When I decided to write for publication about the confrontation between the United States and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the large amount of research material available led me to conclude that the U.S. national government – under either party – never expects to receive a response to the actions its takes against foreign entities. It blithely goes along bombing this place and that, sanctioning that person, this company, and the other nation-state, and witheringly denouncing foreign governments for decisions, policies, and actions that are rightly and solely their sovereign responsibility.
When Bin Laden and al-Qaeda began hitting U.S. interests and then territory – after repeatedly warning Washington that they would and formally declaring war on the United States – Washington and far too many Americans reacted with complete bewilderment, as if the United States had done nothing in the Islamic world that could, in Muslim minds, warrant a violent response. How anyone can be surprised by the application of the simple and eternally justifiable maxim “an eye for an eye” speaks directly to the mediocrity and dilettantism of U.S. political leaders, as well as to the abject failure of the U.S. educational system and those who are, for some unknowable reason, identified as teachers, but are really the Democratic Party’s recruiters and brain-washers.
This line of thinking — the attacked will never hit back — is, of course, a form of mental derangement that still exists today, as the national government continues its military, political, economic, and, increasingly, cultural intervention in the Muslim world. It is a strange logic that concludes that a war caused largely by decades of arrogant U.S. military interventionism in Muslim affairs can be won by staging more military interventionism.
The unperceptiveness of the national government that I found in regard to understanding the threat from Bin Laden, et al., however, now seems to extend to other important American institutions; namely, the Supreme Court, the U.S. military’s leadership, and most mainstream journalists. Each entity pounds away at the American citizenry and their republic, and believes — I think and hope foolishly — that their targets will take such abuse as their civic duty and never respond against their tormentors.
–Supreme Court: Chief Justice Roberts’ criticism of President Trump for clearly pointing out the obvious – that the 9th District is a direct and dictatorial continuation of Obama’s administration – must have been made as joke, or perhaps it just means that the Chief Justice is a nutcase. The federal judges in the 9th District have issued a series of decisions that are intended (a) to be an expression of the Obamaites’ hatred for Trump and (b) to cripple the ability of the Executive Branch of the Trump administration to execute its most important constitutional responsibility, the protection of Americans and the maintenance of the republic’s sovereignty over its territory. The 9th District’s decisions have long been as much of a joke as Roberts’ boot-licking decision – what does Obama have on him? — that Obama Care’s individual mandate was a “tax” and that the act itself did not illegally prevent interstate commerce by forbidding Americans to buy cheaper health insurance outside of the state in which they reside. Who is Roberts’ kidding? How smart can he be if he cannot discern either the rank political bias of the 9th District or the general public’s anger-filled recognition thereof?
Indeed, Robert’s and his colleagues would do well to catch on to the fact that the nine of them and the federal judiciary generally are held, with good reason, in contempt by much of the American public. Roberts presides over a federal judiciary whose members would have been rooted-out, killed, burned to ashes, and then mixed with lime by the Founding Fathers and their supporters, who, to a man, absolutely opposed the idea that the American people should be legislated for and dictatorially ruled over by out-of-touch, life-tenured, unaccountable, biased, and, far too often, ancient, isolated, and addled judges.
The development of the Court since John Marshall began building the case for an omnipotent Supreme Court has been aimed at the negation of genuine republican government, a process of negation that now sees 300-plus million Americans being ruled and legislated for by a corps of nine “supreme” justices and their subordinate judges, most of whom seem to be Ivy-League educated, America-haters. Today, the Supreme Court has, in essence, the absolute power of the Louis XIV, and, like the all-powerful Sun King, it does not give a good god-damn about commonsense, abiding by the intent of the Constitution and the laws, or blocking the work of the other two branches to promote the safety, welfare, and aspirations of the citizenry.
But the smug and oh-so-superior Roberts and his court are, or at least ought to be, deeply concerned by the growing possibility that, at some point, it will be called to account for deliberately interpreting the Constitution in a way that has made the contemporary Supreme Court, and the federal judiciary writ large, an odious, anti-human, and extra-legal monarchy that is far worse than that the Founders’ slayed between 1775 and 1783. It has, moreover, made the Founders’ Constitution utterly unrecognizable, which, in itself, is sufficient cause for the current Supreme Court — which, as President Trump said of the 9th District, is and long has been “out of control”— to be returned to the limited and non-monarchial role the Founders’ intended. This can be done by greatly reducing its purview, an action that would protect the citizenry from the kind of judicial tyranny that has allowed the murder of 60-plus million unborn Americans and only this week sanctioned the genital mutilation of infant American girls, while defending the rights of an elephant.
–U.S. Military Leaders: Admiral McRaven apparently has reappeared from the corporate boardroom and taken another swipe at President Trump by identifying him as the greatest threat to America. I have previously spoken in this space about McRaven, so there is no use rehearsing that analysis. It seems to me, however, that McRaven and any other retired or serving U.S. general officer who seeks to confront the President over threats to America ought to be confronted with a simple question, which could be posed as follows: “What threat, General _____ or Admiral ____, do you believe has accrued to the United States because you and your peers, and all of the U.S. admirals and generals since September, 1945, have collectively failed to win a single one of the wars in which the United States has engaged. Is that not the most basic and important job of general officers? Why have you all failed so miserably for the past 73 years?”
The answer will be discursive and empty, or, though it would take a level of moral courage never seen in a general or admiral, he could accurately respond by saying that the president for whom he worked had no intention of winning the war he had, in most cases, started. It is vital that if some general or admiral is brave enough to explain that which is now obviously true to most Americans, he should be asked this follow-on question, “If that is the case, and given you and all general officers often declare, in tearful words, that your first duty is to make sure the lives of your troops are not wasted, why have neither you nor any of your peers resigned rather than participate in wars the commander-in-chief had no intention of winning?”
The truthful answer to such a question is obvious from the lack of resignations. Generals and Admirals are toadies to the president, liars who care not a damn for their troops’ lives, and greedy bastards who will do anything to get to the post-service financial nirvana of corporate directorships. Admiral McRaven’s surname surely is more properly spelled McCraven to describe his complete failure to object, resign, and then speak to the American people about presidents who do not intend to win the wars they start and so utterly waste the lives of their soldier-children.
–Journalists: While mainstream media’s journalists ignore important issues – the Democrats’ election-fixing, Mueller’s sham investigation, George Soros’s apparent manipulation of the major tech stocks, the criminals rife among the migrants nearing the border, etc. – they, instead, consistently whine and rage about the number of journalists who are being killed around the world. This is, perhaps, one of the most perfect examples of those who relentlessly, and for decades, attack others and the things that are dear to them, and yet blindly believe they will never be the targets of retribution.
In the United States, few journalists have been killed, but it is naïve to think that the bells will not soon begin to toll for them. Since my long-past youth, mainstream journalists have joyfully ridiculed and attacked Christianity, conservatives, home-schoolers, pro-life advocates and organizations, the free market, stay-at-home mothers, boy scouts, the right to work, the republic’s history and heroes, patriotism, and nationalism. In turn, the same journalists have,
–Championed abortion, multiculturalism, illegal immigration, amnesty for illegals, diversity, racial quotas, and extreme feminism, all of which are designed to destroy the country’s social cohesion and inter-racial amity, not to mention that they are compelling evidence of mental derangement.
–The journalists have nearly unanimously supported the fatuous argument that sexual deviance of all kinds – including gender fluidity, trans-genderism, endless numbers of genders, and pedophilia – are just other forms of “normal”.
–They have supported whole-hog the Democrats’ efforts to destroy the 2nd Amendment and – with their Tech-baron allies – to destroy the 1st Amendment. They also have long supported Obama’s obliteration of the 4th Amendment.
–They have willingly become the paid and pampered pets of the Democratic Party. They have actively engaged in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate presidential election, and supported and largely formulated a vicious campaign to block a Supreme Court nominee by covering the transparently man-hating and lying – the bright trademarks of contemporary feminists – accusations of three demented, sadly comical, and obviously worn-out, sleep-around relics of feminist excess, each of whom should enjoy a future that includes a spell in prison.
–They are trying to suppress information about the obvious Democratic rigging of many of the 2018 elections by screaming that even the suggestion of such a thing is nothing but conspiratorial thinking. They are likewise refusing to investigate the increasing amount of detailed information that suggests the California fires were started or assisted by humans.
–They have repeatedly and gleefully published stories that put U.S. military and intelligence personnel and operations at risk. They are obviously willing to get those people killed, those operations ended, and the citizenry’s security lessened in order to win one or another of the journalism awards that never fail to reward such loathsome authors, as well as any other that is transparently anti-American.
–They have led the vicious and prolonged attack on the American South and its history, traditions, symbols, and collective memory in the name of protecting the tender sensitivities of those who are not worth even a handful of the dirt trodden upon by Marse Robert’s Army of Northern Virginia.
–They have defended and justified the violence of the Democratic Party’s armed wings – ANTIFA, BAM, and BLM – and always prefer a dead law-enforcement officer to the apprehension of a criminal or illegal immigrant, or the killing of someone who is shooting at the police.
–They have helped to inflict on America the rapist Clinton, the empty suit and war-mongering Obama and his emptier-suit wife, and they tried to saddle us with either the ancient, clearly authoritarian Sanders or the Wall Street-and-Hollywood-owned felon and charity-cheat Hillary Clinton.
–They have – on behalf of Trump-hating, Israeli interests, and the war-causing theory of human rights – tried to force President Trump to deal with Saudi Arabia in a way that would cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars and many thousands of jobs. The journalists pushing a break with Riyadh’s money seem to think Americans care deeply about their late, now deeply divided colleague Khashoggi. Why journalists could possibly think that any right-thinking American cares about the murder of Osama bin Laden’s buddy and Muslim Brotherhood member, or is willing to lose their job to respond to his murder, is far beyond understanding. Indeed, it would be best for mainstream journalists to see the broad popular indifference to Khashoggi’s murder as a starkly clear omen of attitudes to come about other similar events domestically and abroad.
This list, of course, could be greatly lengthened. It is extensive enough, however, to suggest that U.S.-based journalists’ may have unwarranted confidence if they believe that that they are free to savagely attack the ideas, activities, traditions, and history of the republic, to which at least half of Americans are devoted, and never have to be concerned about being attacked with vigor and even hatred in return. The UN says that a journalist is killed every four days. A sad statistic for a very few, and one that is likely to understandably and justly get much sadder for these attacking curs disguised as journalists.
Like the Supreme Court, the federal judiciary, the U.S. general officer corps, and American journalists would do well to memorize, and repeat each day before work, the iron reality of life: “What goes around, comes around”.
