Fixation On The Confederacy Lacks More Than Just Historical Perspective

An Historical Lack Of Perspective

Robert E. Lee was a confederate general. He viewed slavery as a moral and political evil, although his wife's family owned slaves, he opposed succession prior to the war, and Abraham Lincoln asked him to serve as the Union's top general. Robert E. Lee was opposed to the erection of any civil war monuments. In a speech that was famous at the time he said: "I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered."

In a world of single issue voters, hyperbole, sensationalist media, and elitist politicians, it is impossible to understand why General Lee chose to fight for the South. It is impossible for so many historically illiterate news reporters to even fathom the motivations of any man who, despite his opposition to the wisdom of a cause, may still choose to follow it. Because we do not teach our  history in a fair or legitimate way, modern thinkers refuse observe any moral complexities in the historical figures they study. When they do, they immediately compare them to our own morality, anachronistically, erasing the validity of the comparison. The result leads to absurdity.

As General Lee stated, slavery was a moral and political evil. Some intelligentsia like to call it America's "original sin," although I find that offensive as a Christian. Slavery is certainly the result of man's original sin, which was turning from God, not from founding this nation without liberating slaves. 

Slavery is an institution that can be traced back to the first human civilizations and has been practiced in nearly every culture at some point in its history. Slavery was not invented by white people. Documentary history as far back as Hammurabi show that the regulation of slavery and slave owners was subject to frequent government action. The Bible, yes, the Bible, addresses slavery without condemnation. Jesus Christ himself did not call on humanity to abolish slavery, but merely to treat  slaves well. He instructed slaves to obey their masters. Both commands when viewed in contemporary terms are morally repugnant. 

Despite 10,000 years of slavery as a widely practiced institution, our freedom loving Founders and their progeny actually quickly eradicated the intuition. That's right, quickly. Abolition was hotly debated during the drafting of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It seemed, rightly, ridiculous to say that all men are created equal, but then continue to enslave a large percentage of the population. The issue never went away, and less than 74 years after the ratification of the Constitution, 620,000 American soldiers died in the Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of more civilians died indirectly from war, famine, and disease, and still tens of thousands more perished during Reconstruction. The Civil War is, still to this day, the single most destructive war in the history of our nation, by several orders of magnitude.

Ten thousand years of slavery, abolished in the United States after 74 years. We are indeed a great and moral nation. In fact, slavery was abolished in the United States before it was abolished by Native Americans in North and South America, who held conquered opponents as slaves. It was abolished in the United States before it was abolished in Africa.

To view the institution of slavery without the context of the time period in which it was widely practiced is intellectually dishonest and creates an impossible standard of moral judgment. For example, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Andrew Jackson all owned slaves. They were in power, had an opportunity to use that power to end the institution and did not. By current standards, we should tear down their monuments. But what about Woodrow Wilson? He was an early promoter of eugenics, an ideology also embraced by the Nazis and used to justify the Holocaust. He too should be stricken from our history. What about Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton's mentor in government, who was a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan? There should be no glorification of him. Franklin Roosevelt interned 100,000 Japanese, depriving them of due process, their property and in many cases, their lives. He and the Supreme Court justices who supported that racist and un-Constitional decision should be stricken. What about Christ? He could have come to Earth and condemned the institution of slavery, but He did not. Perhaps all Christian monuments should also be stricken.

Slavery is and has always been a morally indefensible and evil practice. Many human beings have sacrificed their lives, across many cultures to end slavery. Many Americans gave their lives and continue to give their lives to protect the civil rights of others. Today, we have had the benefit of 300 years of Enlightenment thinking. To condemn historical figures for failing to recognize that which to us is so obvious now, is improper.

A Political Lack Of Perspective

Ambassador Andrew Young, by every measure one of the greatest men still living in our country, recently said that fighting to remove the Confederate Flag from Georgia may have been a mistake. He went on to say: "I think it's too costly to refight the Civil War." He said that flags and statues are just symbols and, "I'm always interested in substance over symbols and if the truth be known, we've had as much glory and agony under the United States flag."

Ambassador Young has perspective. As I wrote some time ago in Man and His Symbols, it was the American flag flying when General Sherman exterminated Native Americans living in the West. General Sherman, of course, was a Union general known for burning his way to the Southern coast during the civil war, resulting in the displacement and deaths of tens of thousands of Southern civilians. It was the American flag that flew as we dropped atomic bombs on civilians in Japan, firebombed Germany and Tokyo, and "relocated" villages in Vietnam. These symbols are a reflection of who we are as a nation, both good and bad. Eradicating them does not change our history. http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2015/07/man-and-his-symbols.html

I have spent my entire career in court both defending and prosecuting civil rights. I have, sometimes at great personal expense, helped African Americans find justice, and sometimes peace, by vindicating those rights in front of their fellow citizens. I know first hand that racism exists, and I know the enormous emotional toll it takes on a person to be the victim of racism. Those who think these laws are silly have never had grown men in their office, getting emotional as they describe the truly unfair treatment they've experienced as the result of nothing but the color of their skin. They lack perspective. 

However, like Ambassador Young, I believe this focus on eradicating symbols covers up the real and systemic racial problems we still face as a nation. It blunts the impact of prosecuting real racism. It gives reactionaries an argument that frustrates our ability to bring real, current institutional racism to light. It is an ill advised attack on the wrong targets. 

The vast majority of Americans, black and white, are not thinking about Charlottesville, or Confederate monuments, or Robert E. Lee or Donald Trump's press conferences. The vast majority of Americans are thinking about whether they can get up tomorrow and make it to work on time with their aching knees. The vast majority of Americans are thinking about whether their plant is going to close, or whether their children will make it to practice. They are thinking about whether they can pay the bills or whether they will have to move into a smaller home. Americans are worried about their kid's school, or maybe a child's addiction, or their own. Americans are thinking about the cookout they planned for this weekend, their marriage, their friend who is having an issue.

My father, who came from very humble beginnings, taught me the most important lesson of my life at a very early age. It doesn't matter where you come from, the color of your skin, or who your daddy is. We all put our pants on the same way in the morning, we all care about our families, our jobs, our kids. In the end, we have far more in common with one another than we have that divides us. 

The current populist movement in this nation is a reflection of that reality. Coal miners in West Virginia share the same real life concerns as manufacturing workers in Ohio, or a waitress in Nebraska, or an out of work trucker in Kentucky. The governing elite have completely lost touch with the plight of regular Americans, focusing instead on the minutiae spoiled rich people have time to focus on. The media glorifies conflicts like Charlottesville making it appear that this is what Americans really care about. The coverage lacks perspective. It is not even accurate. It does not reflect the concerns of most Americans. 

Politicians that focus on things like Charlottesville will not be in power for much longer. Americans have clearly had enough. As I've said before, Donald Trump is an imperfect messenger, but he is the only politician even willing to speak to the everyday issues facing most Americans. There will be others who hopefully will strike a more balanced tone. But, the vast majority of Americans didn't go to Harvard or know how to articulate their positions in perfect language. Most Americans do not expect that from their leadership either. I give you as Exhibit A, Donald Trump. However, underestimating his support, or condemning his supporters will be the final mistake most current politicians and pundits will make in their careers. The needs of 99% of Americans can only be ignored for so long. 

Perhaps it's time to keep things in perspective. 

One False Move: Five Thoughts On The North Korea Crisis

For many Americans, the nuclear arms crisis between the United States and North Korea represents their first experience with Cold War brinkmanship. Indeed, there are only a few generations of Americans left who have ever lived under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. The Baby Boomers, of course, grew up in the post-war era and famously engaged in routine "duck and cover" drills in their schools, as if hiding under a desk would save a child from Russian missiles. Generation X grew up during the Carter-Reagan era, which saw the height of American Cold War military and economic power and the collapse of the Soviet Union. For those generations, Cold War rhetoric, insane threats of global destruction, and brinkmanship are nothing new. While the rhetoric is unwelcome, these generations have some experience grappling with those fears and avoiding global thermonuclear war. Nuclear destruction was woven into popular culture in movies, music and television. To the extent possible, Americans had become somewhat desensitized. 

However, those born in the mid 80s and after have grown up in a world in which the greatest threat to western civilization has been various groups of Jihadis in Toyota pick up trucks. As I've said before, while this threat should be taken seriously, our war with Jihadism is simply not on the same scale as the two industrial wars fought in the last century. This experience gap is resulting in misplaced expectations of what might come from the current crisis, and the enormous impact such an event would have on the world. War is not imminent, despite the bluster, but one false move could result in a cascade of destruction, unprecedented in our history.

Technically, the United States has been at war with North Korea since the first Korean War. While there is a long-standing cease fire in place, there is no treaty between any of the warring parties. But, whether we go to war now or go to war in ten years, it is very unlikely that things in North Korea will change. Here's why.

1.  Sanctions Will Fail.

The Trump administration has spent the past 10 days alternating between "fire and fury" and praise for the U.N. sanctions package unanimously passed by the Security Counsel. The total estimated impact of these "tough sanctions" is approximately $1 Billion. 

One billion dollars is less than Donald Trump's net worth. It reminds me of something out of Austin Powers: "I want...One Million dollars! Or I'll use my 'laser' to destroy your country!" Ok ... get out the checkbook. I'm pretty sure that Kim Jong Un and his regime is willing to part with their one billion dollars in exchange for nuclear supremacy in Asia. Un and his supporters stand to gain hundreds of billions of dollars over the course of Un's lifetime using a strong nuclear program to blackmail the world. 

Moreover, nuclear weapons ensure the survival of the Kim regime. Kim will have accomplished what most rogue regimes and our enemies have only dreamed - a deterrent against U.S. intervention. 

Finally, sanctions are dependent on China, who represents 90% of North Korea's trade. Historically, China has shown zero interest in doing anything beyond making a few statements of frustration with North Korean bellicosity.

That aside...

2.  China has chosen North Korea.

Late last night, China announced that it would remain "neutral" if North Korea attacks the United States or its allies. That would be bad enough, but then they announced that if the United States attacked North Korea, or attempted "regime change" on the Korean Peninsula, they would intervene to prevent it. In other words, China is willing to go to war against the United States to prevent Korean reunification under a democratic government. 

China's announcement is tantamount to giving permission to a mentally ill, unstable child to take his assault rifle to school. It is unacceptable for one of our largest trading partners, manufacturing a huge percentage of our products, to threaten to go to war with us. Anyone who considers President Trump's statements to be reckless should be equally if not more critical of China's.

China just picked sides and it creates perhaps the worst case scenario for U.S. influence in Asia. In point of fact, China has been secretly supporting North Korea for decades specifically because they want North Korea to drive the United States out of the region. In recent years, China has taken overt measures to establish itself as a regional hegemony, with man-made militarized islands in the South China Sea. That aside, there is now strong evidence from our intelligence community that China aided North Korea with its nuclear weapons program.

It is now clear that China is not our friend. China is a global rival whose primary interest is regional if not global hegemony. Unfortunately, sanctioning China is much more difficult than people seem to think. China holds a large portion of our debt and does a huge amount of our manufacturing. Cutting off trade with China, while that sounds satisfying, would throw the United States into a deep, deep recession. The stock market would crash, there would be a run on banks, and the United States would have to find a new way to finance its $20 Trillion debt.

It is a very bad development.

3.  Where is NATO?

North Korea has threatened to attack Guam, a U.S. territory, with U.S. citizens. That would be an attack on U.S. soil, invoking Article V of NATO - the common defense provision. Yet, NATO has been silent, with the exception of Angela Merkel, who has decided to criticize President Trump and announce to the world that the West doesn't have the military power to take out North Korea. Even if true, her statement is not one from a military ally supposedly willing to occupy a foxhole with her American and Japanese friends.

Donald Trump ran against the global elite and won. He attacked NATO during the campaign as obsolete, bloated and militarily ineffective. More and more, he looks right. The NATO alliance was supposed to be a military alliance between the NATO countries, not between "Europe" and the "United States." Our European allies seem to think it is otherwise; that the United States is somehow obligated to be the guarantor of European freedom at any cost. At the same time, NATO could care less about any non-European threat. America stands alone in the Middle East, Northern Africa and Asia.

The fact of the matter is, NATO is no longer a military alliance, it is a political alliance. Evidence of this fact is abundant. Take for example how the Europeans' rushed to give NATO membership to Montenegro, a nation of 612,000 people and no military. If the United States is attacked by North Korea, I sincerely doubt Montenegro will be providing us with decisive military force. On the other hand, if Russia decides to test NATO resolve by invading Montenegro, the United States would be obligated under Article V to go to war with Russia. 

Here is the truth, NATO is not going to help us with North Korea, and the American people will not ever authorize a war with Russia over Montenegro. Trump was right, NATO is obsolete. A new, more powerful global military alliance is needed to ensure freedom in the world. Some countries need not apply.

4.  Americans are not prepared for this kind of war.

I have great faith in the American people, and I think we are far tougher than our enemies and critics believe. That said, Americans have enjoyed sole-superpower status in the world since 1991. For 25 years, Americans have been focused on the Middle East and terrorism. Our government and military have been taking the fight to Jihadism in an effort to prevent a group of crazies from getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction to then use in New York City or Chicago. 

North Korea is an entirely different threat. If the U.S. intelligence reports are correct, Kim Jong Un has between 40 and 60 miniaturized nuclear warheads ready to be attached to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles that can reach the entire country. We are no longer talking about one city being attacked by an improvised nuclear device sitting in a delivery van somewhere in a major city. Now we have returned to the Cold War, where North Korea literally could cause at least the temporary  collapse of civil society.

A single successful nuclear attack would devastate our economy, erasing trillions of dollars of wealth overnight. Multiple successful attacks, or a successful EMP strike would change life as we know it in our country forever. As I've said before, this kind of war means no Publix, no Walgreens, no food, limited water, and no Facebook. Our country may not collapse, but the fabric of society would be torn. Americans, having enjoyed decades free of such threats, are no longer prepared for them mentally, physically, or by stocking those things necessary for survival in a long term crisis. 

5.  The war will not stop with North Korea.

World War III will likely start the same way World War I started - with a seemingly insignificant act, combined with the total miscalculation of the way world powers will align. As we just learned, China, who one would think would support its largest trading partner, has decided it would prefer war with the U.S. over regime change in North Korea. That is a stunning revelation, but it is instructive. It is likely that there are other countries that will align with China and North Korea or, at the very least, take advantage of the chaos.

Russia, for example, is a threat to Eastern Europe. Iran is a threat to the Greater Middle East. If the United States is otherwise preoccupied with a bloody, vicious fight in Asia, Europe will in fact find themselves facing Russia alone. Our Middle Eastern allies will have a similar problem. 

I don't care what anyone says, America simply cannot fight a cascading series of regional wars with its current conventional military. The alternative is too scary to contemplate, but it involves the wide ranging use of nuclear weapons. 

The parallels between World War I and the current state of our world are remarkable. There are multiple hostile powers in different regions of the world. World powers have increasingly entered into war pacts with one another, obligating them to go to war. Economies have become globalized. New technologies on the battlefield are waiting to bring a whole new level of destruction to the enemy. World powers have overestimated the importance of global economic ties to their rivals, and have underestimated the strength of the enemy. The explosion of any one crisis can easily create a chain reaction across the globe.

We should learn from our history, or we are indeed doomed to repeat it.

One Final Thought:  Unity

In the Art of War, Sun Tzu famously counseled leaders that: "Wars are won first in the Temples before they are ever fought on the battlefield." What the Chinese General meant was that any successful war enjoys the unified support of the people. Without unity of purpose, resolve and method, a war will certainly fail.

We are a deeply divided nation. It doesn't matter. There is no American who, in the long run, will profit from "being right" about North Korea. The current crisis is the result of nearly half a century of failed leadership from both political parties. It is not just Obama's fault, it is not just Clinton's fault. It is not Trump's fault or the Bush's fault. It is the combined lack of resolve in bringing an antiquated Cold War surrogate to heel over a period of 67 years. The blame goes back to Truman, MacArthur and can even be more fairly pinned on the treaty ending World War II. We are all going to have to live with the consequences of our collective, generational decision to leave the "Hermit Kingdom" alone for so long.

Everyone has strong feelings about "Russian Collusion," Hillary's emails, NSA spying, and any other number of domestic issues. Like most presidents before him, Trump's presidency will be defined by the foreign policy challenges we face, despite his best efforts to focus on domestic initiatives. We simply cannot fight each other and multiple nuclear powers and expect to win. We will most certainly fail. 

There are plenty of fair criticisms of the Trump Administration and the Establishment Pols opposing him. Expressing those criticisms is the American way. It is the tone that dictates whether we can proceed after debate in a unified way or argue ourselves into national defeat.

No matter how right you may be about any issue you feel passionately about, you will not bring about successful change if your city is consumed by flames. Division, hyperbole, partisanship, diversity of opinion on tertiary issues, and thin skin are luxuries enjoyed by a nation at peace. These are serious threats that need to be faced, collectively, by a serious people. Single issue voters will need to broaden their perspective or else get out of the way of the rest of us.

A house divided cannot stand, and no voter, liberal or conservative, will benefit from a world set on fire.

The Real Civil War

Justine Damon, a white suburban woman in Minneapolis, called the police to report what she thought was a rape in progress in an alley by her home. After two calls to 911 the police finally arrived. Ms. Damon approached the police cruiser in her pajamas, agitated, to tell the police what she heard. There was, apparently, a loud noise in the background, and a black police officer shot her through the window of his cruiser, killing her. The mayor of Minneapolis, Betsy Hodges, a liberal Democrat, demanded and received the resignation of her police chief, Janee Harteau, one of the first female police chiefs in the nation. Mayor Damon gave a press conference to announce her decision. 

If you haven't seen the video yet on Youtube, go look it up. Her press conference was loudly, effectively, but non-violently interrupted by a number of black men, who were protesting police violence. In the twenty minutes that followed, whites, blacks, and mixed forced her off the stage and took turns giving speeches and hugging each other, demanding she resign. They demanded reform of the police department and an end to "police violence." They demanded respect from the governors.

Across racial lines, socioeconomic lines, and even ideological lines, the government is under attack. Minneapolis is the perfect example. On a Friday night, during a public press conference, Americans in Minnesota loudly protested their government. They were not protesting Donald Trump. They were not protesting some conservative mayor with a stop and frisk policy. No. Black men and women, beside their white neighbors, were protesting a liberal mayor's failure to prevent the police shooting of a white suburban women. There could not be any more clear harbinger of doom to the ruling class.

Americans are done being ruled.

There is no amount of race bating or gender bating that will save the current governing class. To repurpose a phrase, resistance is futile. Bernie Sanders would very likely be President right now if the Democratic Establishment had not stolen the primary from him. Instead you get Donald Trump. Intelligent people still cannot see the similarities. Americans, whether disenfranchised black urban voters or disenfranchised white manufacturing workers are fed up. They have one, huge thing in common. Disenfranchisement. Desperation has a way of creating strong, unlikely coalitions. Put twenty people with totally different backgrounds and views in a foxhole against a common deadly threat and they will more likely than not point their rifles in the same direction. The Establishment and the legacy media still don't get this.

Donald Trump is not everyone's cup of tea. He is a poor messenger for a very important Anti-Establishment message. But, he is not a Russian spy. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that the political Establishment, the Elite, are doing everything they can to improperly supplant the will of the voters with their own will. Fine. But the Establishment is the minority, and as Mayor Hodges learned, they are so far outnumbered by the populous that they cannot even hold a press conference without the consent of the governed. 

And they do not have our consent. 

Free speech is scary. People yell. They say scary things. They appear agitated. They resist. But it is exactly that kind of speech that formed this nation. The story that this nation was founded by a group of gentlemen engaged in orderly, parliamentary debate is false. In fact, a bunch of loud, opinionated, treasonous men, from relatively diverse backgrounds, rebelled against an established political order that they saw as oppressive. And they weren't even the slaves.

Freedom is the natural state of man. Any meaningful encroachment on that natural state has, historically, resulted in rebellion. Rebellions that are successful are called revolutions. Rebellion is scary. Martin Luther King's non-violent rebellion against the racist political order was scary, even to the liberals of the time. Malcolm X was scary. Black Lives Matter is scary. Donald Trump is scary. Nationalism is scary. But this is what displacement of the established order looks like. When you have liberals, libertarians and conservatives all protesting government authority and power, you don't have rebellion - you have revolution. Understand it and reform, or be run over by it.

The real civil war is not between black and white or liberal vs. conservative. It is between ordinary Americans and the current established political order. We have given them too much power. We have made them too rich. We have subordinated our own futures and the futures of our children to their false promises of Utopia. There is no government Utopia. Freedom is as close as it gets and freedom means being left alone. As I've said before, no matter where you live, you wake up in the morning to your government regulated alarm clock, eat your government regulated breakfast, get in your government regulated car to drive down the government regulated road to your government regulated job. Suffice it to say, the rest of your day is government regulated. They even regulate the time the sun sets with my personal favorite, daylight savings time. Think about that. They regulate the time the sun sets. They record everywhere you go, everything you text and email, every phone number you call and every social media post you make. There is not a single speck of dirt in this nation where you can escape them, and most Americans work the first four months of the year just to pay their taxes. We are not free.

If you want to see rebellion turn to revolution, impeach Trump. Go after his family. Prosecute them. In Pretend World, there is this idea that Donald Trump will somehow leave office humiliated and ashamed; that this shameless man will suddenly see the error of his ways and just go away, or that the Establishment will triumphantly remove him using legal means. 

That will mean war to at least half of the 65.8 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump. To put that into perspective, that is 200,000 more people than live in the entire United Kingdom. It is almost exactly one million people fewer than live in all of France. 

It is thirty times more people than are employed by the entire federal government. It is roughly 40 times more than all active service military servicemen and women. 

Probably, this enormous disparity in numbers between the governors and the governed has been the reason true democracy tends to work better than other forms of government. If just a small cross-section of the population feels disenfranchised, left behind or marginalized, the governors find themselves outnumbered by huge margins by the filthy, angry masses. Populism is not the problem, it is the result.

There is a true Constitutional crisis coming. It will be historic, and it will define our nation for a century. Donald Trump will not resign. That is fantasy. He will either move to dismantle the opposition forces against him or the government will remove him from office. Regardless of who initiates it, it will be a crisis. It will be one crisis among the many foreign policy and domestic crises we are facing now. In a free republic, minorities with a powerful moral message can change public opinion and shape history, like Martin Luther King. Removing Donald Trump from office is not even close to a comparable moral cause and those who believe it is lack perspective. In fact, it is an insult to the many worthy and desperate civil rights causes of our day. 

Contrary to the narrative we are being fed by those in power, our nation is actually united. Without regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or socio-econminc status, Americans are fed up with authority. We are done being ruled, and I would strongly suggest getting out of the way before being run over. 

The Treason Game

Former FBI director, Robert Muller, has been appointed as a Special Prosecutor in the Trump/Russia matter. He will have plenary power to investigate and prosecute "any crimes" he uncovers during the course of his investigation. Initially, he is called upon to determine whether President Trump and/or any member of his campaign colluded with Russian agents to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. There are only five realistic outcomes to this investigation: (1) Trump and his agents colluded with Russia to steal the election; (2) Trump agents colluded with Russia to steal the election without his knowledge; (3) Trump did not collude with Russia; (4) Trump agents did not collude with Russia; (5) neither Trump nor his agents colluded with Russia.

If you believe that Trump, and/or his agents with his knowledge, colluded with Russia to steal the election then you must also conclude that he should be impeached, removed from office, charged with treason, and convicted for the greatest crime against our Republic in its history. Treason is a capital crime subjecting the perpetrator to capital punishment.

Moreover, if you believe that Trump's election was illegitimate, then Mike Pence cannot serve as President after Trump's impeachment. His entire administration is illegitimate, including the Vice President. Speaker Ryan would be elevated to the Presidency, until of course, his ties to the Trump Presidency are also attacked.

Since the day the American people elected Donald Trump, Democrats have accused him and his campaign of the greatest crime in our history. They have relentlessly accused his administration of, literally, working with a foreign nation to subvert our democratic process. If true, he is a totalitarian criminal without any legitimate authority to govern any American. Democrats in Washington have convinced their constituents that this is true, and that it is their patriotic duty to "resist."

Resistance, however, is a dangerous call to action, capable of many different interpretations. For example, when a man without any license or authority to do so, comes to your house to collect money from you, or take your government benefits away, or instruct you to do something against your will, your are legitimately entitled to defend your home, your family and your property. This is a fundamental right, enshrined in our Consitution, and is the founding principle of our nation. This resistance is valid and, in fact, is your patriotic duty in the face of the usurpation of power.

It is not surprising, therefore, that some deranged members of the Resistance may feel it to be their patriotic duty to attack and kill members of Congress who they believe have helped Donald Trump collude with Russia. When you make a call to action to "resist," when you say that Republicans should be "lined up and shot," when you convince others that Donald Trump is the Great Usurper, you are, absolutely, responsible for those who follow your call.

You may think that you are not calling for violence, but the very nature of the charge against Trump, treason, can legally result in a violent end for the President. The charge of treason is inherently violent. It is the highest crime against the people. Many people in the history of our nation have been executed for treason. You cannot divorce the potential punishment for the crime from the crime itself, particularly in the minds of the deranged.

This is the treason game. It is the highest stakes political game played since Andrew Johnson, and someone will lose badly.

If Trump or his agents are not guilty of treason, and you nevertheless continue to perpetuate a false narrative, then you are using the most dangerous lie in the history of our Republic to settle your political differences with the opposition. You are a McCarthyite, rebooting one of the worst chapters in American history. A time when merely voicing sympathy towards Russia or Russians subjected you to black lists, investigation, and prosecution. Joe McCarthy and the members of his House UnAmerican Activities Committee were among the most vicious Charlatans in history. Any return to McCarthyism is unacceptable.

Alan Dershowitz, perhaps the foremost authority on civil liberties sees the current investigation into Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia as one the greatest threats to our Constitution since McCarthy. Mr. Dershowitz is not someone with whom I frequently agree, but he is a man who has the courage of his convictions and has relentlessly pursued civil rights throughout his career. He is also widely considered to be one of the best lawyers in the world. If you have not read his last three articles on this investigation, you should. Of the many strong points he makes, one stands out in particular. Stalin once quipped: "If you show me the man, I will show you the crime." Totalitarianism, at its core, is the weaponization of the law for political power. Mr. Dershowitz recognizes that, in our own nation, we have become so overwhelmed with laws, that any man can be found guilty of something at any time. The criminalization of political differences will irreversibly damage our nation.

Mr. Dershowitz would find an unlikely ally in Ayn Rand who wrote in Atlas Shrugged: "One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws ... just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt." Neither Director Muller, nor any Democrat, have publicly identified the law President Trump or his agents have allegedly broken. To be sure, they have many from which to choose. Instead, the Special Prosecutor has been tasked with investigating whether "any crime" has been committed. With each iteration of this investigation, the standards have become lower. When John Brennan was recently asked whether there was any evidence of  treason, he responded that treason often starts off as unintentional. He could not be more wrong. Treason is intentional misconduct, but that was not his point. His point was to lower the bar even further. In his mind and the minds of many in Washington, this alleged "accidental treason" should be ferreted out.

But the Treason Game can go both ways. Those who have been leaking classified information to the media, and those in the media receiving and publishing that information may also be charged with treason. There is no First Amendment privilege to commit treason or publish classified information. There is no "whistleblower" exception in the law for leakers who are part of the "resistance," especially if Donald Trump did not, in fact, steal the election. If Trump and his agents are innocent, and he is nevertheless removed from office, then those responsible have engaged in a coup, also treason and also punishable by death.

This zero-sum game, if not soon ended, will lead to lawlessness. These tone-deaf members of the political establishment are shocked that Americans are so angry and are only now beginning to realize that their rhetoric is partly to blame. There will, unfortunately, be more violence. We crossed the Rubicon as a nation when Donald Trump was accused of treason. No outcome will be acceptable to either side. Angry, violent members of the Resistance will believe the Republicans stonewalled the investigation to cover for Trump if he is cleared. There is nothing Robert Muller will be able to say to put an end to the Russia narrative.

On the other hand, angry, violent Trump supporters will not accept what they see as a coup. Few if any Trump supporters will ever believe that the Russia investigation is anything but an unAmerican attempt to overturn the results of the election by a group of admitted "Never Trumpers." There is little middle ground.

The dominant political movement in the world right now is populism. Populism is not the cause of the problem, it is the result. Populism is what happens when the majority of any governed group becomes "fed up" with the governing class. When the governing class "resists," populist movements become revolutions. Historically, revolutions begin as populist movements, and they always lead to the violent end of the governing regime, or the deaths of the revolutionaries. Revolutions are violent.

One would hope that yesterday's politically motivated shootings of Congressional Republicans would give us all a moment of pause. It will not. The Treason Game has already resumed with yet another illegal DOJ leak claiming that the President is "under investigation" for obstruction of justice. That will be enough for some members of the Resistance to engage in further violence against those with whom they disagree. And violence begets more violence. It is only a matter of time before those radicals on the right fight back. Then the cycle of violence is established and someone will win and someone will lose. America, however, will be unrecognizable.

There is not one person with whom I associate, on either side of the political spectrum, that is not praying for the recovery of those injured by a deranged member of the left. I would ask that we all pray for our nation. We are truly at a crossroads where our exceptional nation is in peril. Whatever the outcome of these investigations, I hope that we can all move forward, keeping in mind Abraham Lincoln's directive at the end of the Civil War: "With malice towards none, with charity for all..."

Republicans Prove Voters' Worst Fears

Americans hate turncoats, tattletales, and spoiled sports. As a father raising two young children I can tell you, every parent in my neighborhood repeats that mantra during every sporting event, outdoor barbecue, and play date. 

"Don't be a tattle tale. No one likes a tattle tale!"

"Don't be a spoiled sport! No one likes a sore loser!"

"Play as a team! Teamwork! Teamwork!"

If only we could raise our politicians the way we raise our children...

The Republicans have never been very good at politics. In the modern era, they have enjoyed moderate electoral success in this center-right country only to shoot themselves in the foot or stab each other in the back. The Republican Party is a party that professes to stand on principle, even when those principles mean that they must annihilate each other. And annihilate each other they do. Not surprisingly, a group of turncoats and tattletales, who cannot play as a team, have achieved almost nothing legislatively in 20 years.

Hillary Clinton was the most experienced, well funded, connected, and established candidate for president since George W. Bush. In fact, apart from the Bush's, she may have been the most established candidate since Richard Nixon. She enjoyed near unanimous media support. She was surrounded by the best political minds in the country. She had the support of a popular outgoing President who had a unique ability to articulate his political message. Yet, somehow, she lost. Not only did she lose, but she lost to Donald Trump. And, not only did she lose to "The Donald," but she took the entire Democratic ticket down with her, from top to bottom. 

It's not like she just face planted at the finish line, either. She managed to lead the Democratic Party to the worst electoral defeat since Dukakis, and she managed to help lose nearly every state legislature and governor's race that was in play during the election. The Democratic Party's post-mortem is, of course, all over the place. The Russians did it. James Comey did it. Wikileaks did it. It was poor messaging. It was overconfidence. It was her failure to campaign in swing states during the closing two weeks. But none of these reasons is particularly convincing. 

Even Maxine Waters and Diane Feinstein admit that there is "no evidence of collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russia. While Comey's timing certainly didn't help Secretary Clinton, his decision to take the prosecutorial decision away from a compromised Attorney-General and subsequently drop the case against Clinton was a sacrifice fly to center field. He had to know he would be castigated by both sides and has said as much publicly. Comey, to his credit, took one for the team.

Wikileaks could have been devastating if not for the muted reporting of the legacy media. Most polls show that the embarrassing leaked emails did little more than confirm voters' impressions of the parties. Democrats were incensed about the leaks, and Republicans' beliefs about media collusion and bias were confirmed.

Finally, while messaging, overconfidence and her failure to campaign probably all played some role in her defeat, it seems difficult to believe that those failures led to the catastrophic down ballot losses. Even so, the evidence shows that her messaging was, in fact, effective. She won the popular vote. Her vitriolic, scathing rhetoric about Trump and his supporters is still affecting his ability to govern. Likewise, it's difficult to accuse a candidate who wins the most votes of being "overconfident" or failing to campaign. She had it in the bag, or so it seemed. 

So there must be some other reason that Trump won while simultaneously elevating a group of Trump-haters to the majority across the nation. Perhaps, maybe, just maybe, he had a better message. And maybe, just maybe, he was the preferred messenger to take the wood to Washington.

Taking the wood to Washington was, above all else, what The Donald was elected to do. His messaging was short and to the point: "Drain the swamp," "Build the Wall," "Lock her Up," "End bad trade deals," make NATO "pay its fair share." In a world of 30 second commercials and 40 character messaging, Trump prevailed. Trump prevailed because that's what he does for a living, and because he had the right overall message: "America First."

Trump prevailed notwithstanding a "team" that kept running the wrong way with the ball. Republicans were constantly distancing themselves from Trump or his latest gaffe. Trump, of course, commits his fair share of unforced errors. So what? Trump did nothing, absolutely nothing, as egregious as Democratic candidates have done in the past. 

The difference is, the Democrats know how to play as a team. They don't kick the ball into their own goal just so they can say that they scored. When Hillary Clinton deleted tens of thousands of emails from her secret server, Democrats rallied to her defense, stuck to the party line and obstructed every Republican attempt to hold her accountable. When Anthony Weiner was arrested on child porn charges, they stood by Clinton notwithstanding that he was married to her chief aide. When Wikileaks revealed near despotic collusion between the legacy media and the Clinton campaign, the Democrats fought back with the Russia narrative - a narrative that is still in play today. 

The Democrats are experts at politics and have been since Reconstruction. When was the last time you saw a pack of Democrats turn on a Democrat politician? When was the last time you saw Democrat staffers leaking information damaging to a Democratic administration? It doesn't happen very often because, unlike Republicans, Democrats have a common agenda, as radical as it may be, and they know how to wield power.

Compare that to the Republicans' recent, massive, electoral success. Americans rewarded Republicans for nominating the "Drain the Swamp" candidate with a landslide victory across the nation. They now control the vast majority of state legislatures and governorships, both houses of Congress, and enjoy a right leaning majority on the Supreme Court. Yet, in spite of all of this power, Republicans have been unable to pass a single piece of consequential legislation. In fact, to the contrary, they have humiliated themselves over a healthcare bill, failed to propose anything resembling a reasonable budget, failed to propose any meaningful tax reform, failed follow up on any Republican initiated investigations into Democratic misconduct, and have utterly failed to wrestle the microphone from the Democrats.

Worse, despite controlling pretty much the entire government, they have somehow allowed a ridiculous investigation into whether Trump is a Russian spy to dominate the agenda. In less than 200 days, the Republican majority has helped cripple the Trump presidency. It will be remarkable if he survives his first term and, if he does not, it will not be because of the minority party.

My Republican friends will argue: "But Trump has done it to himself. He can't shut up or stop tweeting." That's a fair point, but that's where teamwork comes in to play. If Republicans were to circle the wagons to protect their President, like the Democrats always do, these stories would go away and the business of government could proceed. Trump has not tweeted, said or done anything as bad as setting up a secret server or blaming a terrorist attack on an internet video. His attacks on the media are harsh, but he has yet to ban a news outlet from the Whitehouse or turn the NSA on a member of the press as Obama did to James Rosen. In each instance, Democrats quickly produce and distribute their talking points and go to war. They win the narrative each time, not because they are right, but because they are effective.

The Republicans have done exactly the opposite. They have allowed multiple investigations to proceed where Democrats would have shut them down. They have encouraged the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate crimes for which there is no evidence. The Majority Leader is allowing the Senate Intelligence Committee to subpoena "all campaign communications" from the 2016 Trump campaign. Can you imagine receiving such a request as the President? "All communications"? And what, exactly, do Republicans think will happen if Trump complies? 

Trump would be handing a leaking, hostile group of Establishment buffoons his entire campaign strategy, including, undoubtedly, some embarrassing emails. In other words, the Republican led committee is willing to inflict massive political damage on the Trump Presidency, far exceeding what Wikileaks did to Clinton.

And why? For what possible reason would the Republicans want to take down their own President; a man who led them to a massive election victory?

The answers are simpler than one would think. First, the Republican Party really is four different parties: Goldwater Conservatives, Populists, Libertarians, and Establishment Elitists. The Conservatives love to stand on principle and, when they attack Trump, they attack him for attempting to compromise (think the Healthcare Bill). However, they are also political dilettantes. These principled Tea Party candidates came to power in the minority. They have never had power and have no idea how to wield it.

The Libertarian wing, with whom I am most aligned, partners with Conservatives to limit the size and scope of government. Since we believe that most Americans at their core want to be free, we tend to harbor less fear of populism. After all, individual freedom is not only popular, but a core Libertarian principle. Where there are disagreements, Libertarians are more likely to compromise. We believe that others are entitled to their opinions and respect the fact that others may have a better answer to the same problem. Goldwater Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." That is hardly an invitation to compromise. 

The Populists have been kept at bay for most of the last 25 years. They are the Reagan Democrats, and the anti-establishment insiders like Pat Buchanan. They have typically been despised by the three other members of the coalition as the great unwashed, uneducated masses. Like a volcano, however, as some point there is an eruption. It may not be in your lifetime, but when it happens, it is literally Earth shattering. Populists pushed Ross Perot, for example, to run against the Uber-Established incumbent, George H. W. Bush. Bush had just escaped a  primary against Pat Buchanan. Ross Perot cost Bush and the Establishment the election to Bill Clinton. 

Donald Trump is a populist. His loyalty to the Republican Party has been to the extent they promote his traditionalist, Norman Rockwell view of America. Like a volcano, he erupted on the scene, smashing conventional politics to bits. Those smashed into the smallest bits were the Establishment Elites. These effete Washington "intellectuals" cannot stomach all these dirty people who work for a living. We'll just call this the George Will wing of the Party.  They are the bratty kid who quits the team when he gets benched. They are the sore losers, the turncoats who attack their own, the tattletales who profit from embarrassing leaks to the press. They write scathing articles or give scathing speeches which seem like they come right out of the opposition playbook. They claim to act on principle, but really it is just arrogance. They act to preserve the status quo because change may rob them of power and influence.

Democrat Elites, on the other hand, know how to embrace a popular figure and force a compromise. Barack Obama won the imaginations of Democratic voters in the 2008 primary, but he stood opposed to Establishment favorite, Hillary Clinton. Just when the party began to turn on itself, Joe Biden stepped in to negotiate a compromise between the popular outsider, Obama, and the Establishment. What followed was total victory in two Presidential elections. Contrary to Republican talking points, Democrats did in fact have a number of serious accomplishments. They raised taxes, finally passed health care reform, passed Dodd-Frank, withdrew from Iraq, tilted the playing field in favor of employees, negotiated a nuclear arms deal with Iran, expanded the EPA, entered into climate change agreements, and generally expanded the size of government.

All things I disagree with. Nevertheless, these are core accomplishments for Democrats in the fight for America. Just because I disagree with them does not mean they did not happen...

America is and has been a center-right country for more than sixty years. That spans seven presidencies, both Republican and Democrat. When the pendulum swings too much in one direction, there is a sea change in the electorate to bring our government, more or less, back to just right of center. Democrats have been exceedingly successful over the years in pushing a leftist agenda through a center-right electorate. Their level of discipline, commitment, skill, and political intelligence must be respected. 

Republicans have been given decades to push a center-right agenda through a center-right electorate with very little success. The Republican Revolution in 1994 led to the most success throughout that period, but it took a Democratic President to partner with Republicans to get it done. If Republicans continue down this road, they will again be thrown out of power. 

This most recent Elitist fantasy of a post-impeachment Mike Pence Presidency would result in the final and total destruction of the Party. Populists and Reagan Democrats will quit politics or form a third party. Conservatives will be taken down with Trump, and the Establishment Elites will cling to a few seats inside the Beltway. Every four years they will put forward another white, milk toast candidate for President who, after losing a full third of the Party's interest, will be trounced by a leftist. Republicans can then go on to do what they seem to do best, launch symbolic investigations, form committees, and otherwise just say no.

Republican voters nominated Donald Trump precisely because the rest of the Party had failed them. He brought real energy to the process as well as new voters. He earned 65 million votes in the general election and won in states that the Republicans have not held since H.W. Bush. He lifted the entire Party up with him. In return, he is left on an island with a bunch of political neophytes to advise him. Establishment Republicans still don't like him and run to the press to reiterate that point every chance they get, like a weak little boy runs to his mommy to tattle when the big boys tease him. They stab Trump in the back with special prosecutors and astonishingly broad subpoenas. They write self-righteous articles about all the "real reasons" they lost the primary, like a bunch of sore losers. They damage the nation with leaks.

What they don't seem to realize is that, as goes Trump, so does the Republican Party. All of it...

Trump's Doolittle Raid Will Prove Ineffective In The Long Run

On December 7, 1941 Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor, leading to the entry of the United States into World War II. The Japanese achieved total surprise and, but for providence, would have sunk the entire U.S. Pacific Fleet. Both the military and President Roosevelt were embarrassed by the complete failure of military planing and U.S. intelligence. Roosevelt believed that something had to be done to show the Japanese that they had made a serious miscalculation.

Fast forward four months. On April 18, 1942, Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy Doolittle, along with 80 brave men, launched a bombing raid from the USS Hornet on industrial targets in Japan. The attack became known as the "Doolittle Raid." While the targets struck had military significance, the attack itself had very little effect on the Japanese war machine. It is undisputed, however, that the raid made Americans and their leaders feel better.

There is no doubt that President Trump's order to attack Syria in response to Assad's atrocities makes us feel better. It takes a certain kind of sociopath to be unmoved by images of children being gassed while asleep in their beds. We all feel like we should do something. And so we act.

The fact is that for years ISIS has been, literally, crucifying children, stoning women, burying families alive, drowning them in cages, lighting them on fire with diesel, chopping off arms and legs, raping, beating, whipping, shooting and generally acting like the pawns of Satan that they are. Their atrocities rival those of the Third Reich. Our response has been airstrikes in support of a largely ineffective local Iraqi army.

The Caliphate's atrocities are no less atrocious than Assad's, or those perpetuated in Africa or any number of other places in the world. In Syria, we chose to make a point. Fine, but it is this selective outrage and inconsistent application of military force that has served to destroy our credibility with rank and file inhabitants of the Middle East.

If we are truly honest with ourselves, we would acknowledge that we have a tendency as Americans to overestimate the effectiveness of military action. "Mission accomplished" comes to mind, for example. In this case it is pretty clear that the Administration wanted to "send a message," and nearly every pundit in the country believes that everyone from Putin to Xi to Kim Jong Un will think twice before messing with us. I respectfully disagree.

Unlike ISIS or some African warlord, Assad crossed a very clear, very red line that has been, more or less, consistently enforced since 1925. No matter who you are, you cannot use weapons of mass destruction in war unless you are first attacked with those weapons. We ostensibly fought the second Iraq War to remove WMD from another brutal dictator who had gassed his own people. There is no question that the world has some obligation to respond and remove those weapons from Syria. However, lobbing 59 cruise missiles at a single airbase, avoiding the chemical weapons stockpile, and failing to render the runways unusable does not achieve that objective. 

Nor will it deter Putin, Xi or anyone else. President Trump demonstrated his willingness to use kinetic military force on short notice. He showed that he is decisive. These are good things, but our enemies will analyze those things in context. Just a week ago, the Trump Administration announced that it was no longer focusing on removing Assad from power. Assad and the Russians were undoubtedly emboldened by those remarks. The only remaining question was how to win as fast as possible. They chose to use chemical weapons. Secretary Tillerson then announced after the attack that the United States was looking to put together a coalition to support regime change. The administration attacked Syria and then walked that back, announcing that this was a "one off" and that, while we are prepared to do more, we are not planning any additional military action.

It doesn't take a chess champion to see the problem here. There is no consistent plan or strategy with regard to Assad, Syria or the larger Middle East. Moreover, a dangerous precedent has been set. If WMD are used, our response will be to strike a single airbase and not even render it useless. Nor will we seize the weapons. And we will announce that our military operation is over. But we will leave them guessing about whether we will remain a consistent police presence in the area. 

The Trump strategy may be to simply make their heads explode...

Vladimir Putin will not be deterred. He will shrug his shoulders and say "oh well, no more chemical weapons." Then he will launch a massive cruise missile strike of his own on those same villages. He will also use the rise in world tensions and our unilateral use of military power as an excuse to move further into Eastern Ukraine. And that's the mild version. He may directly test U.S. resolve in the Middle East and NATO resolve in Europe. He is not going to simply take it and go away.

I am not suggesting that we should allow Russia to dictate our foreign policy or military action. That said, it would be a serious error to ignore the fact that Russia is a military superpower that could conquer Europe in a week and, ironically, has demonstrated to us in Syria that they are willing to use WMD in order to secure a strategic objective. Nobody is talking about that pretty significant detail. And, as they have the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world, that should give us a moment of pause.

There is a difference between showing the world that we are willing to take action and showing the world that we are willing to take effective action. If all the Trump Administration wanted to do was show the world that, after eight years of inaction, the U.S. is "back" and willing to resume its role as occasional policeman, then mission accomplished. If the goal was to stop the proliferation and use of WMD by an evil regime or isolate and deter the Russians, then this action had little effect. 

In the long run, peace in the Middle East can only be achieved by the consistent and robust application of soft power backed by the threat of decisive force. A single demonstration of military power is insufficient to convince hardened regimes fighting for their very existence that we will affect the outcome of the conflict. In the case of Syria, Assad has Russian support, which is substantial. In the case of ISIS, 59 or 559 cruise missiles are really not much of a threat. They will just melt into the desert until we run out missiles and then reform as another group, assuming we can even find which huts to strike. So, we can applaud President Trump for showing that America can and will still strike bad men. But, let us not convince ourselves that, without more, this will stop the genocide in Syria or strike fear in the hearts of other superpowers.

How We Should And Should Not Respond To The Syrian Chemical Attacks

It is without question that the chemical attacks on Syrian opposition forces, refugees and their families is a war crime. Chemical weapons have been banned in the battlefield since the end of World War I. The treaty, known as the Geneva Protocol, was signed by 40 nations in 1925. Russia ratified the treaty as the Soviet Union in 1928. Syria ratified the treaty in 1968 under the leadership of General Salah Jadid, who had just come to power after a successful coup. Two years later, Hafez al-Assad removed Jadid and his puppets from power, establishing modern rule in Syria. Syria's current leader, Bashar al-Assad, is his youngest son.

World War I saw the first use of chemical weapons. It is ironic that yesterday's attack comes nearly 100 years to the day that the U.S. entered the "War to End All Wars."

There have been other chemical weapons treaties since 1928. The world has largely followed those treaties. Unfortunately, like most laws and treaties, if they are not consistently enforced, they are eventually ignored.

Both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons during their decade long war during the 1980's. Following George H.W. Bush's decision not to depose Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War, Hussein used chemical weapons to quell Kurdish uprisings in northern Iraq. The world did nothing about the use of chemical weapons in those conflicts, notwithstanding that many women and children died. In recent history, both Assad and Isis have used chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq. 

Three years ago, I wrote a post outlining Putin's larger strategy in the middle east. http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/putins-game.html. In essence, Putin has always planned to use Russian military force and political influence to form some beachhead in the middle east. Syria is that beachhead and Assad is its guarantor. So far, the United States has been content with this arrangement. But, that changes when one of the principal guarantees from Russia, the confiscation of Assad's chemical stockpile, is unfulfilled. 

President Obama did very little to influence a positive outcome in the wake of the Putin-Assad alliance. It was all talk, some sanctions, and discussions about arming rebels. When Assad crossed Obama's "red line," the President threatened regime change but ultimately did nothing about it. This is different, however. Assad used Russian military assets to disperse his chemical arsenal. The Russians are at least indirectly responsible for violating the long standing ban on chemical weapons use.

It is a game changer and it should be. When major powers break arms treaties, it necessarily requires the other signatories to reevaluate their own restraint. Evil Jihadis using chemical weapons is to be expected. A military Superpower using chemical weapons is a violation of international law that must be answered if we are to continue to subordinate our own interests to similar arms treaties.

Here is what we should NOT do:

1.  Bomb Russians

Since yesterday, the usual suspects have been canvassing the cable news networks calling for war with Russia. Lindsey Graham, Deputy Hawk in Chief, was on O'Reilly last night advocating the bombing of Syrian airfields that are also housing Russian planes and personnel. This is neither realistic nor would it be wise. First, as soon as American planes come close to Russian airbases they will be intercepted by Russian fighters or shot down by advanced anti-aircraft weaponry. Even if the U.S. successfully bombed Russian military assets, it would be an act of war and Russia would almost certainly retaliate. As I've said many times before, a third industrial scale war must be avoided at almost any cost.  http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-race-towards-world-war-iii.html.

2. Rely on the United Nations

The United Nations will do absolutely nothing. The world is wary of "regime change" and the perpetual use of U.S. military power in the middle east. Our schizophrenic approach towards the region over the last thirty years has left the world with the impression that, whatever we decide to do, it will not bring long term stability. One decade it's nation building and the exportation of democracy. The next decade it's withdrawal and ISIS. We have helped create the very conditions that we now oppose in the region. We need to take some responsibly for that and proceed with some caution and deliberation. 

3.  Win Heart and Minds

The "hearts and minds" strategy has been an utter failure dating back to Vietnam. It is part of a limited warfare strategy that sets narrow targets and narrow goals. It is susceptible to mission creep as local attitudes improve, and it is equally susceptible to guerrilla warfare as local attitudes sour. We have tried to win hearts and minds in the middle east for decades. We lost. They hate us and we just have to accept that. They will hate us until they have no other choice but to like us. That requires more than chocolate bars and the promise to avoid all civilian casualties.

What we should do, if anything:

1.  Deploy Decisive Military Force to the Region

If we are going to do anything at all, it should be decisive. It should end middle eastern conflicts in general for decades. It should be to completely destroy terrorism as an ideology and make it so unpalatable to the population that grandmothers turn in grandsons who speak of Jihad.

Lobbing some bombs here and there makes the situation worse. If we are going to end this perpetual conflict, it will require decisive military force. It will also require a long term occupation of the region. While that sounds undesirable, it really is nothing more than following, with more effect, the status quo. We've deployed hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the middle east over the last 20 years. Whether we continue to deploy and withdraw or simply stay really does not matter. 

To that end, we should reestablish our presence in Iraq, deploy an ISIS first strategy, crush them in both Iraq and Syria, and then occupy as much territory in Syria as possible. The occupation deprives Russia of additional territory and guarantees protections for civilians. 

2.  Draw a New Line in the Sand

We do not need any other red lines but, after we have taken as much of the region as possible, we should negotiate a border. Assad can stay in power, it will not matter. He will be governing a postage stamp nation. The U.S. military will have a massive presence in his country and will punish any incursions into the occupied territory.  Assad and the Russians can be contained, but not with bombs dropped on huts from F-16s. It will take a sustained effort.

3.  Stay

In order to really effect change in the middle east, we will have to stay there into the foreseeable future. Again, our military has been in and out of the middle east for decades. What I am suggesting is nothing new. It is merely a recognition of the fact that the enemy ideology cannot be stamped out without a consistent and sustained effort to do so. Yes, it will cost a fortune, but no more than it has already cost us. In the long run it will cost us much less in both lives and money.

These strategies serve several purposes. We can simultaneously annihilate Jihad and contain Russia.  We also punish a dictator who chooses to stockpile and use WMD. We set a new precedent, one that is more likely to be observed in the future. We protect civilians and our allies in the region. We also further isolate Iran.

Moreover, Russia, once they are deprived of any meaningful foothold in the middle east, will have to reevaluate their own global strategy. Vladimir Putin will at least see that force will be met with force, and the United States will answer conflict with the total destruction of the enemy. It is a message that has been lacking from our foreign policy since the 80's. All of this is accomplished without provoking an industrial war with Russia. We need not announce our intentions to the world, we need only to execute the plan.

Give Democrats And Leakers One Last Chance, Then Use Their Own Methods Against Them

Every American should be outraged by recent revelations that Obama National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, repeatedly used the intelligence agencies to spy on Trump, his family and his advisors. This spying has been confirmed by five major news organizations and dates back to the Republican Primary. Susan Rice (and likely others) systematically searched for and reviewed all raw communications involving the Trump organization and any foreigner under surveillance. This included communications between Trump advisors, Trump himself, and Trump's family. Since this surveillance was conducted on U.S. soil, it required a FISA Order.

Former Obama Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Evelyn Farkas, confirmed last week that the Obama Administration intended to collect as much "intelligence" against President Trump and his associates as possible and then disseminate it to as many people as feasible before leaving office. To that end, President Obama expanded the rules under Executive Order 12333 making it easier to disseminate this type of classified information just days before he left office. 

As we all know by now, President Trump tweeted that his "wires were tapped" by "President Obama." The tweet set off a fury of recriminations. Democrats and many Republicans, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, condemned the President, calling on him to apologize to President Obama. The media has repeatedly reported that the President's tweet was "completely false." The Director of the FBI testified before Congress that he "could find no evidence" of any "wire tap" on Trump.

Liars all.

In a world of deconstructive thinking, I suppose we should not be surprised that the President's political opponents would deconstruct the word "wiretap" to make it appear that he was lying. Except that he wasn't. 

Black's Law Dictionary defines "wiretapping" as follows: "A form of electric or mechanical eavesdropping where, upon court order, law enforcement officials surreptitiously listen to phone calls or other conversations or communications of persons." Let us engage in a little deconstruction of our own. President Trump's claim is that "Obama" "wiretapped" him. Under the definition in Black's, "wiretapping" is "eavesdropping," with a "court order" that involves "surreptitiously listening" to "phone calls" or other "communications" of a "person." 

Now, let us examine how that definition applies in this case. It is undisputed that: (1) there was eavesdropping; (2) under a FISA Court Order; (3) that allowed intelligence agencies to; (4) surreptitiously listen to; (5) phone calls or other communications; (6) of people, including President Trump, his family and his associates. The only remaining question is whether "Obama" himself participated in the "wiretapping." We know that he did and here's how: He revised Executive Order 12333 which, according to his own Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, was part of a broader strategy to disseminate intelligence gathered on then President-Elect Trump. 

Obama wiretapped Trump. Period. It is actually even worse than that. He and his administration did not just retask the FISA process to aid in some kind of "Russian ties" investigation. His National Security Advisor intentionally ordered the raw intelligence, including Trump associate identities, to be delivered to her so that Democrats could gain a strategic political advantage over Republicans. I say "Republicans" because, if it is true that this surveillance dates back to the primaries, then it is highly unlikely that Obama was wiretapping just Trump. It is more likely that the Obama Administration was using the intelligence apparatus to surveil all potential nominees.  It is a question that is at least worth asking.

Democrats and their allies are already forming a new narrative in the event that this scandal explodes into something more apocalyptic than Watergate. Even if the Obama Administration ordered the surveillance of Donald Trump and his family and friends, it was not "illegal." After all, the FISA Court authorized the surveillance of foreigners and the collection of Trump communications was "merely incidental." Moreover, there is nothing "inherently illegal" about unmasking Americans caught up in "routine surveillance" of foreigners. 

The problems with this narrative are numerous. Notwithstanding the fact that it probably is illegal to unmask the Trump communications, the narrative ignores the obvious. Obama and his administration took affirmative steps to not only review the raw intelligence, but also to disseminate that raw intelligence to as many people as possible for political reasons. Moreover, Hillary Clinton and several of her campaign advisors, including Ben Rhodes, still had clearance to review that intelligence. It would be exceptionally naive to believe that this intentionally gathered intelligence was not shared with her campaign. 

It may not matter whether or not this was politically motivated, however. Democrats and their allies can have it one of two ways. First, they can admit that this entire conspiracy (yes, conspiracy) to spy on the Trump campaign was an inappropriate abuse of power. The Congress can then pass bipartisan legislation to reign in these out of control intelligence agencies and make some progress towards restoring Constitutional freedoms. Susan Rice and those who leaked this information can be given at least a slap on the wrist, and the country can move on.

The alternative should be significantly more frightening to the opposition. For a group of people who believe Donald Trump is an authoritarian dictator, Democrats sure seem ok with giving Trump a reason to abuse his power. The natural reaction to the opposition narrative is to simply say that turnabout is fair play. Should the Democrats persist in this fantasy that all of this was proper, Trump should turn the intelligence agencies on them. If the Obama Administration can spy on political opponents using FISA, unmasking and leaking, so can the Trump Administration. In fact, the President has the power to unilaterally declassify anything he wants, which could be the Democrats' worst nightmare. 

For example, he could start with Benghazi. Perhaps we could finally review President Obama's communications (or lack thereof) during the 13 hour crisis that resulted in the deaths of four Americans. He could also declare the Clinton Foundation a "foreign agent" and obtain a FISA Order to "wiretap" the Clinton's, their daughter, all of their friends, all of their donors, and anyone who was ever associated with the foundation. Since President Obama supported the Clinton Foundation, he too should be subject to surveillance for the rest of this life. The President could then leak, or just declassify and publish any embarrassing intercepts, making sure their context is never known. 

President Trump could go even further. He could order the Justice Department to launch an investigation into the Obama Administration's ties to Iran, Russia or any other hostile foreign government from whom the wiretapped communications were gathered. According to Democrats and Establishment Republicans, having "ties" to a foreign government is now considered the appropriate subject of an all out inquiry. In short, let the rivers of unlimited surveillance flow, drowning the entire political establishment. After all, Trump was elected to either fix Washington, or burn it to the ground. He may simply choose the latter.

Or maybe, just maybe, after a difficult election, we can cease fire. 

Where Democracy Goes To Die

The "Deep State." I confess that until recently, I had never heard that term. In fact, I would have never imagined such a thing. When Ross Perot started talking about "black helicopters" during the 1992 election, he was famously mocked by both Clinton and Bush as a conspiracy nut. In 1997, when Bill Clinton attacked Iraq during his impeachment, nutty right wingers were ridiculed for accusing him of trying to divert attention from his impeachment. Ironically, Hollywood had presaged exactly this kind of thing in the Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro movie "Wag the Dog." 

In 2003, George Bush used "faulty" intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction to justify a second invasion of Iraq. After now more than a dozen years of war, there is only limited evidence of a mass weapons program on the scale that Bush used to justify the invasion. Conspiracy theories erupted, alleging that Bush and the intelligence community made the whole thing up so to continue a war against Saddam Hussein. But anyone making such allegations was labeled "unpatriotic," and loony.

President Obama came into office promising a complete change in direction of American foreign policy. His goal was to withdraw from the cycle of perpetual war, put our allies out in front of their own defense, close down the intelligence apparatus that led to the second Gulf War, enhanced interrogation techniques, rendition, and what he viewed as American overreach. After eight years and two terms, he was unable to do almost anything, except withdraw from one war, only to get us into another one.

Like him or hate him, Donald Trump is the first civilian President we've had since before World War II. He does not come from Washington, he hasn't spent decades working his way up through the government, and he hasn't ever held elected office. Like President Obama, President Trump wants to withdraw from the cycle of perpetual war, put our allies (like NATO) out in front of their own defense, and generally end what he also thinks is American overreach. He has been critical of the intelligence community for "faulty" intelligence. It hasn't even been two months and he has already been the victim of illegal leaks from the intelligence community, false incrimination, and a general conspiracy deep inside the government to undermine his credibility.

I could not support Hillary Clinton because she thought she was above the law. As I've said in my articles, she thinks she's above the law because she is above the law. I can think of nothing more dangerous to American democracy than a narrow class of individuals who are truly beyond justice.  Until now. Individuals inside our government believe that they are entitled to commit treason by leaking classified information. They believe that they are allowed to wiretap a presidential candidate's staff and surrogates during a campaign. They believe that they can drag us into war on a false premise. They believed and may still believe that they can drone strike Americans overseas and collect every phone call, text message and key swipe made by Americans, our enemies and our allies. 

If these things are true, then these individuals represent the greatest threat to our freedom that our nation has ever faced. We will all have to judge for ourselves. Posterity will judge us.

Wiretapping

According to the New York Times (hardly a pro-Trump publication), Trump and his surrogates, including former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, were wiretapped. Those wiretaps led to at least one transcript showing that General Flynn had some contact with Russian diplomats before the President was sworn in. Flynn subsequently resigned. The source allegedly came from either our intelligence agencies or  a "counterintelligence investigation"  being conducted by the FBI. 

Three individuals in the Trump campaign were targeted, we only know the identities of two: Trump Campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and national security advisor, Michael Flynn. Both were, obviously, top officials within the Trump presidential campaign. Both resigned after anonymous sources inside the intelligence community leaked that both men were being "investigated" for alleged "ties to Russia." We are left to assume whether the third person was Donald Trump...

In order to target either man with any kind of monitoring, the government - that is, the Obama administration - had to go to a super secret federal court named "FISA," and get a warrant. U.S. intelligence is not allowed to act on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without; (1) a domestic mandate from the FBI into an ongoing investigation; or (2) a warrant from a FISA court. FISA was set up to make it easier to wiretap Americans who are suspected of terrorist ties or who are otherwise suspected of being "foreign operatives."

The first possibility can be ruled out. As the FBI stated repeatedly during the election, there was no investigation into Donald Trump's alleged "ties to Russia." The FBI recently rebuffed the allegation that they had wiretapped the campaign, calling it "completely false." Perhaps they are telling the truth. Perhaps they are being crafty with their words. Perhaps Trump himself was not wiretapped but his advisors were. It doesn't matter. If you are investigating Trump's advisors, you are investigating Trump. This is because if Trump advisors were being bugged, then Trump's communications with those advisors were also swept up in the "investigation." Let's assume the FBI is telling the plain truth.

That leaves U.S. intelligence agencies and FISA. Shortly after the President's inauguration, several news outlets reported that the Obama administration sought three separate FISA orders during the final three months of the presidential campaign. These FISA request were leaked, again illegally, to news outlets in an effort to bolster the case that Trump had somehow colluded with Russian intelligence to steal the election.

FISA courts have adjudicated over 35,000 application requests. They have rejected exactly 12. Two of those were the first two requests to wiretap Donald Trump or his surrogates. The Obama administration's third request was granted, although we do not know who, exactly, was the target. However, we can assume that it was General Flynn. We know this because he was, in fact, wiretapped, and a transcript of one of those conversations was leaked to the New York Times. It is indisputable that: (1) there was a wiretap; (2) targeting a Trump advisor; (3) ordered by someone in the government; (4) during the election; and (5) there is a record of all of this. In other words, officials inside the Obama administration, either in the intelligence community or in the FBI, wiretapped Trump advisors during the presidential campaign. The evidence is overwhelming. 

The only remaining question is whether President Obama knew it or ordered it. Frankly, I'm not sure which prospect is scarier, the sitting President wiretapping an opponent's campaign in order to sabotage him, or some Deep State conspiracy to thwart the will of the American people. 

Either is plausible. President Obama used FISA to wiretap a Fox News reporter and his parents after he sourced a news report with an intelligence leak. On the other hand, no matter your feelings about President Obama, he has never been corrupt. Overly aggressive, perhaps, but outright corrupt, no.

That leaves the Deep State conspiracy. Unelected intelligence operatives believe that they are entitled to collude with the FBI, the Administration, and the news media in an effort to interfere with a U.S. Presidential Election. The "ties to Russia" narrative is what conspiracy theorists would call "a false flag;" A diversion to turn the attention of the American people away from their true objective, which was to defeat an anti-establishment candidate in favor of a pro-establishment candidate.  

I believed Ross Perot was nuts. I believed that President Clinton had no choice but to attack Iraq when Hussein tried to use his impeachment to weaken the coalition occupation. I believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Hussein was going to give them to Al Qaeda. I believed that the intelligence was simply "faulty" when those weapons were not found. I believed that President Obama changed his mind about ending the cycle of perpetual war, or closing Guantanamo Bay.

But, I do not believe that Donald Trump or any of his surrogates are foreign agents who colluded with Russian intelligence to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. It is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and it will, hopefully, be the downfall of the Deep State.

The Emerging Police State

This is where Democracies go to die: 

Unaccountable "Deep States," secret courts, wiretapping political opponents, "fake news," and leaked propaganda, all in favor of a limitless government and perpetual war. The FBI Director said last week that, because of modern technology, "no one can escape" the reach of the FBI. Wikileaks simultaneously disclosed secret CIA and NSA programs operating out of Frankfurt, Germany that allow them to hack every single phone, computer, and tablet in the world. They can turn on your internet, activate your camera, record your conversations, and track your every movement, all without your knowledge. 

We should all be terrified, not because we are going to do anything illegal or because we have something to hide. Privacy is a basic human dignity and absolutely essential to the preservation of a free state. To strip away one's privacy is to dehumanize that person. There is absolutely no guarantee that these unaccountable government agents will not abuse their power and humiliate you. You are at their mercy and there is nothing you can do about it when they can monitor your every word and your every movement. As with General Flynn and Paul Manafort, the mere fact of an "investigation," leaked to the media, ruins careers. In a world without privacy, innuendo, suspicion, and suggestion are dispositive, and you have no recourse once your life is destroyed. It is the exact definition of a police state. It is not the America we inherited.

I say again, this is where Democracy goes to die.

"Ties to Russia"

Exactly seven people in the United States thought Donald Trump would become President. No one predicted that he would beat a skilled primary field and then lose the popular vote, but beat one of the most established political candidates in decades. No one. Not even the all-powerful Russians. To think that Vladimir Putin had the foresight to secretly pick Donald Trump, and his future advisors, as foreign agents who would go on to become the Trump Administration is asinine in the highest degree. It did not happen.

Instead what happened is the DNC and Clinton's Chief of Staff, John Podesta, got hacked. They deserved to get hacked. (According to Wikileaks, for example, Podesta's password to one of his email accounts was, wait for it, "password.") From that point on, the Russian narrative was born and the Obama Administration used the alleged Russian hacking as an excuse to wiretap the opposition party's campaign. The tail wagged the dog.

A part of our Democracy did in fact die the day a wiretap was placed on a Trump surrogate during the campaign. We should all be outraged, reject the false narrative, and hold every single person involved in that decision criminally responsible. If we do not, then our democracy is indeed dead.