North Korea’s nuclear threat is the product of the dilettante U.S. governing elite’s interventionism

There is something approaching biblical justice in the U.S.-North Korean confrontation now before us. President Truman’s 1950 decision to go to war against the North Korean communists’ invasion of the south was the first and so precedent-setting instance of the unnecessary U.S. interventionist wars that have become the national government’s foreign-policy trademark since 1945.

Truman’s action was unconstitutional in that he had no authorization from Congress. Like Obama in Libya, he took the republic into an unnecessary war in the name of the United Nations and in the space of three years wasted the lives of  36,574 American troops and maimed and wounded 103,284. (1) In addition, the allegedly thrifty Truman squandered $341 billion in 2011 dollars. (2)

Wasted lives, limbs, and dollars are three of the main characteristics of the U.S. government’s military interventionism overseas. Truman’s illegal adventure in Korea also manifested five other traits that have become both the indelible signatures of U.S. interventionism, and unrelenting threats to U.S. national security.

–Thou shalt not use commonsense, Part 1: Truman entered the war without asking himself or his generals the main question: “In terms of genuine U.S. national interests, do we care who rules on the Korean Peninsula?” The answer in 1950 –and today, save for our troops marooned there –is that we do not care, it is no skin off our noses. If asked and honestly answered, that question would have saved Americans the lives and dollars that have been wasted since the Korean War in such unnecessary interventionist wars as Vietnam, Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen.

–Thou shalt not win: Truman did not win the Korean war; he decided to lose it. There is never any use in entering a war that you do not intend to win. All of the human and financial wealth that Truman expended in Korea was wasted, and the failure to win set another interventionist trait in stone: The U.S. government never wins unnecessary interventionist wars.

–Thou shalt allow foreign leaders to send America to war: Truman covered his refusal to win in Korea by publicly warning of a larger war — perhaps a nuclear war — after China intervened with Moscow’s approval. His subsequent actions, and the deals that were agreed to conclude an armistice both confirmed the U.S. defeat and and left the republic holding the bag. Truman and the UN-coalition agreed to create a cease-fire/boundary line at the 38th parallel that left the South Korean capital of Seoul in perpetual jeopardy, as it sat only 35 miles away from the North Korean military. U.S. troops were then stationed along that line near the demilitarized zone so they would be chopped up if North Korea again attacked, and so justify renewed U.S. intervention.  Truman, his Congress, and the UN thus set another rigid trait of unnecessary U.S. interventionist wars, namely: The abrogation of U.S. independence and sovereignty in making a decision for war, in the case of Korea, by deliberately leaving that decision solely in the hands of the communist leader-of-the-day in Pyongyang. (NB: Today, we face the same in regard to Israel, the NATO countries, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

–Thou shalt lie and say UN efforts and multinational sanctions will end the problem: Truman had started an unconstitutional war, wasted American lives and money, refused to win, and made a mockery of U.S. independence and sovereignty over the decision for war. Then, each of his successors in the White House — with congressional approval — played Americans for dupes by claiming the UN would reconcile the two Koreas, thereby allowing the United States to get out of the war-trap Truman had left behind. The UN, of course, did nothing for the next 65 years except to join with Western states to alternate between periods of strong sanctions, periods of humanitarian pandering to the North Korean communists, and then a return to the former. The pandering periods saved the North Koreans from food and energy famines and provided them with the technology that allowed the creation of their nuclear weapons. The only things more useless than the UN and its actions are those leaders who put their trust in them.

–Thou shalt not use commonsense, Part 2: The United States and its European allies have conducted their post-1945 sanctions policies with an arrogance and ignorance that precisely reflects the intellectual bankruptcy of the educational systems they have created. The overriding, indeed, sacrosanct idea behind sanctions is that the United States and its allies can apply increasingly harsh, even barbaric sanctions against any country and never pay any price for doing so. Now, anyone who went to grammar school before teaching turned into political indoctrination, will have learned at recess that pushing a classmate will be responded to in kind. The supposedly well-educated Western elite that so frequently applies sanctions seems to have no knowledge of this simple and invaluable life-lesson. Meanwhile, Western sanctions never hurt the bad guy, be he the miscreant Gaddafi, Saddam, or Kim Jong Un. Their impact falls on people who have little money, inadequate food and medicine, and no information but what the state issues to them. North Koreans surely believe that they and their children have been oppressed by U.S., UN, and Western sanctions for decades, and that those sanctions multiplied the misery imposed by their rulers. Sanctions do nothing but rally the oppressed to their oppressors if conflict comes.

–Thou shalt close your embassy:  When the United States and its allies saw that nothing they had done — war, sanctions, and name-calling — had solved the North Korea problem, they decided to make things worse for themselves by closing their embassies in Pyongyang. This has become a common practice that the national government uses in the capitals of those countries it considers enemies, as well as ones that it simply does not like. This practice is closely akin to shoving a bayonet through your chest. Without an embassy in an enemy country, all agencies of the U.S. intelligence community are denied an on-the-ground presence that allows the collection of human intelligence, close-in signals intelligence, and multiple forms of other kinds of technical intelligence. This knowing presidential blinding of the U.S. intelligence community denies those charged with defending the republic, and assisting the military to do so, with one of the very best intelligence collection platforms, an on-the-ground presence in the enemy country. Currently, for example, we have no embassy in Syria, Iran, North Korea, and for years before 9/11 we had no embassy in Afghanistan. The decision to close an embassy in an enemy country — or any country, for that matter — invariably hurts, and never aids U.S. national security. Embassies ought never be closed as a signal of anger at or distaste for a regime. They should be kept open until the host country demands their withdrawal.

Today’s confrontation with North Korea began in 1950 with an unconstitutional military intervention launched by President Truman into a place which was meaningless to U.S. national-security interests. That action created a problem that has festered for almost 65 years , one that has been kicked down the road by all succeeding presidents and now rests with President Trump. His main decision is not based on whether Kim Jong Un will back down and go quiet for a few years, but rather will he join the damnable can-kickers and allow a future president and all Americans to be faced with a North Korean leader armed with a more sophisticated first-strike nuclear capability.

Trump and his national-security team face a direct and demonstrable nuclear threat to the United States that is of his predecessors making. He has drawn the short straw and must end this problem here and now or knowingly endanger our posterity by allowing the North Korea’s nuclear capability to grow. There are only two ways to do the right thing for today and for the future: (a) reach an agreement that will allow U.S. forces and nuclear experts to enter North Korea and dismantle and destroy North Korea’s nuclear facilities, ballistic missiles, and stockpiles of fissile material, or (b) direct U.S. forces to annihilate all of North Korea’s nuclear and military capabilities and armed forces.

The existence of only two rotten choices is tough luck for President Trump, but he has the con. He has inherited the ripest and most poisonous fruit of the nation’s bipartisan governing elite’s addiction to overseas military interventionism. That interventionism always fails, often strengthens our enemies, always kills and maims our children, massively deepens the national debt, stokes a worldwide hatred for America that creates new enemies, and now has brought us to the brink of nuclear war. Only fools, war-mongers, or domestic enemies of the republic would ever advocate another unnecessary interventionist war after witnessing the current and still unfolding interventionist-made disaster in North Korea.













Posted in Articles | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Must armed citizens enforce the law and end the tyranny of their elected representatives?

What is the citizenry to do when the national government will not enforce the laws and has abandoned any intention of maintaining the rule of law and the equality of all Americans before the law?

On 3 August 2017, the media reported Special Counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a grand jury to investigate the already debunked charge that the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. In doing so, Mueller has established himself as a stinking offense to the idea of fairness and equality before the law. Mueller must have nearly a dozen conflicts of interests, any one of which should terminate his status as the special counsel. He has staffed his organization with Democratic Party-aligned attorneys, and  is reported to have coached witnesses, including James Comey and Andrew McCabe, on how to testify when the time comes. As I understand them, the statutes governing a special council’s conduct requires Mueller to immediately step down because of his personal conflicts of interest, which have turned this investigation into something of which the producers of Stalin’s show trials would be proud.

Notwithstanding this fact, both parties in Congress are working together to try to pass a piece of bipartisan legislation that will protect Mueller by giving him an appeal process if he is fired for ignoring the law pertinent to his position and/or his numerous conflicts of interest. In addition, Mueller’s empaneling of a grand jury is obviously the act of a dastardly coward, which is meant to throw another obstacle in the path of executing the law and ordering his dismissal. Mueller is a disgrace to the legal profession — if that is possible –and the almost complete lack of any criticism of Mueller from within his peers surely speaks to their inherent lawlessness and political partisanship.

Now, if the lynch mob Mueller is running was the only abuse of the law that is now apparent to the citizenry, patience might be the citizens’ best response. It could be used as yet another chance for Americans to see how resolutely the governing elite ignores the law in their pursuit of power and lucre; beneficially augment their hatred for politicians; and motivate them to go to the gun shop and purchase a few hundred additional rounds of ammunition. But the time for such patience is just about past.

Americans have been extraordinarily patient in waiting for the national government to enforce the republic’s laws. Citizens have seen the Clintons rape, lie, commit espionage, murder, and sell American interests to Russia and other foreigners for personal gain. They have seen Obama illegally divert money from Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to prop up a medical care system that was intended to fail so as to produce a medical system that would be administered by bureaucrats like those who sentenced Charlie Gard to death and gloated as he lay dying. Americans also saw Obama alter congressional legislation without the approval of Congress; indeed, without the supine Congress even effectively objecting to that impeachable act.  They also saw Obama and Eric Holder refuse to prosecute Black Panthers after they intimidated voters; fail to investigate IRS officials who used their power to obstruct the growth of the conservative political movement; and facilitate the illegal entry of aliens, criminals, and terrorists into the United States. In their spare time, Obama and Clinton passed weapons to Mexican narco-traffickers who later used one of them to kill a U.S. Border Patrol officer.

More recently, they have learned that  Obama and a still growing number of the senior officials in his administration used the power and talents of the US intelligence community to identify (unmask) their political opponents and intercept their conversations. Obama, Holder, Susan Rice — whose security clearances H.R. McMaster is said to have continued, John Brennan, Ben Rhodes, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch, and Samantha Power are all indictable for the manner in which they deliberately and illegally abused their power for political gain; have corrupted the U.S. political system; and have undermined the incoming Trump administration they detested. There also is the authoritarian and promoted-beyond-their competency traitors like Brennan-the-communist, Clapper-the perjurer, and the bloated buffoon Al Gore publicly encouraging a coup against a legitimately elected president, while, at the same time, the Democratic vermin who masquerade as journalists, actors, academics, and comedians call for the death of the president. Finally, there is an espionage ring of Pakistanis — who appear to have drained an ocean of security-related data from congressional computers and sold it to other nations — that was hired, overpaid, and protected by Democratic representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose apparently deliberate crimes are now being investigated by her brother.

Likewise, Americans have seen war-mongering cretins like Senators McCain and Graham work to involve the republic in other peoples’ wars, or, if none were available, to send U.S. forces to intervene in a country irrelevant to the republic’s interests and start one of their own. They also have experienced the obvious but still extraordinary fact that nearly all of our presidents, senators, and representatives have been monetarily suborned by the Israel-adoring, Jewish-American community, and the media it controls and directs, to shamelessly dance a jig to whatever tune the disloyal Israel-Firsters call. In recent months, this reality has included their extortion of $38 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars for Israel, which is a premier leach-state preying on the American treasury in the company of such other big-league leaches as NATO, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt.

There also is a pending, 1st Amendment-killing, bipartisan bill in Congress that bans Americans from economically boycotting Israel or even advocating that action. If it becomes law, it will penalize those who ignore the law’s elimination of free speech with a “minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison”. (1) (NB: Readers will recall George III did not imprison Americans for boycotting British goods, as U.S. senators and representatives are now eager to do to their fellow citizens.)  Finally, the Republican establishment and its congressional contingent sat like silent and useless asses for eight years while Obama shredded the constitution, facilitated the entry of criminal aliens who murdered, raped, and otherwise assaulted U.S. citizens, and launched wars that completed the globalization of Islamist insurgency. Indeed, so stupid are the Republicans that they watched Obama, after the Russian hacking story broke, display a laser-like focus on repeatedly assuring Americans that Russia had not tampered with voting machines. He obviously did so because he and his advisers did not want a thorough examination of U.S. voting machines because the inspectors would have found a large number of them rigged for Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party and George Soros.

Patience, it is said, is a blessing, but, in this case, much more than an additional bit of patience will kill the republic. Americans have watched for far too long the lawlessness of both the bipartisan governing elite and the absolute unwillingness of their elected representatives to enforce and abide by the law. As patience runs out, the question becomes what to do?

Do Americans sit back as if they are addled and neutered cattle — like the British, French, Germans, and Canadians — and let both parties continue to do as they will, bankrupting the country; eradicating Christianity; destroying American culture, history, and nationalism; starting more wars to kill and maim their children; and deliberately create a mongrel population of peasants that is devoid of thinking, self-sufficient, liberty-loving adults and is dominated by the illiterate, non-English-speaking, and government-worshiping scum of Third World?

Or, do citizens perform their duty as Mr. Jefferson, the other founders, and their 2nd Amendment defined it, and risk all in an effort to slay the hardening tyranny and its champions, a tyranny that seems to be the overriding goal of most members of both parties, their prized, pampered, favored, and often deviant minorities, the media, the lawyers, and the academy?

Perhaps now, more than ever before, the decision of whether the republic is to survive must not be left to a corrupt, lawless, and effeminate national government and its acolytes. This decision must be grasped from them by an armed citizenry that is ready, when the time comes, to administer quick and decisive justice to those who have knowingly brought the republic to this lawless and utterly intolerable pass.

North Carolina’s James Iredell, a too-little-known member of the Founding fraternity, wrote an essay in 1775 — that is,before Jefferson’s Declaration — called “To the Inhabitants of Great Britain and Principles of an American Whig.” In the essay, Iredell stated that

government being only the means of securing freedom and happiness to the people, whenever it deviates from this end, and their freedom and happiness are in great danger of being irrevocably lost, the government is no longer entitled to their allegiance, the only consideration for which it could be justly claimed or honorably pledged being basely and tyrannically withheld.” (2)

Iredell reviewed the totality of the baseness and tyrannical intent contained in the Crown’s policies and actions toward British North Americans, and concluded that the time was fast approaching when a  rebellion by His Majesty’s subjects would be required if English liberties were to be restored. All honor to Iredell for his words and courage, but his generation of Americans did not experience anything close to the tyranny and baseness that today’s citizenry has endured for decades at the hands of their lawless bipartisan governing elite and the party establishments they have created.

What to do citizens do now?  Well, stockpile additional ammunition and give Trump a little more time and see if all of the above named enemies of the republic are indicted. While waiting, it seems not only appropriate but just, for the deplorables to begin to draft lists of those who can be properly called the “expendables”. Start with those named above — if they are not indicted — and then flesh out this list of the lawless, globalist, and corrupt with others who stand out so clearly as the enemies of the rule of law and the concept of equality before the law. We all can pray that the citizenry does not have undertake its constitutional duty of rebellion to destroy tyranny, but that prayer may not be answered without a fight.

This is fair enough. After all, God helps those who both pray and help themselves. Risking life, limb, wealth, and kin to eliminate this plague of expendables — as the Founders intended, if the government they created became a tyranny — seems a necessity based on the duties that citizens owe to those who gave them this republic; to themselves, their families, and their countrymen; and to their posterity. “The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards,” Samuel Adams wrote in late 1771,

And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv’d them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas’d them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it.

Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath’d to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. — Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that “if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.” It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. (3)

It is not at all surprising that words written in 1771 to motivate resistance to tyranny can be just as pertinent, inspiring, and instructive in fighting tyranny in 2017.  More evidence, I suppose, that human nature, and the politics it produces, never change for the better, and so tyranny is always just around the corner, ready to enslave those who have neither studied nor learned from history’s relentless repetitiveness.



–1.), and


–3.) Samuel Adams, ‘On Liberty,” Boston Gazette, 14 December 1771,

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

President Trump: The only America First Afghan policy is to get out of Afghanistan

Just when you think that you have heard all of the asinine ideas possible about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, out comes one that is so hideously ridiculous that you must assume the authors are demented and writing from a well-secured asylum.

The quote below comes from an article about the future of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan that was in the USA Today Network on 14 July 2017. The article discusses several U.S. options in Afghanistan, but the one that takes the cake is the brainchild of two champions of the war in Iraq, who — as Tucker Carlson correctly said about Max Boot — can be relied on to propose ideas that will start unnecessary and always losing wars for the republic. The article’s authors are Michael O’Hanlon, an analyst from the Brookings Institution, who was orgasmic over invading Iraq, and the former general/now-felon David Petraeus, who lost the war in Iraq and helped lose the one in Afghanistan The article refers to some recent work by these two brain-dead beauties.

“O’Hanlon also co-authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal with former CIA Director and four-star general David Petraeus that takes aim at most of the opposing views of continuing the war and argues that the U.S. must consider Afghanistan the center of a generation-long fight against extremism with no definition of “victory.” (1)

Mr. Trump, these two men are war-mongering, elitist, money-grubbing idiots. There is no need for the United States to participate in “generation-long fight against extremism” that is centered in Afghanistan; indeed, there is no longer any plausible reason for America to be engaged in any war in Afghanistan. U.S. military forces have been there since October, 2001, and the security situation in the country is far more in favor of the Taleban — and increasingly the Islamic State — than it was 16 years ago, not even Kabul is secure.

In addition, the morons of U.S. foreign policy-making have been involved in only part of what is now the Afghan Islamists’ 40-plus year fight against foreign/infidel occupation, the first stirrings of which began in 1977-78 against the USSR’s puppet communist regime in Kabul. In these 40 years the Afghan Islamists and their various allies — Pakistani mujahedin, al-Qaeda, Arab volunteers, Chinese Uighurs, etc. — have worn out all foreign occupiers, even though they had no air cover and little in the way of artillery or other heavy arms. The Soviets could not win with a 120,ooo-man Red Army force, and U.S. and NATO generals could not win with a force of the same size and air assets far greater than the Soviets employed.

You will note in the above quote, Mr. President, that the two geniuses want you to agree to a war that has “no definition of ‘victory'”. This, Sir, is because the two authors — and most U.S. and NATO generals — are chronic losers who never want to win a war, but only to prolong it so that the taxpayer gravy-train upon which they gorge continues forever. If your generals are trying to sell such slop — and Petraeus often speaks for that lot of losers, including McMaster — pull on you businessman’s hat and recognize that these charlatans are trying to get you to sign a contract to build something that neither you nor anyone else can ever build (a stable, secular, democratic Afghanistan with an effective military); a contract that offers no hint of what the final cost will be in lives, limbs, and tax dollars; and a contract that has no completion date, and clearly states that the project may never be completed.

If your are the businessman you are reputed to be, Mr. President, you will take the republic by the hand and get it permanently out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. If the generals oppose this utterly necessary America First policy, Mr. President, cashier several hundred of them and urge them sign up to become Afghan Field Marshals and then go to glory by fighting and dying alongside the Afghan forces they have failed to train to even a minimal military proficiency over the past 16 years.

Mr. President, Afghanistan always has been America’s easiest foreign policy-problem. Several thousand years of human history have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that unless a foreign invader/occupier annihilates most Afghans and then colonizes their country, the occupier will go home the loser — if he can fight his way out. The Afghans, Sir, cannot be worn out, demoralized, or made into model secular citizens. They are, after all, fighting for their faith, their land, their tribe, and their god against non-Muslim foreign invaders/occupiers who threaten each.

Like all other human groupings, Mr. President, the Afghans — like the Imperial Japanese — can be obliterated, but they cannot be beaten by the same sort of half-hearted,  undersized, and politically correct military pin-pricks that your generals have called war since 2001, nor will they ever accept the kind “compromise peace” that is so beloved by your feckless diplomats. If your military, diplomatic, and intelligence minions tell you something to the contrary, put on your best New York accent and tell them that they are a  “damn bunch of full-of-shit fools”, and that your done throwing good American lives and money after bad. Then order them to get all Americans out of Afghanistan, and to do so lickety split.






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

HULU’s team says “Fuck the truth, we will deceive Americans”

I hesitated to again use this space for this issue, but I thought that there would be some interest in the HULU team’s arrogant and elitist response to my recent post showing that more than 70-perecent of the “Looming Tower” television project is knowingly based on lie, a lie that is now crystal clear and increasingly well-publicized because of the unclassified Department of Justice document posted in the last piece on this issue. (NB: Both earlier articles on this issue also are below.)

On 19 July 2017, I received the two notes that follow from “Legendary“, which is the company that is making Lawrence Wright’s hoax-based television series and selling it to HULU.

–1.) The first is the cover letter that came from Legendary. It was copied as it was received. That is, the typo is not mine for a change.

Dear Dr. Scheuer,

On behalf of Jennifer Grazier, EVP, at Legendary TV Buiness Affairs, enclosed is a letter in connection with “The Looming Tower.” Thank you.

Best – Debbie Urrutia, Interim Executive Assistant, Legendary TV – Business/Legal Affairs

–2.) The second letter was attached to the cover note. Apparently the letter’s author —  Executive Vice-President Jennifer Grazier — has an advanced degree in being haughty, patronizing, and treating people as her inferiors. The letter was sent as a pdf that could be neither easily copied nor printed, at least with my modest computer skills. The blurry copy below is the best I could do in terms of inserting the letter in this piece, but I have retyped much of it below the graphic.

In the opening paragraph, Ms. Grazier tells me that she is writing “on behalf of Legendary in response to your concerns.” The middle paragraph — annotated for clarity — follows in full:

“As you may know, dramatizations and docudramas are afforded a high degree of artistic latitude [Ms. Grazier means wide-ranging and deliberate dishonesty] in their portrayal of real-life events. While the series draws on meticulous research, including Lawrence Wright’s probing work [Ms. Grazier has a sense of humor or cannot read], as a basis for portraying the events leading up to the attacks of September 11, 2011, the series will ultimately employ artistic license to tell a story [Ms. Grazier means to tell a lie] with dramatic effect. A dramatization or docudrama may fictionalize dialogue, may telescope, condense, or rearrange events and may create composite or fictional characters as an expression of artistic license [Ms. Grazier means deliberate deceit]. The character about whom you express concern — Martin Schmidt — is one such fictional character [whom, Ms. Grazier is saying, we mean to knowingly defame].”

That’s a pretty good try to disguise the fact that Legendary — if its promotional materials are not lies — clearly intends to intentionally lie to Americans, mislead them, blacken the CIA in the eyes of the citizenry, and defame all of the CIA officers who pursued Usama Bin Ladin, and who had completed the bin Laden-mission assigned to them by September 1998. Of course, being a typically narcissistic liberal, Ms. Grazier tries to make this about me rather than the proven lie her company and HULU are preparing to foist on Americans as a “docudrama”.

Ms. Grazier also speaks about the “meticulous research” that has gone into the project, but ignores the primary-source document I provided in my last post on this issue, a document that makes her claim a nonsense. That document, and others that are likely available, clearly show — again if the promotional materials are not lies — that the research for this series, and, I think, much of Mr. Wright’s book, was at very best biased and half-assed, and that the core of a 10-part TV series will be knowingly based on lies that have been concocted by left-wing blackguards to promote their political agenda. In short, the Looming Tower series will be presented by Wright, his sidekicks, and two film companies, all of whom know they are perpetrating a hoax, to promote their lying left-wing political agenda in a “docudrama”. I suppose that this is because you cannot lie, defame, and pull off a hoax as easily in a straight-forward documentary. Who knows, this series may be the grandest achievement yet in the burgeoning field of fake media productions.

Ms. Grazier’s final elitist paragraph pats me on the head, tells me to be a good little boy, to make sure I watch the series, and makes it clear that I am unworthy of their concern and should shut up. Ms. Grazier writes,

”We hope this this addresses your concerns, and we encourage you to watch the series when it premieres. Please note that our failure to respond to any additional correspondence does not change our thoughts set forth herein.” [NB: I wrote no “letter” to anyone, I merely sent copies of my last blog to as many of the hoaxers as I could find addresses for. I could not find an address for Legendary, and so I guess some big, brave, and deceitful author ran to mama.]

Ms. Grazier and her colleagues at Legendary, Lawrence Wright and his cohorts, and their paymasters at HULU are simply saying to me and all Americans who watch, listen, or review the coming series, “Fuck the truth, you’ll believe what we tell you to believe in our lie-based Looming Tower series.”

While our republic is pretty far gone, there still must be a legal difference between “artistic license” and an intentional decision to produce a hoax to deceive Americans, defame those who defended America, and advance the Democratic political agenda. But if Ms. Grazier and her reptilian kind are correct in their definition of “artistic license”, than HULU can henceforth use an advertising slogan akin to: “HULU happily hoaxes Americans and they can’t do a thing about it!”

That slogan would be both catchy and have the great advantage of being truthful.


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

Published: 5 July 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S.. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

Southern District of New York

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

May 24, 1999

Michael Scheuer

Central Intelligence Agency
Langley, Virginia

Dear Mike:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,


United States Attorney

cc: The Honorable George Tenet
Central Intelligence Agency






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

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

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

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

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

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

So, here is the e-mail mentioned above:

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

Dear Mike,

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

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

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

Many thanks for your consideration on this.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


Posted in Articles | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–The EU and Life:

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

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

–The EU and Liberty:

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

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

–The EU and Property:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


–1.) William E. Borah, “Speech on The League of Nations,” 19 November 1919,




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