On sanctuary, Mr. President, speed fueled by Jacksonian fury is vital

“Tell them from me that they can talk and write resolutions and print threats to their heart’s content. But if one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.” Andrew Jackson, 1832 (1)

“I tell you, Hayne, when Jackson begins to talk about hanging, they can begin to look out for ropes!’ Senator T.H. Benton to Senator Robert Hayne, 1832 (2)

Mr. President, I know that you know, as does every sane American, that the maintenance of sanctuary cities, counties, schools, or states is a direct and lethal threat to the nation’s security, the lives of ordinary citizens and their children, and a drain on the republic’s economy. You have said this repeatedly, and have announced that you and your administration will fix the problem. That is no more than those who voted for you expect.

But you should immediately discard the idea of cutting off federal funds to the sanctuary cities. This tack must be the brainchild of advisers who are closet-Democrats or Republicans who have been in Washington far too long. It is a plan that  will lead to nothing but a lengthy delay in resolving what is a quickly fixable problem. Worse, it will give the Democrats and their adoring media pets a “cause” around which to rally. They will use it as a soapbox from which to assert that your administration is starving the sanctuary cities of money for poor adults and their hungry kids, for schools, for transportation, for health clinics, etc., etc. The Democrats also will use their endless cascade of Soros-money to hire sick, addled, fanatic, and addicted people — in other words the party’s rank-and-file — to parade their pathetic, Trump-mandated distress before the media, and have them claim that their maladies are the result of your administration’s halting of federal funding.

Why not spend a few hours, Mr. President, refreshing your knowledge of the the Nullification Crisis of 1832, and, in doing so, take a lesson from Andrew Jackson on how to handle Democrats who defy the supreme law of the land?  The match of secession and civil war, after all, was lit in 1832, when South Carolina’s Democratic government announced that it would no longer enforce the provisions of the republic’s tariff system it deemed detrimental to the state’s economic interests. The political grandees in Charleston cited John C. Calhoun’s doctrine of nullification as their legal justification.

President Jackson, of course, saw straight away that although the South Carolinians described their action as nullification, it was actually a long first-step toward the state’s secession from the Union — and, if not checked, likely the start of the Union’s dissolution. Jackson, though a Democrat himself, had no intention of presiding over secession and made it publicly and privately clear that his government was not going to allow one state to initiate an unconstitutional process that might well sink the republic by either splintering the Union into several small nations or a civil war.

Publicly, Jackson’s administration issued a proclamation on 10 December 1832 telling South Carolina — and the nation as a whole — that nullification was illegal and that the national government would not tolerate it. That lengthy document said, in part,

The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure. (3)

Privately, as noted above, Jackson was emphatically clear with a number of southern Democratic congressman and senators that he would not hesitate to use military force to destroy those who: (a) sought to break the Union by nullification-cum-secession, or (b) who attacked Union loyalists living in their midst. As token of his lethal resolution on these points, Jackson sent eight U.S. naval ships and 5,000 muskets to Charleston. He also again warned in private talks he knew would be relayed to the nullifiers, that if fighting became necessary, he would “hang every leader … of that infatuated people, sir, by martial law, irrespective of his name, or political or social position.” (4)

What you are facing today, Mr. President, is quite simply the 21st century and nationwide version of the southern nullifiers and secessionists. Now, few have more disdain — indeed, more hatred — than I for the national government’s unconstitutional usurpation of power since FDR’s lordly ascension to the presidency. But there are a number of things which are vital to the republic’s survival and can only be done by the national government. Among them are foreign policy, the initiation and conduct of war, international and domestic trade policy, and immigration. For Democratic politicians to try to block or prevent the national government’s conduct of these policies is unconstitutional and — as in Andrew Jackson’s time — demands a national-government response that takes whatever form is necessary to break the backs of the nullifiers/secessionists. The Democratic mayors of the sanctuary cities — as well as the lesser, pro-sanctuary rats found in county governments, many churches, schools, and the media — are the progeny of the South Carolina Democrats and, like those men, are out to destroy the Union. They will do so, Mr. President, if you supinely yield to their unconstitutional and anti-democratic actions.

Mr. President, the mayors of the sanctuary cities are the proper first targets for you administration to begin enforcing the law, and it can be done soundly and quickly. Once confirmed, your attorney general should send a letter to each of the mayors that politely but firmly demands that they end their lawlessness and execute their legal responsibility to assist the national government in rounding up illegal aliens. The letter should tell each mayor that one of the attorney general’s lieutenants will arrive in his office in ten days to coordinate alien-apprehension operations with them. If one or all of the mayors send replies in the negative, your DoJ official should arrive with a team of federal law-enforcement officers and ask the mayors if they intend to meet their legal responsibility. If their answer is no, each should be arrested for obstructing the execution of the law. This process then should be repeated with each of the mayor’s nexts-in-command until one is found who will help enforce the supreme law of the land. Each arrest is likely to promote more cooperative feelings further down the command chain.

Mr. President, use the law against the lawless and you will quickly rid the country of those who are here criminally, and you will bring to trial those who revel in their lawlessness, seek to disrupt the Union, and, by all appearances, prefer civil war to the rule of law. You also will show Americans that the Democratic Party never changes, that it is no different than it was in 1861, when it championed secession and civil war after the presidential candidate it favored failed to win the White House.

After President Jackson enforced the law and defeated the nullifiers, he arranged ameliorative actions vis-a-vis the tariff to restore the South Carolinians confidence in the Union. But like all Democrats, then and now, they believed only in destruction and death if they could not get their way. In an 1833 letter, Jackson reflected on his experience with the nullifiers. “I have had a laborious task here,” Old Hickory wrote,

“but nullification is dead, and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman’s gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men, who would involve the country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds, and direct the storm.” (5)

Jackson also said, at the close of his presidency, that one of his major regrets was that he had failed to hang John C. Calhoun — the father of nullification and secession — “higher than haman.” (6) Given that our civil war still came at the hands of Calhoun-inspired South Carolinians, Jackson’s regret was certainly valid.

While you cannot today, Mr. President, hang nullifiers like Emanuel, de Blasio, and their equally lawless mayoral associates as they deserve  — more’s the pity — you certainly can legitimately restore in their minds, and the minds of all Americans, the confidence that those who knowingly refuse to obey the law — or obstruct its execution — will be handled in accordance with the law they ignored and, if convicted, will be punished to the maximum extent it permits.

And perhaps with a bit of Jackson’s measured but patently biblical fury, Mr. President, you should tell Americans that you recognize that they have, and must always defend, their unquestionable right to rebellion. And then, Mr. President, you might say that the appropriate application of that right only comes into play when the national government — as it did under Obama and would have under Mrs. Clinton — acts to constrict their liberties, impoverish them through taxation, promote minority rule, attack their traditions, faith, flags, and history, involve them in multiple unconstitutional wars, and — most of all — when it undermines the republic’s only safe harbor, the maintenance of a viable Union and the public’s affection for it.

 

Endnotes:

–1.)  http://elektratig.blogspot.com/2009/03/when-jackson-begins-to-talk-about.html

–2.) https://haysvillelibrary.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/andrew-jackson-the-nullification-crisis/

–2.) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jack01.asp, 10 December 1832

–3.) https://haysvillelibrary.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/andrew-jackson-the-nullification-crisis/

–4.) http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=371

–5.) http://www.civilwarcauses.org/jackson.htm

–6.) http://potus-geeks.livejournal.com/109516.html

Posted in Articles | Tagged | 1 Comment

Putin pitches in to clear the way for Trump’s America First foreign policy

On  13 January 2016, the Moscow Times reported the following:

“Russian army personnel are being briefed for deployment to Syria, according to military brochures obtained by Russia’s Novaya Gazeta newspaper.  … One brochure is emblazoned with the logo of the Red Army — a red, white, and blue star — and features a Russian-Arabic phrase book, a map of Syria and the Middle east, and an illustrated guide to military equipment and ranks within the Syrian army. … Military experts say the brochures are similar to those handed out to Soviet troops before and during the Afghan war, Novaya Gazeta reported.”

On 10 December 2016, the Kabul-based outlet TOL Onenews Online published the following statement by Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Alexander Mantytskiy.

“… Daesh [the Islamic State] is trying to reach Central Asia, Russia, and China, and Russia has formed a relationship with the Taleban to secure [Russian] citizens’ lives. [Russia’s leaders claim] our interests are the same as the Taleban’s in fighting Daesh. It is clear that Taleban fight Daesh. We never said that we back up Taleban in fighting Daesh … [but] America has failed to tackle insurgents and Russia is ready to help Afghanistan.”

In a time of massive military and economic troubles for America that have been caused by a half-century of interventionist, war-causing U.S. foreign policy, along comes a beacon of end-of-tunnel light in the form of Russian President Putin. Readers of this space may recall that it was recommended to President Putin that he hit the Islamic State and the other anti-Asaad Islamist groups as hard and as indiscriminately as possible, convince the Islamist that the game was not worth the candle, and then immediately high-tail it back to the steppes.

But, like countless foolhardy U.S. leaders, Mr. Putin ignored that wise advice and now is well and truly stuck in Syria. Worse for Russia, Putin, his military, and their country are seen throughout the Sunni Muslim world as the champions of territorial expansionism by the hated apostate Shia and Alawites, as well as being the well-armed architects who are helping the apostates to build a belt of Shia-control — which will yield massive oppression of Sunnis — from the Western border of Afghanistan to the lovely beaches of the Lebanon’s Mediterranean Coast. Alas, Mr. Putin — at least for your country’s sake — you did not listen to commonsense, and have proven that you are no Uncle Joe Stalin when it comes to the kind of warfare that makes the enemy’s pips squeak.

But Mr. Putin’s now self-defeating excursion into Syria is a splendid opportunity for the incoming Trump administration to bid an unfond adieu to the catastrophic-for-America war that George W. Bush and his sidekicks unnecessarily stated, and which Barack Obama continued, in Afghanistan; restarted in Iraq; and quietly expanded through most of Arab and Black Africa. Behold that entire region, and you will not see a single life-and-death U.S. national security interest.

Indeed, what you will see are useless — now that America is energy independent — one-way, war-causing alliances with the Gulf Arab and African tyrants, and a supine, slavish, extortionate, and war-causing relationship with Israel. Mr. Putin, bless his little Bolshevik heart, has given the U.S. national government a chance to get out of a sucking quagmire into which far too much America wealth, blood, prestige, and opportunity costs have been wastefully poured. If Mr. Trump and his team recognize this astoundingly advantageous opportunity — and then move quickly homeward — they will miss out on having to deal with the approaching collapse of Egypt and Tunisia, the regrouping and expansion of the Islamic State in southern Libya and central Africa, the solidification of the above-noted, Shia-controlled belt of formerly Sunni territory, and that long-awaited and much to be desired regional Sunni-Shia war.

And like cable television commercials that offer “buy one, get two garden hoses”, Mr. Putin’s generosity toward the United States does not end in Syria-Iraq, it extends to Afghanistan. While Syria was, for Russia, an unnecessary war, in the next few years Mr. Putin will have to send the Russian army — not just its air force and Special Forces — to Afghanistan because the Islamists there are approaching the status of an existential threat to the Russian Federation (RF). Why? Because, first, the Islamists in Afghanistan have easy access to overwhelmingly Muslim Central Asia via the open borders of the region’s states that are contiguous to Afghanistan. In turn, the borders of the RF’s provinces/republics that are contiguous with Central Asian states are likewise largely unguarded, and ease the entry into Russia of Central Asian Muslims looking for work, as well as Islamists looking to proselytize, recruit, or attack. (NB: Those porous borders, needless to say, also give the mujahedin a path along which to send aid and veteran fighters to the Muslim Uighurs in western China. The Uighurs are resisting Beijing’s longstanding campaign to reduce them to a cultureless minority in their historic lands by inundating them with Han Chinese.)

Second, Mr. Putin’s policies in the Middle East have given the Islamists and the Sunni world generally the motivation to wage war more intensely against Russia. Putin’s brutal but, sadly, not-intended-to-win intervention in Syria has sharpened what has been a deep but dormant Sunni hatred for Russia, which is based on Moscow’s invasion and occupation of Muslim Afghanistan (1979-1992) and its now more than 20 year-old war against Islamist fighters in the North Caucasus. (NB: Since the 19th century, Russian leaders have had a debilitating blind spot when it comes to recognizing that the Russian/Soviet military is a very long shot to come out the winner in wars waged against Muslims in cold and mountainous countries.)

Third, Putin, even more clearly than Obama, has allied his country with Sunni Islam’s number one enemy, Shia Muslims and their various sub-sects. By the twin actions of killing Sunnis Muslims in Syria and conquering their historic cities — Aleppo, for example — and turning them over to Shia or Shia-like governance, Putin and his generals have provided extremely effective motivators for uniting Sunni Muslims worldwide against Russia. Putin’s interventionism has put at risk not only Russia’s overseas presence and interests, but also has made a highly negative impression on Russia’s own Muslim population — the media claim it may be as large as 20 million — an increasing part of which believes itself to be discriminated against by the Russian government, and persecuted by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Mr. Putin’s military intervention in Syria, the Russian intervention soon to come in Afghanistan, and the negative impact each will have on the RF’s increasingly restive Sunni Muslims are a godsend for those Americans sick of unnecessary, costly, and always-lost wars, and who oppose the interventionist U.S. foreign policies that have invariably produced them.

Mr. Trump, the man you have never met– Mr. Putin — has created a not-to-be-missed chance for your administration to unload two hopelessly lost and unnecessary wars, and allow other nations — all America’s enemies — to bear the human, economic, and domestic insecurity costs of a regional struggle that will resemble a war of all against all. Such a war will do nothing but kill the republic’s enemies; strengthen U.S. national security; afford a respite for our military and intelligence services to be rebuilt and cleansed of “there is no military solution” generals and lying and Democrat-butt-licking senior CIA leaders; and to build the border wall that should have been the national government’s first, post-9/11 national-security priority.

So, get on with it, Mr. Trump. Withdraw the U.S. military from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and let Americans watch Russia writhe in the pain that is always produced by unnecessary foreign military intervention. And as that writhing worsens, use your twitter sermons to remind the citizenry that U.S. withdrawal has allowed the republic’s enemies to fight and kill each other, as well as to begin to re-school them on the republic-preserving nature of General Washington’s recipe for a foreign policy grounded in promoting trade, non-intervention, and neutrality.

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

The Russian hack, a matter of stuff and nonsense

The U.S. Intelligence Community’s (IC) public report on Russia’s Putin-ordered hacking of the computers of the Democratic National Committee reads like one of those papers that a lazy or doped-up freshman buys from an online research shop and submits in hopes of scoring a C or D. Anyone worth the title of intelligence officer — even a half-assed old bureaucrat like me — could have written a more compelling paper based exclusively on newspaper articles, conjectures, OpEds, and the hysterical fantasies about “the mortal threat” posed by Russia that have been concocted by Senators McCain and Graham, and sung by the one-note, Neocon choir they lead.

The IC paper is so poorly argued and professionally embarrassing that DNI James Clapper was the perfect choice to present and champion it before the committee and the media. You remember Ol’ “Honest Jim” Clapper don’t you? He is the distinguished former general officer who perjured himself under oath when he told Congress that there was no large scale NSA effort to collect the electronic communications of Americans. Now, is that a man anyone would trust?

All you need to say to encompass the essence of this case of Russian hacking is:

–Under Putin’s direction Russian intelligence is doing a lot more hacking and other media operations — and so is every other power on earth, including, hopefully, the United States.

–Putin’s aim, in part, is to use media operations to discredit the U.S. political system in the minds of the citizenry. In this case, however, the publication of the DNC’s e-mails clearly did Americans a service by exposing many excellent reasons not to trust the Democratic elite or the media that works with it and savors its behind. All nation-states with an offensive intelligence capability conduct this sort of political warfare with much the same goal — serving their own interests. If you read, for example, the data published or “leaked” in the past year by the U.S. and NATO governments about Russia, Iran, Syria, China, many other countries, and the Islamic State, it will be obvious that they are playing the same game as Putin, but perhaps not as well.

–Putin and his boys surely hacked the DNC’s e-mails with ease, although they probably were a bit harder to hack than the e-mails that once resided residing Hillary’s home-made and treasonous server, and which Moscow, Assange, and probably dozens of other governments and individuals now have. The point here is that the DNI’s public report does not prove that the Russians gave the documents to Julian Assange. What the report does is assert that there is a Russia-Assange joint operation against — not America — but Hillary Clinton. This is the sort of sophomoric phenomenon that is often seen in the work of novice intelligence analysts, and it is usually called “Analysis by Assertion”. Given his really quite impressive, if despicable, track record, Assange clearly is capable of getting the DNC’s e-mails off his own hook, perhaps from the DNC official who was gunned down in Washington last summer. Countless numbers of governmental and private-citizen hackers have the same ability and probably have had the same success.

–As an attempt to slant the election in favor of Mr. Trump, the release of the DNC e-mails cannot be considered as anything Americans — except tireless, war-mongering mad-hatters like McCain and Graham — need to worry about. The e-mails are irrelevant to U.S. national security and so they endanger nothing important, and they cannot effect the citizenry’s faith in the republic’s “democratic system” because Americans long ago lost faith in the national government and both parties. On this point, Putin and Assange were pushing a ball downhill from the start, and had no chance of harming the United States. At most, the e-mails sketch a more sharply defined portrait of Hillary Clinton as the greedy, lying, lawless, and reckless creep she long ago proved herself to be. Also sketched was a more complete view of senior Democratic Party leaders as men and women who share Hillary’s greed, recklessness, and other shining attributes. Reading the e-mails also leaves a not so faint whiff of what may be a rife sexual depravity prominent among the Clintons and the party hierarchy they created.

So it is time to relax and let the Democrats and their war-loving Neocon, Republican, and Israel-First friends go piss up a rope. They are as mangy a lot of miscreant mongrels as the republic has ever seen, and they will remain so even as their head hound travels to his beloved Chicago, a city where the strict gun laws he adores have obviously created an utterly non-violent Utopia.

For the rest of us, it is time to let Mr. Trump have his at-bats and see if he can begin to keep his promises to undo the damage Obama-and-crew intentionally inflicted on this country, by implementing policies to fix the economy and applying a reliable refusal to intervene in other peoples’ wars, politics, and societies. As that process unfolds, we must do what can be done to keep Mr. Trump up to mark, but we can also hope that either Assange or Putin — or even the Clapper-McCain creation of that ace and dreadful evildoer “Putsange” — will publish all of the classified e-mails from Hillary’s server. Putin no longer can use the e-mails to blackmail “President” Clinton, and Assange probably wants to finish what he started. If either or both do the necessary, Americans will read the e-mails and know they have been far better and more fully informed by the nation’s foes, than they ever would have been by their own government.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Abstention is the key to an America First foreign policy

“The external politics of the United States is eminently expectant; it consists much more in abstaining than in doing.” Alexis de Tocqueville (1)

The U.S. abstention on the UN Security Council’s resolution condemning Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank was absolutely the right action, but it was taken for wrong, sophomoric, and really rather dastardly reasons.

The motivation for the abstention was not a clear view of genuine U.S. national security interests — which do, on this issue and many others, including UN membership, benefit from permanent abstention — but rather it came from Obama’s hatred for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the arrogant and colossal error that Netanyahu, the Republicans, and Israel First made in staging the former’s address to a joint session of Congress on the Iran deal; and Obama’s all-too-appropriate anger at Mr. Trump’s all-too-inappropriate intervention in his conduct of foreign policy. (NB: One must be careful here, as Mr. Trump, not being a dumb-head, certainly knew that the thin-skinned, arrogant Obama would press ahead and abstain. Could that be what Trump wanted when he spouted off?)

But not unlike the arrival of newborns, most correct and praiseworthy foreign-policy decisions come into the world in an orderly, intended, and legitimate manner, while some others arrive haphazardly as bastards. Obama’s abstention clearly is a bastard, but perhaps it is a quite wonderful bastard, and the first step toward a sane, America First foreign policy in the Middle East.

The point for Americans here is not that Israel is the bad guy and that the Palestinians are the good guys, or vice versa. The point is that neither party, nor their respective actions, make a lick of difference to the republic’s genuine national security interests as long as the U.S. national government stays out of the affairs of of each. If Israel drives all the Palestinians from the West Bank and builds an only-for-Jews metropolis there, or if the Palestinians find a way to kill Israelis in numbers like those of the Palestinians killed by Israelis, it amounts to precisely nothing that impacts the life-and-death interests of America and nearly all of its citizenry. The exceptions being, of course, those elite Jewish-Americans who prefer the survival of Israel to the welfare and survival of their fellow countrymen, and, who, after all, are expendable citizens who pose nothing but a threat to the republic’s survival. They are worthy only of being ostracized.

The truth is that any chance of a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict is a decade dead, and only more violence and perhaps war will be forthcoming over the issue of what each side considers its and its faith’s territory. Why would the United States want to stay involved in the bloody business that will ensue as the two states are left to work out their own problems and fanaticism? If the rest of the world lines up on the side of the Israelis or that of the Palestinians, and want to play in this nearly 70-year old, cruel but childish war, let them do so and pay and bleed as America has done for far too long.

Again, Obama, his team of juvenile diplomats, their gangsterish mother hen Hillary Clinton, and now the ketchup-king John Kerry are a reprehensible lot, who for eight years have conducted themselves as if it is still the malodorous 1960s, acting as if they are noble, Che-like agents who are duty-bound to make penitent amends for the supposed sins of colonialism and imperialism, while forcibly imposing the far worse sins of globalism, which will require global fascism to maintain. These people are war-causing imbeciles who were Ivy-League educated (indoctrinated?) with ideas, aspirations, and modes of behavior that reward the violent; cannonize the deviant, libertine, anti-religious, non-white, and subversive; and seek to destroy all the West has created since Athens and the Roman republic were pups.

In less than 25 days these lamentable creatures will be a nothing but a mostly annoying memory. But Obama’s abstention at the UN and then Kerry’s attack on Israel’s absolute right to self-defense via settlement building gives the Trump administration a base on which to begin to build an America-serving, non-interventionist foreign policy, though giving Mr. Trump that chance was not the motivation of either act.

After all, abstention or just plain silence on overseas issues and events that are none of the republic’s concern — such as, in this case, a two-state solution or an end to Israeli-Palestinian violence — always has been the key to the fullest possible preservation of the republic’s independence, security, sovereignty, and domestic liberties. Wars, necessary and unnecessary, are the enemies of each of those properties, and a foreign policy championing abstract ideas leads to both kinds of war. Today, as has been the case since 1941, such fatuous slogans as “permanent allies”, “the four freedoms”, “special relationships”, “exceptionalism”, “human rights”, “the right to exist”, “humanitarian intervention”, “democracy expansion”, and “the responsibility to protect” remain popular among adolescent politicians, and serve as sturdy obstacles to an accurate determination of America’s very few life-and-death national interests. Just note the rhetorical and weepy reactions of leading political and media figures as they damn Obama’s abstention and Kerry’s interventionist speech by littering their statements with slogans pertinent to those worthless and damnably war-causing abstractions.

It is always the U.S. national government’s absolute obligation to abstain from intervening, via words, funds, or deeds, in other peoples’ wars, tribal/religious/political/ethnic spats, domestic political arrangements, or any other matter that might wound the delicate sensibilities and foreign loyalties of some U.S. citizens, but threaten no genuine American interest. Sadly, our bipartisan governing elite is addicted to abstractions and delighted to get our soldiers and Marines killed and maimed fighting for the unattainable goals they encompass, most especially when they can be voiced in defense of anything and everything Israel and Israel First want done.

John Kerry’s slogan-filled speech on 28 December 2016 is a fine example of mindless U.S. interventionism, a policy that has long displayed a vast ignorance of how a world of nation-states must work. Kerry’s blithe dismissal of the argument that asserts Israel needs more settlements in Palestinian territory to strengthen its national security may be true. That, however, is not what the Israeli government believes, and, as it is that government that must manage Israel’s absolute right of self-defense. Israel’s cabinet would have to be a gang of morons to heed the interventionist words of the hapless Kerry or any other U.S. politician.

Might more Jewish settlements mean more war between Israel and Muslims? Without a shadow of a doubt, but that is a risk Israel is willing and has an unquestionable right to take in defense of its survival. The important thing is not that settlements might cause more war; after all, no one who dies or is maimed, looses or wins such a fight will adversely impact U.S. security or prosperity. The important things here are (a) that the United States not be involved in deciding how Israel is to defend itself, or, for that matter, how the Palestinians intend to defend themselves, and (b) to make crystal clear that the U.S. military is not coming to the rescue of any party in that worthless-to-America sandpit lying at the eastern end of the Mediterranean.

So while Obama’s team correctly abstained from vetoing the UN resolution on Israel, it did so not because it was irrefutably none of America’s business, but because of that adolescent gang’s life-long love affair with violent and anti-Western Third Worlders. Their abstention was the act of self-centered scoundrels, but be that as it may, on the day of Mr. Trump’s inauguration the UN-approved resolution will be nearly a month old and will have had zero impact on anything even remotely important to the United States. And if the resolution stands for the next thirty years its impact on genuine U.S. interests will be precisely the same.

But you would never now that fact from hysterical and anti-U.S.-national-security reaction of the grandees of Israeli Firstism to the abstention, and then to Kerry’s speech. Jewish-Americans like Elliott Cohen, Daniel Kurtzer, Charles Krauthamer, and Alan Dershowitz; most members of both houses of the AIPAC-owned Congress, and one brain-dead announcer on FOX News last Sunday (25Dec16) — whose name I missed — who confidently identified Israel as “America’s greatest ally”, are all on the verge of apoplexy, deathly afraid of missing the chance to give away more tens of billions to Israel and to get more American military personnel killed and maimed in wars that are either waged on Israel’s behalf, or are waged against America, in part, because of the republic’s shameful status as Israel’s indentured servant.

That the reactions of the individuals noted in the foregoing paragraph show how correct the U.S. abstention was is clear, but, tragically, it names only a few of the many hundreds of U.S. citizens, perhaps the many thousands, who are self-confessed, Israel-First enemies of the republic’s security and survival. The comment about Israel being the republic’s “greatest ally”, however, merits a bit more notice.

This great ally deliberately attacked and nearly sank a U.S. naval ship, and killed, wounded, and maimed scores of U.S. sailors in the process. It has transferred U.S. technology to America’s enemies, has suborned U.S. citizens to spy on their government, and has refused U.S. requests to use its airspace in wartime. It has tried to force the national government into a war with Iran and other of the nation-state enemies Israel cultivates. Its U.S. citizen supporters have ruined the careers of dozens of intelligent and loyal citizens who have cited and fought the destructive impact of Israel First’s unrelenting intervention in and corruption of the U.S. political system, Congress, media, and federal civil service. Israel and its U.S. citizen supporters are not America’s allies, they are its nemesis, willing grave diggers, and endlessly greedy beneficiaries. Indeed, the sorts of activity in which Jewish-American Israel Firsters engage can only be described as the work of parasites and traitors.

America’s true allies are few, and none are named Israel. Britain, Australia, and Canada — until a teenager became the latter’s prime minister — fought valiantly with U.S. forces in the necessary Afghan war, but, like our own troops, they were shackled and made targets by political leaders who did not intend to win the war. Poland’s brave soldiers also were strong wartime allies, as was their and other Eastern European governments. Even General Pervez Musharraf’s Pakistan aided the United States with more substantive military assistance — that cost thousands of dead and wounded military personnel — than did most of the NATO countries put together.

But where was Israel — our “greatest ally”, per FOX News and most of the media — over the last two decades of military disasters? Certainly, it was nowhere near America’s battlefields, save by geographical proximity. Why? Well, first, because any visible Israeli military participation in a U.S.-led war waged on Muslim land would further unite the Islamic world in their loathing for both the U.S. government and Israel; draw tens of thousands of additional mujahedin to the theaters of war; and stimulate a flow of untold billions of Gulf-Arab dollars as donations with which to arm and support those fighters.

That reality, in turn, would quickly expose almost every post-1996 American president, senator, and congressman, and every NATO political leader, for the devious and cynical liars they are. Since Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1996 — citing U.S. support/subservience to Israel, and Israel’s maltreatment of the Palestinians as principle motivations — the political elites in North America and Europe have told their citizens that the West’s unquestioning support for Israel had absolutely nothing to do with motivating the Islamists to wage war against the West. The Islamists’ only motivation, the Atlantic world’s governing elite’s asinine assessment claims, is fanatic hatred for freedom, liberty, hooch, democracy, and the West’s countless numbers of sluttily dressed and behaving females. But this crackpot analysis would never again hold water if Israeli military units were seen serving in U.S.-led coalitions, and helping to kill Islamists and Muslim civilians in Iraq,  Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

As noted above, Israel’s military participation on the side of the republic and its few genuine allies would have generated a much more intense, united, geographically dispersed, and murderous Islamist war effort. But much more lethal would have been its impact on the ability of Israel and Israel-First to continue to buy the national government’s slavish support and to extort enormous amounts of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars; most recently, $38 billion dollars, which one — even Mr. Trump — might think would be better and more morally spent at home, say in cancer research, road building, or veterans’ health care. Israeli military participation with American, Canadian, British, Polish, Pakistani, and other forces would have shredded the thin gauze Western leaders have used to cover their lie that neither the West’s actions in the Muslim world nor its support for Israel were main motivators in the Islamists’ war that for decades has been killing and maiming the soldier-children of North American and European parents.

If this hard, but long-true fact became apparent to U.S. and Western citizens, not even such bastardly, Israel-First-enslaved liars as Senators McCain, Graham, and Schumer would be able to persuade or — their trademark — rhetorically bully U.S. parents into silently acquiescing in their government sending their children to get killed fighting in wars to protect a nation that is irrelevant to U.S. security interests, lives on a dole funded by U.S. taxpayers, and cultivates treasonous behavior among some Americans.

Again, the Obama administration’s ego-satisfying and vengeful abstention from voting on the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements is a mark of its terminal ignorance about the proper America-centric goals of U.S. foreign policy. But, as noted, the abstention did produce a marvelous bastard of an offspring, one that gives Americans an opportunity to think about how in the world Israel’s nil worth as the republic’s ally can reasonably justify the pointless expenditure of tax dollars and human lives, an endless war with Islam, and unnecessary involvement in irrelevant overseas issues. All of these, at this point, can only distract the new administration from a campaign to repair the widespread economic, political, and social wreckage that is the signal and only achievement of Obama and his party.

On reflection, Americans — especially those who elected Mr. Trump — might well conclude, as did de Tocqueville, that for the good of themselves, their families, their republic, and their posterity, U.S. foreign policy from here on out ought to be one that “consists much more in abstaining than in doing.”

 

–Endnote:

–1.) Mansfield and Winthrop (Eds. and Trans). Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002, p. 219.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Mr. Trump, stop being an ass. America First and support for Israel are polar opposites

Mr. Trump, stop being played as a dumb ass by Jewish-Americans. Every American soldier, Marine, and U.S. civilian who has died or been wounded or maimed since Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1996 has been the victim — in significant part — of the record of slavish and largely unquestioning U.S. support for Israel’s national security interests.

This kind of policy requires the utter abandonment of all the tenets inherent in the concept of America First. Together, your selection for ambassador to Israel — a supporter of West Bank settlements; that is, the brazen theft of Palestinian land — and your promise to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem will do four disastrous things: they will kill and maim more U.S. military personnel; decrease U.S. national security; prolong America’s Islam war by decades; and irreparably rupture the trust of your political base’s faith in your promise of putting America first. Proceed in the direction you are setting and you will be from the first day of your presidency nothing more than one more post-1945 U.S. president who is a slave to Israel’s national security interests, and the hapless pawn of disloyal Jewish Americans, their organizations, and their journals.

The only obligation the United States has to Israel is to never stand in the way of that country’s right to defend itself according to its own best lights. Building West Bank settlements, driving all Palestinians into Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or making war on Iran and Hizballah are all decisions that can only be made by Israelis and their government.

The key point is that while no other nation has the right to intervene to stop Israel from exercising its right to self-defense, neither does any nation have any obligation — legal or moral — to allow itself to be tarred with the brush of disaster which may accompany Israel’s foreign policy or military actions.

And, Mr. Trump, that is precisely the spot in which Israel and and the leadership of the American-Jewish community want to put you in: namely fighting wars on their behalf.

As long as you choose to tie the United States to such things as Israel’s settlement building, and volunteer to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, you will be further uniting the Muslim world in their hatred for the republic, telling American parents that their soldier-children should die for Israeli rather than U.S. interests, and advising U.S. taxpayers that they will continue to be forced by a small and disloyal American-Jewish cabal to shell out billions of dollars to build and defend Israel, money that, as you said during the campaign, is needed to accomplish the same tasks in America.

The American republic was not formed to be the cats-paw of any foreign power — especially one irrelevant to U.S. interests, like Israel — or any disloyal gaggle of Americans. Neither is there anything manly or self-respecting in you authorizing such Israel First goals as are signified by your ambassadorial choice and the plan to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Remember that the supporters of both goals are the same people and organizations who hysterically vilified you, lied about you, and advised all Americans to vote for Hillary Clinton. You owe them nothing, Mr. Trump, and America owes neither them nor Israel another dollar or another military life. It is time, Mr. Trump, to stop playing the fool for Israel, Israel First, the Neoconservatives, and at U.S. Congress that is controlled by all three.

A prolonged and ultimately losing war with Islam or America First, Mr. Trump? It’s up to you.

Posted in Articles | Tagged | 1 Comment