To the Washington Post: Is there anyone there who knows anything about America?

Late in the afternoon of 7 September 2016, the Washington Post published a story that carried the following title, “Trump calls for higher defense spending after months of isolationist talk“. (1) The most germane part of this fundamentally uneducated and anti-Trump article is in the two following paragraphs.

–“As soon as I take office, I will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military. It is so depleted. We will rebuild our military,” Trump said Wednesday during a speech at the Union League in Philadelphia. “This will increase certainty in the defense community as to funding and will allow military leaders to plan for our future defense needs.”

–“The speech marked a striking shift toward conservative orthodoxy for the real estate developer, whose candidacy on foreign affairs was built on an anti-establishment, anti-interventionist message. Trump has often dismissed the value of consulting experts on international relations, pointing to upheaval in the Middle East as proof that their policies have been ineffective and asserting last year that he knew “more about ISIS than the generals do.”

Now, Trump has not once called for an “isolationist” foreign policy for the United States. Indeed, no political figure of any prominence in U.S. history has ever called for an isolationist foreign policy. Why? Because we are a trading nation and so must be involved in commerce in all areas of the world, as well as in joint scientific endeavors, banking relationships, and dozens of other dealings that are part of being a nation-state existing in a world of nation-states. As Pat Buchanan once said, the term “isolationist” has been used, since the 1930s, as a slur by those upper-class and foreign-owned Americans who want the United States to intervene in other peoples’ wars in the name of democracy and freedom, as well as by malignant foreigners — Britain and France in the late 1930s, Israel, NATO, and the EU today — who want us to intervene in the wars they have started or want to fight, and, in essence, fight their wars, pay for them, and then clean up the postwar mess. Since 1945, the adjective “isolationist” also has been used to identify Americans opposed to U.S. intervention in wars that are none of the republic’s concern as pro-communists, America-haters, and anti-Semites. The term “America First”, of course, is used for the same vile purpose.

The author of the Post article does, most remarkably, stumble onto the truth when, in the second paragraph above, he notes that Trump has championed a non-interventionist foreign policy. Non-interventionism is not in any conceivable way a deviant kind of foreign policy. It is, after all, the foreign policy the republic’s Founders decided was best able to serve genuine U.S. national-security interests in perpetuity. While it reigned in the White House, the United States fought few if any overseas wars. Since it was abandoned — by William McKinley and the loathsome Woodrow Wilson — America has had, quite literally, almost nothing but unnecessary wars.

For the Founders, non-intervention simply meant that (a) America would deal amicably with other nations on any number of issues, save for those nations that chose to attack or tried to subvert the republic, and (b) would never become involved in foreign wars that posed no threat to the United States, even if one or more of the nations involved in such irrelevant-to-America wars was thought to be a friend of the United States.

Because they knew history and human nature better than any current U.S. politician, and because they also knew that history always repeats itself, the Founders believed that war brought death, deep debt and high taxes, internal divisions, and the tyranny that is the inevitable product of the war-engendered growth of excessive executive power. They believed these results would occur even in wars that America had to fight because they were life-or-death struggles for the republic’s existence; that is, necessary wars. Naturally enough, then, the Founders were confident that involving America in other peoples’ wars that were irrelevant to U.S. national security would be a gross stupidity that would unjustifiably impose on Americans the unending grief resident in the host of plagues just mentioned. For the Founders, wars were undertaken only for matters that meant life or death for the republic; they were never, ever, fought for the purpose of winning abstract and unattainable goals — freedom, liberty, women’s rights, secularism, the “right” of a country to exist, etc. — for foreign nations.

Trump, so far, has been a non-interventionist, which, he has made clear, means neither isolationism nor pacifism. Likewise, he clearly sees that there are deranged carnivores lose in the world who would quickly harm America if they concluded it would not respond immediately and decisively. Indeed, such miscreants are doing so today because of the pacific behavior and idealistic — and therefore laughable — rhetoric of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Founders, especially Washington, Jay, Hamilton, and Knox, held that a non-interventionist foreign policy would protect the republic only if America had a military strong enough to smash any nation that believed — as Iran does in 2016 — it could do as it pleased and America would not defend itself to the utmost. In short, non-intervention and a large and capable military must go hand-in-hand.

So the Post, as always, is wrong. Trump remains a non-interventionist — not an isolationist — and, as the Post’s article notes, he continues to politely and clearly inform the Europeans that NATO is a deservedly dying entity because (a) they will not fund their own defense; (b) they are without commonsense, except for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic; (c) they bait Russia with their democracy-mongering — as in the Ukraine — while counting on the U.S. military to rescue them; (d) Americans are no longer is willing to go war automatically if one of the other 27 NATO nations does so; and (e) because Europe’s leaders have already mandated the suicide of their civilization through the door they have opened to unlimited numbers of Muslim migrants.

Whether in 1790 or 2016, the Founders’ non-interventionist foreign policy fits the United States and the American people like a glove, one that can ensure its survival, sovereignty, independence, and to the greatest possible extent in this war-loving world, its peace. For now, Trump has it precisely right. More power to him.




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

Of politics, scoundrels, and war at summer’s end

On a hot and wet September afternoon in northern Virginia, a number of interesting matters appear in the day’s news.

–I searched for “Donald Trump” on GOOGLE News about 1330 and a page of 2o items came up, 19 of them anti-Trump and ranging from negative to scurrilous. The 2oth item is a piece reporting that the latest IBD/TIPP Poll — said to be the most accurate poll in each of the last three presidential elections — has Trump and Clinton in a dead heat, meaning that Hillary has blown a seven-point lead. One would think that turn-around would merit GOOGLE putting the story on its “Top Stories Page”, but it is not there. Trump is a consigned to a page that includes such vital news as “Democrats troll Donald Trump with a Taco Truck in Colorado” and an interview with a harrowing, pink-haired creature named Cindy Lauper who claims Trump is “like Hitler.” I guess you do not need to be sane or talented to work at GOOGLE so long as your are a Democrat and amoral. And who knows, maybe it is not Trump that cost Hillary her lead. Maybe its just that Americans are catching onto the fact she’s a felon, or perhaps they have heard Michael Savage’s priceless and hilarious question about her: “Why would you vote for someone who looks like Stalin’s housekeeper?”

–The news also says that Henry Kissinger and George Schultz may endorse Hillary Clinton. We will see whether they do, but it would be nice to have two more war-mongering, Israel-Firsters aligned with Clinton under the tent that now houses nearly all of the republic’s internal enemies. I have to admit that I am amazed how many of these purported foreign-policy gurus have endorsed a felon and a woman who the FBI Director said is “recklessly careless” about the handling of highly classified intelligence materials. We know the lying scum Hillary and her family are, but what are we to make of this pool of men and women — say, the fifty who signed the anti-Trump letter and the generals who said the U.S. military would not obey a President Trump — who have spent their careers in responsible defense and foreign-policy posts and who now feel compelled not only to to support a lying felon, but to claim that the republic’s security and future can be entrusted to her care? Surely, their choice ought to disqualify them from any future employment by the national government, and it ought to foreclose the national government from doing business with any company they own, work for, or sit on the board of directors. No need to fret over these folk finding work, however, they have exactly the kind of avariciousness and moral vacuity that will find a lucrative home at GOOGLE or FACEBOOK.

–It also occurred to me today that it is a little more than two years since Obama reintervened in Iraq, arguing that what is going on there has something to do with genuine U.S. national security interests. Well, we are now two years into this Obama mistake and less than 20 U.S. service personnel have been killed in Iraq. Those lives were, of course, wasted; none would have been killed there if Obama had not reintervened. Indeed, IS has killed far more Americans inside the United States, those in San Bernardino who died because Obama’s immigration system is criminally negligent, and 45 in Orlando, where one IS shooter inexplicably was able to kill that group — while he was texting and speaking on the phone — without being overpowered. Juxtaposing these events must lead to the conclusion that our chief national security interests are here in North America, and that the national security interests that are at risk in Iraq and Syria belong to others for whom we need not be concerned.

–On this same issue, it is only fair to tote up the pluses and minuses that have occurred since Obama re-intervened. On the plus size — if you are wearing rose-colored glasses — IS has lost Palmyra, al-Ramadi, and may lose Mosul, although it is worth noting that since IS defeats were declared in the first two cities, the regional media have consistently reported fighting raging in and around both, and the same phenomena is occurring vis-a-vis the much touted IS defeat in Sirte, Libya. Now if you think that the West had a reason to to fear the growth of a mighty IS Caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and its subsequent expansion worldwide, the fall of the cities may well look like a great development. Well, the IS Caliphate was never a threat to U.S. national security interests; indeed, the more it grew, the more IS wanted to keep it, and — given its static physical assets — the more capacity the U.S. military would have to to destroy it. Without that project on their hands, IS will return to what it does best, and what the U.S. military unquestionably does worst, namely, insurgency. By any commonsense assessment, an IS insurgency is very much more likely to expand internationally — witness the deadly attack in Davao in the Philippines on 2 September 2016 — than is an IS-led Caliphate, which creates nothing but that which can be easily destroyed by conventional weaponry, if the America and the West could just identify and then elect and appoint political leaders and general officers who are champions of “America First” and not politically correct cowards.

–On the minus side of Obama’s military reintervention lies an array of nightmares. The London Mail Online reported this week, for example, that after all of the West’s efforts in Syria and Iraq, Iran now commands Shia forces in Syria that out number the the Syrian Army; 60,000 to 73,000 for the former, 50,000 for the latter. How is that for success? Iran now has the strongest military forces in both Syria and Iraq, a success that would have been utterly impossible for Tehran to attain if George W. Bush and Tony Blair and not invaded Iraq in 2003, and if their U.S. and UK successors had not mindlessly continued to reinforce defeat there. And there is more. Turkish President Erdogan’s Islamist government has now invaded Syria, less to hurt IS than to exterminate Kurds. Erdogan and his sidekicks also have long dreamed of reviving the Ottoman Empire and restoring its sway across the Middle East, and they now have the chance to give it a go. The Ottoman Empire, of course, is not a happy historical memory for any Arab and so more war is on the way. And then there is Russia — another power hated by Sunni Arabs for its conduct in Afghanistan and its atheism during the Soviet era — which now has military bases in Syria and Iran, though access to the latter appears to be on-again, off-again. Now, a commonsense view would be one of delight in seeing Moscow assume responsibility for the mess in the Middle East at a time when its own rapidly growing Sunni population is radicalizing and causing problems at home, and when Islamist forces will soon be advancing into Central Asia from Afghanistan. Talk about too many irons in the fire. But our bipartisan governing elite — that is, Israel First, the Neocons, the media, and the academy — will see this development as a “dire national-security threat to the United States [read Israel]”, and, if Hillary is elected, will make sure that the United States relieves Russia of its coming, well-merited disaster, and will then see to it that Americans will pay for more lost interventionist wars with their taxes, the lives of their children, and, ultimately, their liberty and republic.

All told, it was not a totally agreeable afternoon of reading and thinking. Trump’s rise in the polls brings a smile, but the willingness of prominent Americans to advocate the election of a felon, to behave disloyally in favor of a foreign country, and to seek to involve America in endless war is deeply disturbing. That said, the utter fecklessness of continuing U.S.-led military interventionism — always championed by those grandees who oppose Trump — and the chaos it has created in the region may yet save the republic by facilitating an all-out Shia-vs-Sunni war. I, for one, will pray for that happy event, as well as for Black Americans deciding at long last to try and unshackle themselves from the chains clutched by Democratic overseers, men and women who have given them, and all-Americans, only slavery, secession, civil war, segregation, and poverty-producing socialism.

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

The Clintons and Israel First: Jackals killing the republic, courting widespread civil unrest

The presidential campaign of 2016 has so far been a humdinger. With all of the republic’s most dangerous enemies gathered under the leadership of the Clintons, the race has become a kind of life-and-death match. A Trump win would see him and Governor Pence initiate America’s long road back to prosperity, nationalism, commonsense, social cohesiveness, and a war-avoiding foreign policy. A Clinton win, on the other hand, would force the issue of how dissenting Americans will choose to dispose, with some finality, of what surely will be Hillary’s continuing implementation of tyranny. The building blocks for more tyranny would be Clinton’s naming of Supreme Court justices to codify more legal preference for her party’s various slave colonies; her starting and losing of more unnecessary and bankrupting interventionist wars; her maintenance of  a coddled, bribed, and controlled media; her imposition of punitive taxes on working Americans and their employers to support foreigners, migrants, illegal aliens, the Democrats’ slave colonies, as well as to eliminate middle-class jobs via trade deals and the fabricated climate-change crisis; and her party’s final destruction of the Constitution, the idea of equality before the law, the middle class, the primacy of the English language, American history, and the Christianity that always has been and still is a key part of the republic’s social fabric.

In some ways this reality prompts memories of the period between Lincoln’s election in November, 1860, and his inauguration in March, 1861, which historians have termed the “Secession Winter”. Throughout those months, Lincoln publicly argued that the southern states had not been attacked by the national government, and that he had no intention of doing so or of trying to deny the region any of its rights under the Constitution, including the right to own slaves. The southerners nonetheless rebelled and declared themselves an independent state. They acted not because of the existing ominous, though not lethally threatening political environment, but on their fear of what Lincoln, the Republicans, and the abolitionists might do to their liberties and property as 1861 unfolded. They chose to start a civil war — or a war of independence, if you like — and not to wait for a physical or legal attack of some kind by the Lincoln administration. That probably was a poor decision by southern leaders, but it is understandable, perhaps even defensible. Reality, after all, is often based as much on perception as fact, and the southerners’ almost unanimous perception was that Lincoln and his administration directly threatened their liberty and property and so made it time for them to leave the Union.

No such problem will face Americans if Hillary Clinton is elected in November, 2016. If Clinton is elected, Americans who are opposed to her, her party of criminals, thugs, racists, and theorists, and, most important, to tyranny, will not have to wonder, worry, or fret about what she and her administration might do to destroy their history, jobs, wealth, traditions, liberty, Constitution, and religion. Nor will they have to wonder if tens of millions more unborn Americans will be murdered and dismembered for profit, or if tens of thousands more of the republic’s soldier-children will be killed and maimed in unnecessary, Israel-and-NATO-protecting  wars. All of these things, Americans will know with a terrible certainty, will be givens.

If Clinton wins, the republic, this time around, will face a much shorter “Secession Winter”, with inauguration day in January rather than March. But even that shorter interregnum is not a problem. Americans will know what is coming from a Clinton administration, and unlike our southern brethren 150 years ago, they will not have to make a decision based on fears about what might to happen to them and their property and liberties. They will know, without any reason for doubt, what is going to happen. The election of Mrs. Clinton means the end of the republic, perhaps not immediately, but soon and conclusively. But, all thanks to God, Americans will be able to deal with that reality on the basis of hard fact and not only fears and assumptions. At that time the die will be cast, and Americans may well confront a reason for rebellion that will require them to execute the duty they were assigned in the Declaration of Independence.  “Prudence, indeed,” the Continental Congress wrote as a committee-of-the whole,

will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So the republic is headed for momentous and perhaps tragic and bloody times. Things may still work out without a repeat of 1861 and all that came in its train. Let us all work and vote for that end, and pray with utmost sincerity all goes well. In the meantime, the following items are worth considering. They are crystal clear auguries of what a Hillary Clinton administration will bring; namely, more lies, corruption, criminality, war, foreign influence and masters, bankruptcy, arrogance, debt, and unconstitutional national-government diktats for what were once the free and independent American republic and people.

–A Tale of Heroic Feminism:  That increasingly feeble icon of modern, self-reliant, liberated, and independent womanhood, Hillary Clinton, bellied up to the bar at the FBI and stoutly defended herself by telling Comey’s boys, “Colin made me do it.” Yes, Hillary and her aides betrayed their oaths of office, broke espionage and perjury laws, and treated their countrymen and their republic as expendable because of the Machiavellian advice of – a MAN.  Mrs. Clinton — posing as innocent little Hillary of Sunnybrook Farm —  wants all of us to believe that she resorted to criminality only because of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who, she said, used a similar e-mail system during his tenure. General Powell’s office quickly released a polite memo claiming that Powell could not recall offering her the guidance she described, but he had sent her an e-mail memo saying he had used an AOL account for non-classified e-mails because the State Department did not have an unclassified e-mail system when he served there, a situation rectified long before Clinton was appointed to the office. General Powell’s office has since expressed some anger that Mrs. Clinton is trying to “pin” her criminality on the General. Nice try, Mrs. Clinton, but the sum of this story is that you lied again and you were called on it by the highly respected General Powell. You probably thought that General Powell would meekly allow his reputation for honor and honesty to be shredded by your lie because of all fine things that you and your party have done for Black people in America. Well, Mrs. C., the good general would not take the fall for you, and he may well be thinking along the lines of Mr. Trump’s question, “What the hell have Blacks got to lose by trying something new?” After all General Powell’s career was based on hard, republic-defending, and life-risking work, and it flourished during the tenure of the very Republicans that you, Mrs. C., and your fellow Simon Legree-like Democratic overseers deem racists. And by the way, Mrs. Clinton, was it not your husband who said of Barack Obama, “he’s the kind of guy we send to get our coffee”? It must be hoped that ol’ Marse Billy sees that General Powell is a decent, brave, and patriotic man and decides that he is at least worthy of stepping out and fetching bagels, maybe even croissants.

–Contribute now or forever hold your bribe: That felonious couple, Hillary and Bill Clinton, have announced that the Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign donations if Hillary is elected president. This is precisely like the national government saying that it will prohibit the sale of beer on 15 September 2016, and no American should dare to buy beer in the run-up to that date. In the latter case, beer would be flying off the shelves and stockpiled. Just so in the case of the Clintons. The Clinton Foundation’s decision to abandon part of its criminal enterprise if Mrs. C. becomes president is simply a message that says, “Hey foreigners! You better hurry up and buy our influence before election day – and, yes, the price has gone up — because if Mrs. C. wins, we are only going to betray America for those of you who have fully paid up before the inauguration.” Rather than a patriotic decision to stop doing the bidding of foreign donors at the expense of America’s national interests, the Clinton Foundation has just decided to launch a slick, intense, and short-duration campaign for massive illegal donations from foreigners, which it will collect at the syndicate’s big meeting in New York City in September 2016. The banner over that meeting’s dais will simply say “Bribe us Now, We Will Play for You Later!”

–Israel First is the Republicans’ and the republic’s cancer, Part 1: From the point in the Republican presidential primaries that Donald Trump first showed potential strength, the party’s Neoconservatives and Israel-Firsters have been the core and probably the funders of the never-Trump movement. That group includes Bill Kristol and his crew of fifth columnists, barely disguised as journalists, at the Weekly Standard; the similarly oriented fifth-column staffs at Commentary and National Review; Israel-First buffoons like Michael Bloomberg and Mark Levin; and FOX’s seemingly endless crew of Israel-First shills, Kristol, again, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, the hosts of “The Five”, easily history’s all-time worst television news program, and the network’s team of always wrong on war, but always pro-Israel retired U.S. general officers. Will and Krauthammer are in a class of their own. Each drips personal hatred for Trump; indeed, Will seems half-or-more crazed when dispensing his anti-Trump venom, and not infrequently Brett Baier, host of the fine Special Report program, has had to correct or inject himself into one of Will’s anti-Trump tirades to maintain a bare semblance of “fair and balanced.” This past week, however, it was Krauthammer’s turn to show the ever-bright, always dastardly trademark of Israel First; namely, that U.S. interests can go to either hell or war if that will stop Trump. Mr. Baier’s panel was discussing Mrs. Clinton’s lengthy list of foreign-policy liabilities, when Krauthammer gleefully noted that Trump would be in political trouble if “his friend” Putin invaded Ukraine. Clearly, Krauthammer did not care if the United States became involved in a war with Russia that would have to go nuclear because the rest of NATO has unilaterally disarmed since the fall of the USSR. No, Krauthammer, Kristol, and the rest of the disloyal Jewish-American fifth columnists are willing to run that risk – or any risk – if it would help to get the completely AIPAC- and Israel First-owned Mrs. Clinton elected president.

–Israel First is the Republicans’ and the republic’s cancer, Part 2:  On 10 August 2016, CNN published a list of twelve U.S. Senators and Congressmen who are not supporting Donald Trump.(1) Having seen Israel-First’s deranged and vicious hatred of Mr. Trump, I thought it might be interesting to see if the anti-Trump Republican members of Congress found on the CNN list are tied to Israel First and have been bidden by their fifth-column masters to oppose Trump, even though it might mean sinking their party, countrymen, and republic by helping to elect a perjurer, influence-peddler, and authoritarian like Hillary Clinton. What I found about the anti-Trumpers, after doing just a small bit of research, follows and speaks for itself. All of the dozen on CNN’s list are recipients of pro-Israel funding — although several sold themselves pretty cheaply – and some also have received one or more free trips to Israel. In essence, Israel First’s leaders said “jump” to the dozen Republican members of the U.S. Congress listed by CNN and those lickspittles eagerly replied “Sure, how high?” while tugging their forelocks.

–Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine): Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $112, 310 (2)

–Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska): Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $286,350

–Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois):  Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $718,246

–Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas): Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $100,354

–Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona): Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $119,350

–Senator Dean Heller (R-Nevada): Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $71,100

–Congressman Scott Rigell (R-Virginia): Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $2,000

–Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois): Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $22,150

–Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $67,650, and four free trips to Israel valued at $66,794 (3)

–Congressman Charlie Dent (R-Pennsylvania): Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $5,750 and one free trip to Israel valued at $17,112

–Congressman Mike Coffman (R-Colorado): Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $11,400, and one free trip to Israel valued at $14,624

–Congressman Bob Dold (R-Illinois): Contributions from pro-Israel groups – $118,320, and one free trip to Israel valued at $11,119




–2.) This website provided the contribution totals for each candidate named by CNN. The total for each senator, per the website, covers contributions for the last six years of available data, Apr 1, 2009 – Mar 31, 2015, including contributions to presidential campaigns. The totals for each member of the House of Representatives, per the website, covers contributions for the last two years of available data, Apr 1, 2013 – Mar 31, 2015, including contributions to presidential campaigns.

–3.) This site provided the data for the free-trips to Israel taken by four of the Representatives noted above. The data is from 2011, and the four may or may not have taken more free trips to Israel by now.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

For God’s sake, Mr, Trump, man-up and stop playing the game of America’s internal foes

Mr. Trump, you have fallen into a snare placed for you by the Republican establishment people on your team, most of the media, and by Hillary Clinton and her advisers.

The name of that trap is “complexity” and it is used by both party establishments to explain why they never solve any of the problems America faces. Oh, they promise to do so, but when they fail – and they always fail – they say it is because the problem is too “complex”, too “multifaceted, or too “nuanced”, and that it needs great amounts of time and enormous sums of money to solve. [NB: Like the “generational war” against Islam lusted for by those 50 Israel-First war-mongers who wrote you the public letter.]


Clear, commonsense, patriotic, and non-complex ideas brought you to the dance and won you the nomination, do not throw that success away by the playing the bipartisan enemy’s confuse-bilk-and-deceive-the-voters game called “complexity”.

Try the following:

Organizing Principle: AMERICA FIRST

Components of the Principle:

–Debt and War: America is broke and its military is broken, no more wars unless attacked.

–ISIS: This is an American problem only if we are attacked at home; otherwise, let the Islamists’ real enemies fight and win or lose on their own, while we belatedly act to defend North America.

–Student Debt: Kill all of the national government’s student loan programs and force the universities to compete, as well as to decide if they want to lower their extortionate, debt-creating tuition, and greatly improve and depoliticize their product, or want a mass of permanently empty lecture halls.

–Guns: Uncompromising defense of the 2nd Amendment, and talk about the legal and constitutional option it gives all Americans to — as a last resort — offer armed resistance to the tyranny being imposed on the republic by both party establishments, the media, and the academy.

–Immigration: (a) Build the wall; (b) enforce the law and deport all illegals; and (c) ban all immigration for 5 or 10 years so there is no supportable claim that one group is being discriminated against.

–Taxes: Repeat, repeat, and repeat, “Only lower taxes for all can pave the road to cutting the debt, creating jobs, and rebuilding the middle class and military.”

–Black Americans: Do not “reach out” to Black Americans, both party establishments want you to look like a fool and fail. Most Blacks have voted like mindless slaves for 50 years and are likely to keep doing so for the foreseeable future. Those who want to de-slave and attain dignity and jobs will have to make that decision for themselves and act accordingly.

–Law-and-order: Back the police full-up so long as their actions are lawful, and offer no “sympathy” or “understanding” for thugs, assassins, and looters who are “discouraged”, “frustrated”, “unemployed”, and “without hope”. The party they slavishly vote for has made and kept them that way for 50 years. They apparently like it.

 –Trade: (a) No multi-country deals, only bilateral; (a) no multi-country, trade-regulating organizations that negate U.S. sovereignty; and (c) only trade deals that increase blue-collar jobs.

–Foreign financial and military aid: None

–Allies: (a) As few as possible, none permanent; (b) none that can get us into their wars automatically; and (c) withdraw from NATO.

As the good people of Buffalo would say, Mr. Trump, you can win, but only “if ya dance wit da guys dat brung ya.”

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

A coming headline? “American elites perish in lethal storm they deliberately brewed”

 If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 28 (1)


Something near despair about the republic’s future is about the only reaction one can have when reading the media’s fatuous coverage of Trump’s words about the 2nd Amendment. Sharpening that reaction, of course, is the media’s simultaneous and knowing failure to note that, in 2008, Hillary Clinton said she would not drop out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, although far behind, because Obama might be “assassinated”. Coming from the co-leader of the Clinton political machine, which generally terminates with extreme malice those it no longer needs or deems obstacles to what it wants [NB: Most recently in Washington, DC?], Mrs. Clinton words were clearly as much incitement as comment, perhaps more. [NB: Did the Secret Service talked to her about what she said?] Currently, of course, she and her party are four-square behind their newest slave colony, the one composed of the lethally violent thugs, racists, and assassins who form the membership of Black Lives Matter.

Repeatedly in this space, I have suggested that Americans need to recall what the 2nd Amendment was and is intended to do. Yes, it assures Americans have the right and ability to defend themselves, their families, and their homes, as well as to hunt for various kinds of animals. But there is much more to it.

The other, much greater, and absolutely vital intent of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure that Americans – as a last resort – have the ability to act collectively to secure their freedom and liberties against other Americans who win public office and then fail to abide by the Constitution and/or refuse to execute laws that are already on the books. In short, the 2nd Amendment ensures that Americans perpetually have the option to choose between (a) submitting themselves like cattle, sheep, and goats to the whims of tyrants and their unconstitutional rule and (b) refusing to abide by a tyrant’s dictates and making an armed effort to subdue their tormentors. The 2nd Amendment, quite simply, is designed to allow Americans to faithfully abide by the instructions laid down in the form of a duty in the Declaration of Independence; namely, to rebel against and drive out or, if necessary, kill politicians who behave as tyrants.

And in this context it is worth saying that the Founders did not intend the 2nd Amendment to provide a right to “assassination”. In their day and ours the killing of one would-be tyrant would do little but give like-minded others the opportunity to try to become a tyrant. No, assassination is a means of exacting revenge or imposing discipline, and is most usually carried out by organized criminal groups, political gangs, or by individuals with a personal grudge against a specific person. In America today, moreover, an assassination would change nothing as the number of would-be tyrants who inhabit both political parties, along with their liberty-sapping corps of advisers, funders, academic shills, and media acolytes, are far too numerous. No, to effectively restore our republic to liberty could well require nothing less than a collective, armed, and wide-ranging American rebellion of the kind the Founders, God’s peace be upon them, presided over and risked their own lives in fighting.

The most basic reason, then, that an accurate understanding of the 2nd Amendment must be known by voters and taught to our children is the reality that the peaceful means of getting rid of would-be tyrants and restoring liberty are no longer working. The Founders spent a great deal of time in the sultry summer of 1787 crafting the constitutional means for removing presidents and other government officials – by impeachment and subsequent trial — for either their criminal activities or their deliberate violations of the U.S. Constitution. If that constitutional provision was still relevant, each of the last four presidents would have been quite easily impeached for starting wars without the congressional declaration of war the Constitution mandates, and for routinely, deliberately, and often boastfully violating their oaths of office by refusing to promptly execute and enforce the law.

Obama, of course, is the worst of this lot and should have been impeached for (a) using the IRS to persecute conservative organizations; (b) rewriting congressional legislation to meet his political needs; (c) refusing to arrest and hold/deport those foreigners who automatically become felons by crossing the border illegally; (d) releasing prisoners-of-war he knows will return to the battlefield to kill U.S. Marines and soldiers; (e) allowing the Department of Justice to block an investigation of the racketeering Clinton Foundation; (f) allowing groups of terrorist-seeded refugees into America without the rigorous vetting required by law; (g) starting unconstitutional wars; and (h) refusing to enforce laws passed by Congress. On the basis of Obama’s irrefutably tyrant-like performance, the Founders would, I think, be amazed that the people’s elected representatives did not employ the Constitution’s impeachment process against such a removal-meriting man. And perhaps they also might have been surprised, and even a bit dismayed, that the citizenry did not show signs of bringing the true intent of the 2nd Amendment into play on this issue.

Without the anti-tyranny safeguard of the impeachment process – now paralyzed by presidential criminality, congressional cowardice, the tyranny-loving media, incompetent and lying academics, and too much citizen inattention and apathy – the means for resisting tyranny in America are few. In addition to impeachment, for example, the ballot box also seems to no longer work as a means of halting the growth of tyranny, given the many unconstitutional acts of the last four presidents, and the Obama administration’s refusal to indict Hillary Clinton for perjury, aiding and abetting the country’s enemies, and using the office of Secretary of State for personal gain, thereby letting a woman who should be in jail run for the presidency. And in this age of computer voting and hacking, who, in their right mind, is gullible enough to believe that national elections are not rigged in one way or another by either the two power-mad political parties or outsiders.

There also is zero protection in the glib claim of politicians that Americans need not worry about their right to bear arms being abrogated because the Constitution cannot be changed save by using the amendment procedure it requires. Note Obama’s arrogant, clearly unconstitutional, and clearly unchallenged conduct, and recall that half  of the 2nd Amendment already has been negated without amendment. Can anyone locate the amendment that ended the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of state militias, which were meant to be the bulwark of state security and sovereignty, and were to be controlled by the states unless the nation became involved in a constitutional war? That part of the 2nd Amendment was negated by legislation, not by the amendment process required by the Constitution, and it has left the states no military force with which to prevent the national government from doing as it pleases, and that is precisely what the national government intended.

In this event, history, as always, was repeating itself. Virginia’s great, lawyer, politician, and statesman George Mason — who refused to sign the Constitution at Philadelphia because it had no bill of rights — told the 1788 Virginia ratifying convention that the one of first steps tyrants would take to disarm the people as a whole would be to neutralize their militia organizations.

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” (2)

So with state militias already illegally destroyed, it becomes more important with each passing year to impress upon Americans and their children the sanctity of the still viable section of the 2nd Amendment, an accurate and sober understanding of its intent, and their responsibilities under it. As noted, the Founders intended the impeachment process to be a readily usable tool with which to remove criminals or tyrants from office, one that would leave resort to the 2nd Amendment infrequent, the very existence of which would warn would-be-tyrants that not only their offices and reputations, but also their lives are ultimately in the hands of the same kind of people who won the republic’s independence from Britain, ones whom the historian John Shy described as “A people numerous and armed.” (3)

With the multiple firewalls the Founders built into the Constitution to make the 2nd Amendment a last resort already discarded or quickly disappearing, the use of the 2nd Amendment’s right to rebellion is emerging as the citizenry’s only constitutional option, no longer its constitutional tool of last resort. If that option is ever used, ironically, the elites will suffer most from the bloody brunt of the constitutional storm they knowingly caused by their arrogance, condescension, greed, and corruption, and perhaps most of all by their failure to heed mama’s sage advice that it is very dangerous to play with guns.





–3.) John Shy. A People Numerous and Armed. Reflections on the Military Struggle for American Independence. (Revised Edition). Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Papperbacks, 1990.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments