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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

–3.) Ibid., p. 224

–4.) Ibid., p. 94

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

Damn Iraq, start caring for America First

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let Iraq disintegrate, America must not re-intervene

The media’s frenzy over the Sunni mujahedin advance toward Baghdad is a stark reminder to all Americans of the dire costs exacted from them by the U.S. government’s unnecessary interventions in the affairs of other countries and peoples. Today’s stories from Iraq underline the total waste flowing from the 2003 U.S. intervention in Iraq, the costs of which exceed $1 trillion, 5,000 dead U.S. service personnel, many more thousands of soldiers and Marines wounded and maimed, and an unending and apparently un-endable war with the Muslim world.

It was easy, from the start, to see where U.S. intervention in Iraq would lead. Even a dumbass like myself correctly predicted the mess we are now seeing there in the substance of several books published between 2002 and 2011. Such predictions were not rocket science, a little knowledge of human nature and history were all a person needed to know that today’s events were all but inevitable. And if you did not have time for studying human nature or history, you merely had to recall what the Founding Father’s said about the unavoidable lethal consequences for the American nation that would flow from unnecessary U.S. intervention abroad.

In a nutshell, here is what the bipartisan U.S. interventionists and Neoconservatives — remember Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and most pro-Israel Democrats wanted war — managed in the space of little more than a decade.

–1.) They took a stable and effectively if brutally governed Iraq and destroyed it, and had nothing in hand or mind to maintain that status quo ante.

–2.) They destroyed, ironically, Israel’s last, best hope of survival by eliminating Saddam’s regime, which blocked the westward movement of Sunni jihadis. Now Iraq and Syria are verge on being controlled by Islamists, and, once that is a reality, Jordan will be knocked off. The bipartisan U.S. supporters of the Iraq war — many of whom are dogmatically pro-Israel — brought the jihad to Israel’s borders.

–3.) They supported the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad’s Sunnis and gave the city and country to an oppressive Iran-supported Shia regime, thereby knowingly planting the seeds of Iraq’s current sectarian/civil war and disintegration.

Quite a decade’s worth of negative achievements for the fundamentally anti-U.S. American interventionists, is it not? They invaded and occupied a country where American had no genuine national interests at risk as long as Saddam held sway. Though never intending to win in Iraq, they merrily plowed the lives and limbs of our soldiers and Marines into mostly sterile soil of a place irrelevant to the United States, but invaluable to the U.S. oil and arms industries and the domestic and foreign lobbies that poison and manipulate our political system.

What to do now? First, stay out of Iraq completely and utterly. To re-intervene would cost more American money and lives, and it would drive-up oil prices even faster. It also would amount not only to the United States again intervening in an oil-rich Muslim country, but intervening in a Sunni-Shia religious war on the side of the Shia, who are fiercely hated by the overwhelmingly Sunni Islamic world. Since the Obama administration — like its predecessor — would not intend to win or finally settle anything if it re-intervenes, the Sunni mujahedin will prevail; their victory will be seen by most Muslims as the Islamists’ defeating the United States In Iraq for a second time; and that victory will reinforce bin Laden’s promise that no nation-state can defeat the mujahedin if God finds their efforts worthy, which He seems to have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Second, the national government must act to defend the United States here at home in North America by getting the hell out of the way. Because Obama and his fellow environmental ideologues have done nothing since 2008 to move the United States toward energy self-sufficiency — all successful efforts on energy have been private sector-led — Americans are going to have to tighten their belts and ride out the higher gas prices that are coming because of events in Iraq. But, now, the XL Pipeline must be immediately started, and permits for drilling on Federal on- and off-shore lands must be issued as quickly as possible. Energy self-reliance is still years off but now is the time force Obama and his lieutenants act for the first time as American patriots, rather than elite professors who regard Americans as laboratory animals upon whom they can conduct their social, economic, environmental, and interventionist experiments to see how much tax they can pay and how much pain they can stand.

Third, Americans must look sharp and finally see that the Republican and Democratic interventionists — they are majorities in both parties — are killing the United States economically and politically; are earning us nearly innumerable enemies; and are involving us willy-nilly in unnecessary wars to protect, with American blood and money, the interests of countries from Eastern Europe to the Middle East to Sub-Saharan Africa, countries where a change in government or even their demise would have no quantifiable impact on the genuine national security concerns of the United States.

The truth is that since the end of the Soviet Union, unrelenting bipartisan U.S. interventionism under the two Bushes, Clinton, and Obama has earned America only defeat, hatred, death, limb-less soldiers and Marines, bankruptcy, and diminished national security. History will show that Dr. Ron Paul was right about the nation-killing costs of foreign intervention score at every step of the way. Perhaps the current disaster in Iraq will show whether his Senator-son is a chip of the old block and eager to defend America, or an acquiescent interventionist willing to tack in any direction necessary to have a shot at the presidency.

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

For causing America’s Afghan defeat … indict President Obama

In looking at the trade President Obama made of five senior Taleban political, intelligence, and military officials for the return of a U.S. Army deserter, Sgt. Bergdahl, one is struck most forcefully, I think, by Obama and his lieutenants’ uncaring attitude toward U.S. national security.

The five returned Taleban leaders will significantly assist Mullah Omar’s organization in destroying the Afghan government the U.S. and NATO installed in Afghanistan. That destruction may take a while — all events in Afghanistan take much longer than anticipated — but it will occur, and Afghanistan will become not what it was on 10 September 2001, but something much worse, a state governed by a government that is deeply Islamic, one which is supported by Pakistan and all of America’s allies in the Gulf, and, most important, one that will believe Allah has given it complete victory over the world’s only superpower. From the backwoods, unsophisticated, and almost medieval regime it was in 2001, the Taleban organization that will return to power in Afghanistan will be living, visible proof for all Muslims that Osama bin Laden was correct: The Americans are cowardly paper tigers; that they are so effete that they could not tolerate the loss of less than 200 lives a year; and that the trust of the mujahedin in Allah and their own efforts on His behalf were more than enough to defeat the greatest power in history.

And when the Taleban regime returns to power, it will make Afghanistan a much bigger base than it ever was before in which Islamist fighters from the world over can train, get to know each other, and plan attacks against the United States, its allies, Israel, and the Arab tyrannies. The Taleban and the Islamists they host will be sure that U.S. ground forces will never return, and they will know that the forces Washington may use against them — drones, Special Forces, and CIA covert operations — have already shown themselves utterly unable to stall the growth, spread, and effectiveness of Islamist forces, let alone win a war. The deadly pin-pricks Washington may apply against the new Taleban regime and their Islamist guests will certainly will be a lethal nuisance to them, but they will not slow the growing power and numbers of the mujahedin, and they will remind all Muslims that the world’s greatest power is not manly enough to defend itself in any meaningful way.

The foregoing scenario is not, of course, inevitable, nothing in human affairs is inevitable. Still, it is more than likely to occur, and if it does it will be a long-term national security disaster for the United States. At the moment there seems to be nothing we can do militarily to prevent this event, so the next best option is for Americans to accept that we have suffered a humiliating and comprehensive political-military defeat in Afghanistan and to bring to account those responsible for it, starting — and perhaps ending — with Barack Obama.

How to do this? Well, first, impeachment is out of the question. The Congress is completely unable and unwilling to do anything to protect the American people from what has become the everyday-lawlessness of Obama and Eric Holder. An impeachment proceeding would immediately be identified by the Democrats and their slaves in the mainstream media as an effort by the nasty, racist Republicans to unseat the noble Black man who aspires to help all citizens by becoming America’s first, post-1776 monarch. Impeachment also is the road to perdition because it would give the Democrats’ various colonies of automatons — Ivy Leaguers, Blacks (even though Obama has been their economic scourge), school teachers, illegal immigrants, abortionists, environmentalists, gays, movie stars, most journalists, animal righters, socialists, the voting-rights-for-felons crowd, etc. — a cause to rally around in defense of their liege lord. Indeed, even a successful impeachment would be a defeat for America because the Democrats would not hesitate a second before bringing America to the brink of a race or civil war.

So forget impeachment and, in an odd way, even be grateful that Obama was twice elected to the presidency. His two terms have proven to all Americans that a Black president can be just as big a liar, just as big a child in foreign policy, just as big an incompetent, just as big a pawn of Wall Street, and just as big a demagogue as any White president.

How, then, to proceed against Obama? One way would be for would-be prosecutors to look at Article III, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution. That short section reads: “Treason against the United States, shall consist in only levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

It would, I think, be quite hard, though not impossible, to prove that Obama waged war against the United States. To wage war against America, Obama would have to have some semblance of manliness — he has none — and he would need one of those guns he hates. Indeed, any fair-minded jury looking at a man like Obama could only conclude that he was fit to wage war only against those who cannot defend themselves, like unborn Americans and U.S. soldiers, Marines, and intelligence officers sworn to defend the Constitution.

But treason, as the U.S. Constitution states, can also consist of a citizen of the United States “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” This is the clause that could allow a patriotic prosecutor to help Americans and their wounded country by bringing Obama to book. Consider the following of Obama’s actions — and they are his and his alone — which irrefutably have given aid and comfort to America’s Islamist enemies, and each of which has the constitutionally requisite “two Witnesses to the same overt Act.”

–1.) Ending the CIA’s rendition program and enhanced interrogations with nothing to replace them, thereby partially blinding the U.S. Intelligence Community and allowing the mujahedin to operate more securely and with more aggressiveness.

–2.) Initiating the unconstitutional war that destroyed Qadhafi’s Libyan regime, an important ally in the war against al-Qaeda, and which facilitated the growth of Islamist militancy across the North African region and into Sub-Saharan Africa.

–3.) Authorizing rules-of-engagement for our soldiers and Marines that made them more targets than killers, costing many unnecessary American deaths and leaving countless mujahedin alive to attack us another day.

–4.) Almost completely ending drone strikes since mid-December, 2013, allowing the Taleban, al-Qaeda and their allies time to safely regroup, refit, and meet to plan next steps.

–5.) Giving the Taleban and its allies, in 2010, a promise that most U.S.-NATO forces would be withdrawn without victory by the end of 2014, thereby declaring America’s acceptance of defeat by its Islamist enemies.

–6.) Giving the Taleban and its allies, in 2014. a guarantee that there would be only 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and only 1,000 by the end of 2016, thereby reconfirming his 2010 pledge to Mullah Omar that he would facilitate America’s defeat.

–7.) Returning to the Taleban five senior leaders who will substantively contribute to the Taleban’s destruction of all America and NATO has endeavored to accomplish in Afghanistan since 2001.

Each of the foregoing actions clearly presented a gift of “aid and comfort” to our Islamist enemies. There can be no quibbling on that score. There also can be no credible argument that Obama took the actions with good intentions and never thought that they would produce such intensely damaging “unanticipated consequences” for the United States. The negative impact of each of the foregoing actions on U.S. national security was completely predictable before it was taken, and Obama certainly was warned of that fact by U.S. intelligence officers. Should Obama, under oath, argue that the consequences of the actions were not predictable, he would simply add perjury to his troubles.

In his still invaluable Farewell Address (1796), George Washington warned his countrymen always to be on their “[g]uard against the postures of pretended patriotism.” In my lifetime, no U.S. president has been more of a sham patriot than Barack Obama, a man with zero respect for the U.S. Constitution and a man always ready to flout the law with his “phone and pen.” The charge against Obama of giving aid and comfort to our Islamist enemies is an open and shut case. The question for Americans now, I suppose, is whether there is a prosecutor in the country who is ready to do the right thing for our republic, or do all U.S. lawyers and law professors share Obama’s contempt for the Constitution and clear preference for tyrannical government?

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

A Memorial Day postscript, more Obama-made death is delivered to the U.S. military

President Obama clearly thinks that non-Ivy-League educated Americans are the stupidest, most gullible people on earth.

On the day after his trip to Afghanistan to try to fool us into believing that he and his party care about the lives of America’s soldier-children, Obama announced that he is going to leave about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after the main body withdraws. These troops are going to train the Afghan army — which spends much of its time killing U.S. and NATO troops — and conduct “counter-terrorism missions” against the Taleban and their allies, to whom Obama and his party are giving Afghanistan back as a base from which to attack the United States.

Now tell me, what does Obama think that 10,000 U.S. troops — of whom, at best, 1 in 3 is a shooter — can do to stem the coming, Obama-ensured Taleban tidal wave that will soon control Afghanistan, when an army of 125,000 U.S. and NATO troops could do nothing but lose to the Taleban and its Islamist allies. The idea that 10,000 troops — being attacked from the Taleban in front and the anti-U.S. Afghan army from behind — can do what 125,000 could not is a conclusion that only a reality-averse, Harvard-educated ideologue could come up with. Obama is deliberately consigning the 10,000 stay-behinders to a slow-motion nightmare of death and maiming in the name of a democratic regime in Kabul that does not now and never will exist. This decision presents Obama, more than ever, as our murderer-in-chief.

And so why is Obama marooning 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a place where we have no friends and which is bigger than Texas? There is only one reason — politics. He intends to pullout what remains of this tiny force by the end of 2016, which just happens to be timed to allow Hillary Clinton — or whatever other merry murderer the Democrats may run — to campaign on the claim that the Democrats ended the war in Afghanistan, as well as the one in Iraq. So whoever among our troops dies, losses a limb, or suffers combat-related mental illness in Afghanistan between now and the end of 2016 will suffer their woes for the electoral advantage of the Democratic Party.

Will Americans ever have enough of Obama and his death-loving Democratic Party? How long, for example, will they continue to believe that bloodthirsty people like Mrs. Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the other antiquated but still fanatic Democratic feminists really care about the lives of 300 Nigerian school girls — except as pawns to be used to win votes and put more of our troops in harm’s way — when they have done nothing but applaud and champion laws that have, since 1973, allowed more than 55 million unborn Americans to be deliberately butchered? How long can we Americans claim to be decent and sane human beings while supporting a party peopled by would-be tyrants like Obama and real-life slaughterers like the Democratic sisterhood?

“Revolutions,” Thomas Paine wrote in 1792, “have for their object, a change in the moral condition of governments.” For decent Americans, the indelible contempt of Obama and his party for the lives of Americans suggests that the time to seek such change is fast approaching.

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