U.S. and NATO forces, for example, and expect to be protected by them as they search high and low for unvetted sources who will claim that “human rights” or the “laws of war” have been infringed by their protectors.  They are, for all intents and purposes, a fifth column within the U.S. military.

When they are not trying to harm those upon whom their lives depend, they write endless, weepy stories about irrelevant-to-the-war matters, such as the lack of women’s rights, the occurrences of rape, malnutrition, the absence of schools, the misogyny of local men, and the brutality of the enemy. While most of these things are usually true, they do not help readers understand the war, although they certainly do, and are meant to, assist the Democratic and Republican interventionists who want endless war in the name of using the U.S. military to impose on foreigners — especially Muslims — societal norms to match those of the saintly West.


The media’s coverage of the Islamic State (IS) is a good example of the journalists’ deliberate failures. What have we learned from journalists about IS? Well, IS kills its enemies without mercy; it rapes and otherwise degrades women; it tortures and kills prisoners; it steals ancient artifacts and tears down ancient structures and sells the pieces for profit; it recruits fighters via the internet; and, turning from truthful charges to the grandest lie of all, it has nothing to do with the “genuine” Islamic faith.

After reading reams of this tear-stained fluff, which has been media’s norm for many years, readers are, take your pick, appalled, alarmed, sickened, mad as hell, or, most likely, bored silly. After the reading, they are also ignorant about the war, the enemy, the people, and the lands in which U.S. forces are fighting. They will have learned virtually nothing important about IS, only that they are “bad men”. Well, no kidding. But what do we know about important matters pertaining to IS?

–Question: What is motivating IS forces to continue fighting a militarily overpowering alliance, and what is allowing them to hold that vastly superior force at bay?

Answer not given by media: The strength of their belief in Salafi and Wahhabi Islam, both of which are legitimate sects within Sunni Islam. Without reporting this obvious fact, the only career-benefiting upside of the journalists’ false reporting is that they do not offend Obama’s Muslim friends, America’s Arab tyrant allies, and their masters in the Democratic party.

–Question: Why is it that after the media claims that IS has lost a city — be it Aleppo, Surt, Ramadi, Fallujah, etc. — the Arab media, which always is closest to the battlefield, continue to report that the cities are still being cleared of IS units, that IS units are still strong enough to stage counterattacks, or that IS has retaken sections of the city?

–Answer not given by the media: Because the Western media are off covering the ephemera of women’s and human rights and the selling of antiquities. Covering battles, after all, is dangerous work made worse by the fact that Western journalists are hated with equal fury by both IS and its Syrian and Iraqi opponents.

–Question: Why is it that IS — again, at war with the strongest military powers on earth — is able to continue to field a large and well-trained fighting force; operate effective logistics lines and other lines of communication in Iraq and Syria; bring in fresh manpower and seemingly unlimited amounts of ordnance from overseas; manage overseas attacks in places like Russia, Malaysia, and Europe; infiltrate fighters into any country of its choosing; and enjoys a steady and obviously sufficient flow of income that allows it to wage war over the breadth of two countries?

–Answer not given by the media: The power of faith among IS fighters and their well-honed fighting capabilities; the belief among IS’s many private and governmental Muslim donors that IS fighters are doing Allah’s work on earth; the wide spread international support among Muslim youth, which stems from faith and admiration, not brain-washing; and the transparent lack of a will to win among Western political leaders and generals, men and women who are exceptional only when it comes to believing their own propaganda, the mindless twaddle produced by Western journalists, and the lie that Islam — or any major religion — is a “religion of peace”.

Given that most Western journalists appear to see themselves fighting a war against all who are fighting wars, and feel they have an obligation only to mislead, rather than inform, their readership about the war itself, it is no surprise that they are being killed. Indeed, if I were an IS or al-Qaeda commander, I would designate a hunter-killer detachment and assign to it the task of ridding the battlefield of journalists. Alas, the law will not permit U.S. forces to do likewise.


One of the things that has surprised me most since the millennium is that more journalists have not been killed here in the United States. For more than half of America’s citizens, U.S. journalism means a constant and ferocious attack on all they hold dear in terms of faith, nationalism, liberty, peace, unity, children, language, and history. U.S. journalists, in a very real and flamboyant sense, are the lethal enemies of the American republic, notwithstanding Senator McCain’s Soros-like comments about why the media should not be condemned for being the enemies of the republic they manifestly are. Let us review some of the ways in which journalists have proven their opposition to the republic’s survival:

–Through their unending advocacy of multiculturalism, diversity, inclusiveness, and the nobility of sexual deviancy, they deliberately seek to divide Americans against each other, dissolve the cohesiveness of the Union, and establish minority rule.

–They are unflagging supporters of the practice of infanticide-for-profit that will be at some point  — if not stopped soon — one of the pivotal issues that prompts civil war. (NB: You may recall, that General Lee’s battle flag was a symbol, not of slavery, but of resistance to perceived oppression by the national government. Thus, it would be a perfect symbol for the resistance of those oppose the national government’s funding and protection for those malignant wretches who murder infants.)

–They support Nazi-like “hate speech laws”, which are meant to remove 1st Amendment protections for Americans who say things which they and their Democratic masters oppose, or which offend the highly educated sensibilities of the poor little darlings.

–They are unflinching supporters of overseas interventionist wars that seek to militarily impose sordid Western “values” on foreigners who do not want them, a process that for seventy-five years has wasted the lives and limbs of U.S. Marines and soldiers, and bankrupted the republic. At the same time, they oppose doing whatever it takes to win wars necessary to the defense of the United States against genuine threats.

–They refuse to call to account, indeed, they apologize for and support, criminals like Obama and Clinton who use the national government’s agencies to persecute political opponents, knowingly break the espionage laws, unconstitutionally change the meaning of legislation passed by the Congress, and attack and destroy foreign countries that do not threaten the United States, doing so without Constitutional declarations of war.

–They fully support any foreigner or U.S. citizen who seeks to undermine the republic; they are owned by the Israel-First fifth column; they support those who burn flags; sympathize with those who attack the supporters of candidates they do not like; apologize for violence by minority groups that kills and wounds law-enforcement officers and destroys the businesses and homes of everyday citizens; and endorse any argument aimed at preventing the control of the republic’s borders.

–They are vicious and unanimous foes of the 2nd Amendment because it is the last remaining tool — if Trump fails — with which Americans can defend their republic against open borders, abortionists, gross violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, illegal and unnecessary foreign wars, unlimited immigration, tyrannical national government, financial ruin, religious and political persecution, and, overall, the further transformation of their republic into a Third World rat hole.

Again, far be it from me to wish ill on any of the journalists who do the foregoing intentional damage to the republic, and who Senator McCain seems to believe benefit the republic by trying to destroy it, which is, of course, the kind of logic that demonstrates that McCain left his brain in Hanoi when he, sadly for America, returned home. The journalists’ offenses do, however, put me in mind of the old joke about lawyers.

–Question: How would you describe 50,ooo dead lawyers, who are buried under 1,000 feet of concrete, at the bottom of the ocean?

–Answer: Barely a start.

I had not thought of it before, but it seems to me that that joke probably is applicable to other malodorous professions.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments