Archive for the ‘Michael Scheuer’ Category

Is there an America-First enemy of … – Michael Scheuer

All this seems to show that change of ministers amounts to nothing. One goes out, another comes in, and still the same measures, vices, and extravagance are pursued. It signifies not who is minister. The defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into court [authoritarian] government, and ever will. Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791-92

Even in the midst of his destabilizing intoxication with the French Revolutions madness, Thomas Paine still was able to peer into the future and accurately describe the state of the U.S. government and the republics political system in 2016. And no truer words could be spoken about contemporary Americas foreign-policy disaster than Paines point that the defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into court [authoritarian] government, and ever will.

In his recent State of the Union address, for example, President Obama asserted that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and the Islamist movement do not pose an existential threat to the United States. Obama would have been 100-percent correct if he had been speaking when al-Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1996.

The reason that the Islamists are now, without question, an existential threat lies in the war-causing interventionism of the past four presidents and their administrations, as well as their cowardly refusal to win the wars they started. Of the four, Obama stands out for special condemnation, as no single Muslim could have done more to promote the confidence, geographic spread, and numerical growth of the Islamist movement. It is these national government actions that have motivated and nurtured the Islamists, and they will remain and grow further as an existential threat to the United States until the citizenry elects a president who puts America first by calling a halt to unnecessary overseas interventionism, and engages in wars only when America is attacked or narrowly defined U.S. national interests are at clear and indisputable risk.

I have written here previously that twenty years into this religious war, the American people have come to the point where they really only have two credible options if they are to avoid an endless war with Islam and defend their republic and themselves.

(a) The United States can break the Islamic States back by destroying its energy, educational, agricultural, transportation, electrical, medical, and industrial infrastructures and the other money-making assets it controls in Syria and Iraq, and and if we wait much longer probably Libya. After doing this, the U.S. government can withdraw all of its military assets from the region, announce that U.S. forces are not coming back to save anyones bacon, and advise the sixty-plus other countries in Obamas coalition to align with the Saudi coalition and destroy the remaining Islamists. Because the Saudis and their coalition support most of the non-IS Islamists and probably some of the IS ones this scenario will quickly lead to a regional Sunni-Shia war in which our enemies will merrily kill each other until well after the cows come home.

(b) The United States can avoid the foregoing effort and expense by stepping out of the region right now and letting the Islamist movement and its main enemies in the region move at their own pace, which will take them straight to a regional sectarian war. As this savagery evolves, Americans must do all that is necessary to secure the republics position in North America close borders, deport all illegal aliens, temporarily stop all immigration, etc.

Again, this is not a complicated problem: the United States must utterly destroy the Islamist enemy and then leave the region, or the United States must leave the region and end its unnecessary, war-causing, and always ineffective interventionism and let the Islamists take on their main enemies, Muslim tyrants, Israel, and the Shia.

For twenty-five years, however, the U.S. government has done neither. It has waged war in a half-way (half-assed?) manner and lost two wars, an exercise in foreign-and-military futility that has succeeded in enriching an environment in the Islamic world that is intensely anti-U.S. government, yielding enormous growth in the Islamist movement, and convincing many millions of Muslims that the mujahedin can win because their success so far demonstrates Allahs approval of their efforts.

Given Americas limited options and with time to make a choice running short, the 2016 presidential election is acutely important because it may be the last chance for Americans to make the choice described above before getting sucked into catastrophe in the Middle East. Sadly, only one of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates seems to offer anything other than more of the same war-causing measures. Lets have a look.

Hillary Clinton: Long a Neoconservative, a cultural/political/military interventionist, and a war-causing democracy monger. She favors the war-causing expansion of NATO, and is willing to see U.S. Marines and soldiers killed and maimed to install her version of feminism abroad. She is an unquestioning supporter of Israel and on the payroll of the Israel-First lobby. She and Obama are responsible for the Libyan invasion, which in a year or so will produce the same kind of problems and perhaps worse as those produced by the Hillary-supported, George W. Bush invasion of Iraq. She also seems to be a chronic liar, an influence peddler, and an enemy of U.S. national security.

Bottom Line: President Hillary Clinton = More war, more Islamist damage to the United States, deeper debt, less liberty, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, continued open borders, and the potential spectacle of a sitting president and perhaps her husband being convicted and imprisoned for an array of crimes.

Bernie Sanders and Martin OMalley: These two characters provide the 2016 campaign with a reliable and more than ample supply of the putrid-and-nation killing breath of warmed-over 20th century socialism and communism. Perhaps forgetting how those creeds bred authoritarianism (anyone recall National Socialism in Germany?), one-party rule, the mass murder of dissenters, and the destruction of the economies of Eastern Europe, Central and South America, much of Africa, Russia, India, and China, Sanders and OMalley represent an enormous step backwards in their effort to make todays America into the Eastern Europe of the 1950s. Neither seems as corrupt or criminally inclined as Mrs. Clinton, but they offer nothing except a Bolshevik-made blueprint that ensures minority rule and Americas demise. Sanders, in particular, can never be permitted to assume the presidency. But on foreign policy they both are establishment Democrats, they want to make the rest of the world democratic, feminist, and secular and that can only be done despite Sanders claim that he prefers diplomacy with more and more war.

Bottom Line: President Sanders or President OMalley = More war, more Islamist damage to the United States, a weaker military, more minority rule, deeper debt, more taxes, less liberty, continued open borders, and more presidential diktats.

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush: Given what their statements and websites say about foreign policy, there is not an outsider in this bunch, they are all members actual or aspiring of the Republican establishment. All are Neoconservatives; all are all-out supporters of Israel and takers of Israel-First campaign funding; all identify Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf and Middle East tyrannies as U.S. allies; all favor what is increasingly likely to be a war-causing expansion of NATO; and all are bone-deep proponents of the senior Bushs deranged recipe for endless foreign intervention and the wars it causes, the New World Order.

Bottom Line: President Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, Huckabee, Fiorina, Kasich, or Bush = More of the same from the Republican establishment; that is, more America must lead prattle, more war, more dead Marines and soldiers, more Islamist damage to the United States, deeper debt, less liberty, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, and continued open borders.

Rand Paul: This is the best and most specific conservative candidate on a combination of issues, including the debt, the Federal Reserve, the return of constitutional governing, reducing tax rates, right to life, and protecting the 2nd and 4th Amendments. On foreign policy, however, his websites softly spoken statements suggest complete support for Israel which means endless war with Islam and the continuation of U.S. alliances, apparently meaning an array of Sunni tyrannies on the Arab Peninsula and in the Middle Wast and NATO and its expansionism which means endless war with Islam and possibly unnecessary conflict with Russia. Perhaps most troubling, the website does not seem to have a discussion of the vital importance of reestablishing a U.S. foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention; indeed, I could not find those words on the website .

Bottom Line: President Paul = More of the same Republican interventionist foreign policy and so more war, debt, taxes, dead Marines and soldiers, and precious little time to work for the return to constitutional government.

Donald Trump: This candidate has given few details about his views on foreign policy, save that he will be tougher on Mexico and China, will deport all illegal aliens and close the border, and will stop making the kind of free trade agreements that kill U.S. manufacturing and so the ability of lower-income Americans to move into the middle class. He also suggested that if America is forced to go to war to defend itself he will use U.S. military forces to annihilate the enemy. He has given no indication that he would intervene abroad unnecessarily or launch offensive wars, like those in Iraq and Libya. All of this sounds good, but he must speak more clearly and with conviction if he wants voters to believe that he will unlike his Republican and Democratic competitors make foreign-policy decisions solely on the basis of what is best for Americas relatively few and never abstract national interests. What is most intriguing and encouraging about Trump is that he is not politically correct, he is admirable in his ready combativeness, he speaks like an American not an effete and clueless Ivy-League theoretician, and he is making enemies of Americas most dangerous internal enemies. On the last point, watch Foxs Brett Baier and his usually excellent Special Report each evening and there you will see George Will and Charles Krauthammer twist every question posed to them in a way that permits them to defame and pour vitriol on Trump. And then listen to one of the Grand Masters of disloyal Israel-First-ism, Bill Kristol, who has long passed the apoplectic stage in his hatred of Trump and his staying power in polls of Republican voters. Finally, look at the large number of former U.S. general officers who have endorsed Jeb Bush. These men and their still serving colleagues have lost every war America has fought since VJ Day in 1945, and not one has shown any qualms about getting their young Marines and soldiers killed or maimed in wars they know their president does not intend to win. Overall a candidate that has deliberately and enthusiastically made enemies of the war-mongering and interventionist Republican and Democratic establishments, Americas worst domestic enemies, and a gang of decrepit and lick-spittle generals is surely worth careful, open-minded, and probably favorable consideration.

Bottom Line: President Trump = A chance worth taking.

Originally posted here:

Is there an America-First enemy of … – Michael Scheuer

Fair Usage Law

June 10, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer – Official Site

This writer carries no brief for Israel. All that is written and argued about Israels right to exist is nonsense. Neither Israel nor the United States nor any other nation has a right to exist. A states ability to survive depends solely on its own social cohesion, economic viability, and domestic political, international, and military behavior and actions, not on some non-existent right the Israel-First lobby dreamed-up to use to propagandized the American people into eternally supporting a nation that is completely irrelevant and, indeed, bloodily counter-productive to genuine U.S. national security interests.

That said, Israel and all nation-states have an absolute right to defend themselves in the manner they deem mandatory for their survival. In the now-dying Western democracies that defense includes the process of national elections to choose national political leaders. For a foreign nation to interfere in such elections as the disloyal U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters and Mexican governments routinely do in U.S. elections is to undermine the intervened-in nations absolute right of self-defense. The Obama administrations State Department apparently identified disloyal Israeli citizens in Israel and transferred to them at least $350,000 for to use in a campaign meant to defeat Mr. Netanyahu in the recent Israeli election. Such intervention is tantamount to an act of war, just as it is criminal negligence for any government to refuse to identify and aggressively prosecute those of its citizens who use foreign money to influence a national election. And this is at least the second time that the Obama administration has deliberately compromised the ability of the Israelis to defend themselves. Recall that it was Obamas White House, in spring, 2012, which leaked information about a deal that Israel had worked out with Azerbaijan to use Azeri airfields if it decided that its security required an attack Irans nuclear facilities. (See, www.non-intervention.com, 2 April 2012)

The Israelis will not attack the United States, of course, but a well-merited retaliation against America is simple enough to execute and probably will be. Netanyahus government can cut back on whatever intelligence is shared with the U.S. intelligence community; continue to pass sensitive U.S. technologies to other nations; pick up the pace of recruiting penetrations of the U.S. governments intelligence and defense communities; and, as always, seek to influence U.S. elections and further corrupt U.S. politics via the money of disloyal Jewish-Americans and their organizations.

What makes matters worse for U.S. security is that this intervention in Israels national security affairs is only a part of the campaign that Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inaugurated to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries in the name of spreading democracy, while actually seeking to establish abroad the kind of liberal-authoritarian government they are trying to build in the United States. And Republican hands are not clean on this funding for counterproductive interventionism unless all of them voted against the State Department appropriations that allowed the democracy crusaders Obama and Clinton to fund the disastrous-for-the-United-States actions that follow.

The funding of Iranian oppositions groups, the result of which was scores of dead young Iranians, more Muslim hatred for U.S. interventionism, and less domestic political freedom in Iran.

The funding along with EU funding of opposition groups in the Ukraine that ultimately led to overthrow of Ukraines government; justified Putins annexation of the Crimea to protect Russias national security interests; started a Ukrainian civil war; and inaugurated a U.S.-led Western effort to economically strangle Russia that has created a European environment in which war between NATO and Russia is again being discussed and warned of.

The funding of Egyptian groups opposed to Mubaraks regime, which resulted in Mubaraks fall; the election of an Islamist government; a U.S.-EU approved military coup to overthrow the Islamists ,which restored a Mubarak-like dictatorship; and the beginning of the destabilization of the region that has been, quite literally, an Allah-send for the Islamist movement.

U.S. interventionism always ends up costing America lives and money and earning it enduring hatred and war, and never more so than when it is conducted by reality blind and terminally adolescent theorists like Obama and Hillary Clinton.

I have long argued that the United States has no compelling national security concern that requires more than a nominal relationship with Israel, perhaps an exchange of Consul-Generals, at most. Our current bilateral relations with Israel cost American taxpayers untold billions of dollars that could be much better spent or saved at home; prompted President Bushs Israel-First war against Saddams non-U.S.-threatening Iraq, the intensely negative repercussions of which have only started to be felt; provides one of the half-dozen major motivations for the anti-U.S. Islamism that has grown from Usama bin Ladens 40-man al-Qaeda in 1988 to todays worldwide Islamist movement; and facilitated the opportunity for Israel-First U.S. citizens and their organizations to corrupt both houses of Congress and much of the U.S. political system. For these issues and others, U.S. ties to Israel out to be reduced to the lowest possible level. Preferably they should be cut altogether.

This termination process can and should be done in a publicly forthright, manly, and dignified manner; of course, no one would ascribe such character traits to Obama or any of his senior lieutenants. But the termination of relations must be done solely in the interests of the United States, not in a punitive manner that makes the United States an agent of Israels destruction, although constant U.S. intervention in the Muslim world championed by Obama, Hillary Clinton, McCain, Wolfowitz, Graham, Firth, AIPAC, Cheney, all the Bushes etc. has already contributed massively to what seems likely to be Israels inevitable demise.

See the original post here:

Michael Scheuer – Official Site

Fair Usage Law

May 20, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Scheuer Born 1952[1] Buffalo, New York, U.S.[1] Residence Virginia[2] Nationality American[1] Almamater Canisius College, MA, Niagara University, MA, Carleton University, PhD, University of Manitoba[1] Occupation former CIA intelligence officer, blogger, author, historian, professor foreign policy critic, political analyst, adjunct professor[1]

Political party

Michael F. Scheuer (born 1952)[1] is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, author, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka “Alec Station”), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

Scheuer became a public figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris, in which he criticized many of the United States’ assumptions about Islamist insurgencies and particularly Osama bin Laden. Later in 2004, shortly after the ‘outing’ of Scheuer’s harsh criticism of America’s close alliance with Israel, Scheuer resigned from his position at the CIA. In his book Scheuer depicted bin Laden as a rational actor who was fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans.

Scheuer challenges the common assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not “terrorism”)[3] is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist forces, who in places such as Kashmir, Xinjiang, and Chechnya are “struggling not just for independence but against institutionalized barbarism.”[3][4] Osama bin Laden acknowledged the book in a 2007 statement, suggesting that it revealed “the reasons for your losing the war against us”.[5][6]

In February 2009, shortly after his pronouncement that America’s relationship with Israel was a total foreign policy liability to the United States, Scheuer was terminated from his position as a senior fellow of The Jamestown Foundation.[citation needed]

Scheuer was born in Buffalo and graduated from Canisius College in 1974, and went on to earn an M.A. from Niagara University in 1976 and another M.A. from Carleton University in 1982.[7][8] He also received a Ph.D. in British Empire-U.S.-Canada-U.K. relations from the University of Manitoba in 1986.[9][10]

Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004.[citation needed] He was chief of the Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999.[dead link] He worked as Special Adviser to the Chief of the bin Laden Unit from September 2001 to November 2004.[11] He is now known to have been the anonymous author of both the 2004 book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and the earlier anonymous work, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.[12] After his anonymously-published books had been publicly associated with his name, he was mentioned in an Osama bin Laden statement of September 7, 2007. According to bin Laden, “If you want to understand what’s going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard.”[5]

After leaving the CIA in 2004, Scheuer worked as a news analyst for CBS News and a terrorism analyst for The Jamestown Foundation’s online publication Global Terrorism Analysis.[13] He also makes radio and television appearances and teaches a graduate-level course on Al-Qaeda at Georgetown University. He also participates in conferences on terrorism and national security issues, such as the New America Foundation’s December 2004 conference, “Al Qaeda 2.0: Transnational Terrorism After 9/11.”[14]

In 2009, Scheuer reported that he had lost his position as a Senior Fellow with the Jamestown Foundation, after “several major financial donors to Jamestown threatened to withdraw funding” if he continued in that role.[15] The funding threats were pursuant to his criticism of Barack Obama’s “dancing the Tel Aviv two-step” in allegedly kowtowing to the Israeli lobby, as well as Scheuer’s disdaining of Obama’s selection as Chief of Staff of Rahm Emanuel, “a U.S. citizen who during the 1991 Gulf War left America to serve in Israel’s military.”[15]

Read more here:

Michael Scheuer – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair Usage Law

May 20, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer: Obama Is "Arrogant And Racist" | Crooks …

This exchange is odious. I thought Glenn Beck was bad — bad enough that he may be in danger of getting booted from Fox News — but in 40 seconds or so, hater-spook Michael Scheuer just laid down some of the most disgusting commentary I’ve ever heard. (Scheuer, in case you’ve forgotten, wished for another terrorist attack on the USA so we’d “learn”)

Let’s start with reality, then I’ll give you the transcript. Reality in Libya is that entire cities are being wiped off the map as Moammar Gadhafi cracks down on freedom fighters. Reality in Libya is that Gadhafi is a dictator in decline but he has no regard for his people and has no problem killing those who seek his exile and/or death. Reality in Libya is that Gadhafi is brutal, insane, and responsible for more acts of terrorism in the past three weeks than any other country in the last 30 years. This is before we get to the question of the Lockerbie crash and Gadhafi’s hand in that.

This is who the man is. And the US response to his mayhem has been remarkably measured. Via The Hill:

Obama, in remarks with visiting Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, said he wanted to send a very clear message to those around Moammar Gadhafi.

It is their choice to make how they operate moving forward, and they will be held accountable for whatever violence continues to take place there, Obama said.

The presidents tough words come as Obama and his administration cautiously weigh further steps, including military action, in the country.

Obama on Monday greenlighted an additional $15 million in emergency funds for humanitarian assistance, and the North Atlantic Council of NATO meeting daily this week is still considering other military options. Obama has made it clear he will not pursue military intervention unilaterally.

We’ve sent humanitarian aid. We’re a member of NATO. Libya’s unrest threatens the UK and other key allies. And Gadhafi is indulging his thirst for genocide.

Now this is what CIA counterterrorism expert and professional hater Scheurer says is the motive for ‘considering military options’:

NAPOLITANO: How much of a threat is Moammar Gadhafi to the United States of America at the present time?

Read this article:

Michael Scheuer: Obama Is "Arrogant And Racist" | Crooks …

Fair Usage Law

May 20, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel is pushing America to go to War with Iran – Video



CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel is pushing America to go to War with Iran
CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel wants America at War with Iran.

By: BubbaTube

The rest is here:

CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel is pushing America to go to War with Iran – Video

Fair Usage Law

April 13, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel Is a Drag and a Cancer On America – Video



CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel Is a Drag and a Cancer On America
CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel Is a Drag and a Cancer On America.

By: BubbaTube

Originally posted here:

CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel Is a Drag and a Cancer On America – Video

Fair Usage Law

April 13, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer: We can’t tell other countries how to protect themselves! – Video



Michael Scheuer: We can't tell other countries how to protect themselves!
The John Fredericks Show is Common Sense for the Commonwealth and a Voice for Virginia. The morning show is focused on issues that impact the daily lives of Virginians. Listen to the show…

By: JohnFredericksShow

Read the original here:

Michael Scheuer: We can’t tell other countries how to protect themselves! – Video

Fair Usage Law

March 28, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Kevin Barrett interviews Michael Scheuer – Video



Kevin Barrett interviews Michael Scheuer

By: David Rose

Originally posted here:

Kevin Barrett interviews Michael Scheuer – Video

Fair Usage Law

March 25, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Ex CIA Michael Scheuer Tells Congress "I’d dump the Israelis tomorrow" – Video



Ex CIA Michael Scheuer Tells Congress “I'd dump the Israelis tomorrow”
Thoughts and opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect those of my own. However, I feel that Mr. Scheuer has some good points about how Israel is supported no matter what….

By: Jack Taylor,II

Go here to see the original:

Ex CIA Michael Scheuer Tells Congress "I’d dump the Israelis tomorrow" – Video

Fair Usage Law

March 25, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Is there an America-First enemy of … – Michael Scheuer

All this seems to show that change of ministers amounts to nothing. One goes out, another comes in, and still the same measures, vices, and extravagance are pursued. It signifies not who is minister. The defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into court [authoritarian] government, and ever will. Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791-92 Even in the midst of his destabilizing intoxication with the French Revolutions madness, Thomas Paine still was able to peer into the future and accurately describe the state of the U.S. government and the republics political system in 2016. And no truer words could be spoken about contemporary Americas foreign-policy disaster than Paines point that the defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into court [authoritarian] government, and ever will. In his recent State of the Union address, for example, President Obama asserted that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and the Islamist movement do not pose an existential threat to the United States. Obama would have been 100-percent correct if he had been speaking when al-Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1996. The reason that the Islamists are now, without question, an existential threat lies in the war-causing interventionism of the past four presidents and their administrations, as well as their cowardly refusal to win the wars they started. Of the four, Obama stands out for special condemnation, as no single Muslim could have done more to promote the confidence, geographic spread, and numerical growth of the Islamist movement. It is these national government actions that have motivated and nurtured the Islamists, and they will remain and grow further as an existential threat to the United States until the citizenry elects a president who puts America first by calling a halt to unnecessary overseas interventionism, and engages in wars only when America is attacked or narrowly defined U.S. national interests are at clear and indisputable risk. I have written here previously that twenty years into this religious war, the American people have come to the point where they really only have two credible options if they are to avoid an endless war with Islam and defend their republic and themselves. (a) The United States can break the Islamic States back by destroying its energy, educational, agricultural, transportation, electrical, medical, and industrial infrastructures and the other money-making assets it controls in Syria and Iraq, and and if we wait much longer probably Libya. After doing this, the U.S. government can withdraw all of its military assets from the region, announce that U.S. forces are not coming back to save anyones bacon, and advise the sixty-plus other countries in Obamas coalition to align with the Saudi coalition and destroy the remaining Islamists. Because the Saudis and their coalition support most of the non-IS Islamists and probably some of the IS ones this scenario will quickly lead to a regional Sunni-Shia war in which our enemies will merrily kill each other until well after the cows come home. (b) The United States can avoid the foregoing effort and expense by stepping out of the region right now and letting the Islamist movement and its main enemies in the region move at their own pace, which will take them straight to a regional sectarian war. As this savagery evolves, Americans must do all that is necessary to secure the republics position in North America close borders, deport all illegal aliens, temporarily stop all immigration, etc. Again, this is not a complicated problem: the United States must utterly destroy the Islamist enemy and then leave the region, or the United States must leave the region and end its unnecessary, war-causing, and always ineffective interventionism and let the Islamists take on their main enemies, Muslim tyrants, Israel, and the Shia. For twenty-five years, however, the U.S. government has done neither. It has waged war in a half-way (half-assed?) manner and lost two wars, an exercise in foreign-and-military futility that has succeeded in enriching an environment in the Islamic world that is intensely anti-U.S. government, yielding enormous growth in the Islamist movement, and convincing many millions of Muslims that the mujahedin can win because their success so far demonstrates Allahs approval of their efforts. Given Americas limited options and with time to make a choice running short, the 2016 presidential election is acutely important because it may be the last chance for Americans to make the choice described above before getting sucked into catastrophe in the Middle East. Sadly, only one of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates seems to offer anything other than more of the same war-causing measures. Lets have a look. Hillary Clinton: Long a Neoconservative, a cultural/political/military interventionist, and a war-causing democracy monger. She favors the war-causing expansion of NATO, and is willing to see U.S. Marines and soldiers killed and maimed to install her version of feminism abroad. She is an unquestioning supporter of Israel and on the payroll of the Israel-First lobby. She and Obama are responsible for the Libyan invasion, which in a year or so will produce the same kind of problems and perhaps worse as those produced by the Hillary-supported, George W. Bush invasion of Iraq. She also seems to be a chronic liar, an influence peddler, and an enemy of U.S. national security. Bottom Line: President Hillary Clinton = More war, more Islamist damage to the United States, deeper debt, less liberty, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, continued open borders, and the potential spectacle of a sitting president and perhaps her husband being convicted and imprisoned for an array of crimes. Bernie Sanders and Martin OMalley: These two characters provide the 2016 campaign with a reliable and more than ample supply of the putrid-and-nation killing breath of warmed-over 20th century socialism and communism. Perhaps forgetting how those creeds bred authoritarianism (anyone recall National Socialism in Germany?), one-party rule, the mass murder of dissenters, and the destruction of the economies of Eastern Europe, Central and South America, much of Africa, Russia, India, and China, Sanders and OMalley represent an enormous step backwards in their effort to make todays America into the Eastern Europe of the 1950s. Neither seems as corrupt or criminally inclined as Mrs. Clinton, but they offer nothing except a Bolshevik-made blueprint that ensures minority rule and Americas demise. Sanders, in particular, can never be permitted to assume the presidency. But on foreign policy they both are establishment Democrats, they want to make the rest of the world democratic, feminist, and secular and that can only be done despite Sanders claim that he prefers diplomacy with more and more war. Bottom Line: President Sanders or President OMalley = More war, more Islamist damage to the United States, a weaker military, more minority rule, deeper debt, more taxes, less liberty, continued open borders, and more presidential diktats. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush: Given what their statements and websites say about foreign policy, there is not an outsider in this bunch, they are all members actual or aspiring of the Republican establishment. All are Neoconservatives; all are all-out supporters of Israel and takers of Israel-First campaign funding; all identify Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf and Middle East tyrannies as U.S. allies; all favor what is increasingly likely to be a war-causing expansion of NATO; and all are bone-deep proponents of the senior Bushs deranged recipe for endless foreign intervention and the wars it causes, the New World Order. Bottom Line: President Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, Huckabee, Fiorina, Kasich, or Bush = More of the same from the Republican establishment; that is, more America must lead prattle, more war, more dead Marines and soldiers, more Islamist damage to the United States, deeper debt, less liberty, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, and continued open borders. Rand Paul: This is the best and most specific conservative candidate on a combination of issues, including the debt, the Federal Reserve, the return of constitutional governing, reducing tax rates, right to life, and protecting the 2nd and 4th Amendments. On foreign policy, however, his websites softly spoken statements suggest complete support for Israel which means endless war with Islam and the continuation of U.S. alliances, apparently meaning an array of Sunni tyrannies on the Arab Peninsula and in the Middle Wast and NATO and its expansionism which means endless war with Islam and possibly unnecessary conflict with Russia. Perhaps most troubling, the website does not seem to have a discussion of the vital importance of reestablishing a U.S. foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention; indeed, I could not find those words on the website . Bottom Line: President Paul = More of the same Republican interventionist foreign policy and so more war, debt, taxes, dead Marines and soldiers, and precious little time to work for the return to constitutional government. Donald Trump: This candidate has given few details about his views on foreign policy, save that he will be tougher on Mexico and China, will deport all illegal aliens and close the border, and will stop making the kind of free trade agreements that kill U.S. manufacturing and so the ability of lower-income Americans to move into the middle class. He also suggested that if America is forced to go to war to defend itself he will use U.S. military forces to annihilate the enemy. He has given no indication that he would intervene abroad unnecessarily or launch offensive wars, like those in Iraq and Libya. All of this sounds good, but he must speak more clearly and with conviction if he wants voters to believe that he will unlike his Republican and Democratic competitors make foreign-policy decisions solely on the basis of what is best for Americas relatively few and never abstract national interests. What is most intriguing and encouraging about Trump is that he is not politically correct, he is admirable in his ready combativeness, he speaks like an American not an effete and clueless Ivy-League theoretician, and he is making enemies of Americas most dangerous internal enemies. On the last point, watch Foxs Brett Baier and his usually excellent Special Report each evening and there you will see George Will and Charles Krauthammer twist every question posed to them in a way that permits them to defame and pour vitriol on Trump. And then listen to one of the Grand Masters of disloyal Israel-First-ism, Bill Kristol, who has long passed the apoplectic stage in his hatred of Trump and his staying power in polls of Republican voters. Finally, look at the large number of former U.S. general officers who have endorsed Jeb Bush. These men and their still serving colleagues have lost every war America has fought since VJ Day in 1945, and not one has shown any qualms about getting their young Marines and soldiers killed or maimed in wars they know their president does not intend to win. Overall a candidate that has deliberately and enthusiastically made enemies of the war-mongering and interventionist Republican and Democratic establishments, Americas worst domestic enemies, and a gang of decrepit and lick-spittle generals is surely worth careful, open-minded, and probably favorable consideration. Bottom Line: President Trump = A chance worth taking.

Fair Usage Law

June 10, 2016   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer – Official Site

This writer carries no brief for Israel. All that is written and argued about Israels right to exist is nonsense. Neither Israel nor the United States nor any other nation has a right to exist. A states ability to survive depends solely on its own social cohesion, economic viability, and domestic political, international, and military behavior and actions, not on some non-existent right the Israel-First lobby dreamed-up to use to propagandized the American people into eternally supporting a nation that is completely irrelevant and, indeed, bloodily counter-productive to genuine U.S. national security interests. That said, Israel and all nation-states have an absolute right to defend themselves in the manner they deem mandatory for their survival. In the now-dying Western democracies that defense includes the process of national elections to choose national political leaders. For a foreign nation to interfere in such elections as the disloyal U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters and Mexican governments routinely do in U.S. elections is to undermine the intervened-in nations absolute right of self-defense. The Obama administrations State Department apparently identified disloyal Israeli citizens in Israel and transferred to them at least $350,000 for to use in a campaign meant to defeat Mr. Netanyahu in the recent Israeli election. Such intervention is tantamount to an act of war, just as it is criminal negligence for any government to refuse to identify and aggressively prosecute those of its citizens who use foreign money to influence a national election. And this is at least the second time that the Obama administration has deliberately compromised the ability of the Israelis to defend themselves. Recall that it was Obamas White House, in spring, 2012, which leaked information about a deal that Israel had worked out with Azerbaijan to use Azeri airfields if it decided that its security required an attack Irans nuclear facilities. (See, www.non-intervention.com, 2 April 2012) The Israelis will not attack the United States, of course, but a well-merited retaliation against America is simple enough to execute and probably will be. Netanyahus government can cut back on whatever intelligence is shared with the U.S. intelligence community; continue to pass sensitive U.S. technologies to other nations; pick up the pace of recruiting penetrations of the U.S. governments intelligence and defense communities; and, as always, seek to influence U.S. elections and further corrupt U.S. politics via the money of disloyal Jewish-Americans and their organizations. What makes matters worse for U.S. security is that this intervention in Israels national security affairs is only a part of the campaign that Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inaugurated to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries in the name of spreading democracy, while actually seeking to establish abroad the kind of liberal-authoritarian government they are trying to build in the United States. And Republican hands are not clean on this funding for counterproductive interventionism unless all of them voted against the State Department appropriations that allowed the democracy crusaders Obama and Clinton to fund the disastrous-for-the-United-States actions that follow. The funding of Iranian oppositions groups, the result of which was scores of dead young Iranians, more Muslim hatred for U.S. interventionism, and less domestic political freedom in Iran. The funding along with EU funding of opposition groups in the Ukraine that ultimately led to overthrow of Ukraines government; justified Putins annexation of the Crimea to protect Russias national security interests; started a Ukrainian civil war; and inaugurated a U.S.-led Western effort to economically strangle Russia that has created a European environment in which war between NATO and Russia is again being discussed and warned of. The funding of Egyptian groups opposed to Mubaraks regime, which resulted in Mubaraks fall; the election of an Islamist government; a U.S.-EU approved military coup to overthrow the Islamists ,which restored a Mubarak-like dictatorship; and the beginning of the destabilization of the region that has been, quite literally, an Allah-send for the Islamist movement. U.S. interventionism always ends up costing America lives and money and earning it enduring hatred and war, and never more so than when it is conducted by reality blind and terminally adolescent theorists like Obama and Hillary Clinton. I have long argued that the United States has no compelling national security concern that requires more than a nominal relationship with Israel, perhaps an exchange of Consul-Generals, at most. Our current bilateral relations with Israel cost American taxpayers untold billions of dollars that could be much better spent or saved at home; prompted President Bushs Israel-First war against Saddams non-U.S.-threatening Iraq, the intensely negative repercussions of which have only started to be felt; provides one of the half-dozen major motivations for the anti-U.S. Islamism that has grown from Usama bin Ladens 40-man al-Qaeda in 1988 to todays worldwide Islamist movement; and facilitated the opportunity for Israel-First U.S. citizens and their organizations to corrupt both houses of Congress and much of the U.S. political system. For these issues and others, U.S. ties to Israel out to be reduced to the lowest possible level. Preferably they should be cut altogether. This termination process can and should be done in a publicly forthright, manly, and dignified manner; of course, no one would ascribe such character traits to Obama or any of his senior lieutenants. But the termination of relations must be done solely in the interests of the United States, not in a punitive manner that makes the United States an agent of Israels destruction, although constant U.S. intervention in the Muslim world championed by Obama, Hillary Clinton, McCain, Wolfowitz, Graham, Firth, AIPAC, Cheney, all the Bushes etc. has already contributed massively to what seems likely to be Israels inevitable demise.

Fair Usage Law

May 20, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Scheuer Born 1952[1] Buffalo, New York, U.S.[1] Residence Virginia[2] Nationality American[1] Almamater Canisius College, MA, Niagara University, MA, Carleton University, PhD, University of Manitoba[1] Occupation former CIA intelligence officer, blogger, author, historian, professor foreign policy critic, political analyst, adjunct professor[1] Political party Michael F. Scheuer (born 1952)[1] is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, author, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka “Alec Station”), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004. Scheuer became a public figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris, in which he criticized many of the United States’ assumptions about Islamist insurgencies and particularly Osama bin Laden. Later in 2004, shortly after the ‘outing’ of Scheuer’s harsh criticism of America’s close alliance with Israel, Scheuer resigned from his position at the CIA. In his book Scheuer depicted bin Laden as a rational actor who was fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans. Scheuer challenges the common assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not “terrorism”)[3] is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist forces, who in places such as Kashmir, Xinjiang, and Chechnya are “struggling not just for independence but against institutionalized barbarism.”[3][4] Osama bin Laden acknowledged the book in a 2007 statement, suggesting that it revealed “the reasons for your losing the war against us”.[5][6] In February 2009, shortly after his pronouncement that America’s relationship with Israel was a total foreign policy liability to the United States, Scheuer was terminated from his position as a senior fellow of The Jamestown Foundation.[citation needed] Scheuer was born in Buffalo and graduated from Canisius College in 1974, and went on to earn an M.A. from Niagara University in 1976 and another M.A. from Carleton University in 1982.[7][8] He also received a Ph.D. in British Empire-U.S.-Canada-U.K. relations from the University of Manitoba in 1986.[9][10] Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004.[citation needed] He was chief of the Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999.[dead link] He worked as Special Adviser to the Chief of the bin Laden Unit from September 2001 to November 2004.[11] He is now known to have been the anonymous author of both the 2004 book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and the earlier anonymous work, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.[12] After his anonymously-published books had been publicly associated with his name, he was mentioned in an Osama bin Laden statement of September 7, 2007. According to bin Laden, “If you want to understand what’s going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard.”[5] After leaving the CIA in 2004, Scheuer worked as a news analyst for CBS News and a terrorism analyst for The Jamestown Foundation’s online publication Global Terrorism Analysis.[13] He also makes radio and television appearances and teaches a graduate-level course on Al-Qaeda at Georgetown University. He also participates in conferences on terrorism and national security issues, such as the New America Foundation’s December 2004 conference, “Al Qaeda 2.0: Transnational Terrorism After 9/11.”[14] In 2009, Scheuer reported that he had lost his position as a Senior Fellow with the Jamestown Foundation, after “several major financial donors to Jamestown threatened to withdraw funding” if he continued in that role.[15] The funding threats were pursuant to his criticism of Barack Obama’s “dancing the Tel Aviv two-step” in allegedly kowtowing to the Israeli lobby, as well as Scheuer’s disdaining of Obama’s selection as Chief of Staff of Rahm Emanuel, “a U.S. citizen who during the 1991 Gulf War left America to serve in Israel’s military.”[15]

Fair Usage Law

May 20, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer: Obama Is "Arrogant And Racist" | Crooks …

This exchange is odious. I thought Glenn Beck was bad — bad enough that he may be in danger of getting booted from Fox News — but in 40 seconds or so, hater-spook Michael Scheuer just laid down some of the most disgusting commentary I’ve ever heard. (Scheuer, in case you’ve forgotten, wished for another terrorist attack on the USA so we’d “learn”) Let’s start with reality, then I’ll give you the transcript. Reality in Libya is that entire cities are being wiped off the map as Moammar Gadhafi cracks down on freedom fighters. Reality in Libya is that Gadhafi is a dictator in decline but he has no regard for his people and has no problem killing those who seek his exile and/or death. Reality in Libya is that Gadhafi is brutal, insane, and responsible for more acts of terrorism in the past three weeks than any other country in the last 30 years. This is before we get to the question of the Lockerbie crash and Gadhafi’s hand in that. This is who the man is. And the US response to his mayhem has been remarkably measured. Via The Hill: Obama, in remarks with visiting Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, said he wanted to send a very clear message to those around Moammar Gadhafi. It is their choice to make how they operate moving forward, and they will be held accountable for whatever violence continues to take place there, Obama said. The presidents tough words come as Obama and his administration cautiously weigh further steps, including military action, in the country. Obama on Monday greenlighted an additional $15 million in emergency funds for humanitarian assistance, and the North Atlantic Council of NATO meeting daily this week is still considering other military options. Obama has made it clear he will not pursue military intervention unilaterally. We’ve sent humanitarian aid. We’re a member of NATO. Libya’s unrest threatens the UK and other key allies. And Gadhafi is indulging his thirst for genocide. Now this is what CIA counterterrorism expert and professional hater Scheurer says is the motive for ‘considering military options’: NAPOLITANO: How much of a threat is Moammar Gadhafi to the United States of America at the present time?

Fair Usage Law

May 20, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel is pushing America to go to War with Iran – Video




CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel is pushing America to go to War with Iran CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel wants America at War with Iran. By: BubbaTube

Fair Usage Law

April 13, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel Is a Drag and a Cancer On America – Video




CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel Is a Drag and a Cancer On America CIA Dr Michael Scheuer : Israel Is a Drag and a Cancer On America. By: BubbaTube

Fair Usage Law

April 13, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Michael Scheuer: We can’t tell other countries how to protect themselves! – Video




Michael Scheuer: We can't tell other countries how to protect themselves! The John Fredericks Show is Common Sense for the Commonwealth and a Voice for Virginia. The morning show is focused on issues that impact the daily lives of Virginians. Listen to the show… By: JohnFredericksShow

Fair Usage Law

March 28, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Kevin Barrett interviews Michael Scheuer – Video




Kevin Barrett interviews Michael Scheuer By: David Rose

Fair Usage Law

March 25, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed

Ex CIA Michael Scheuer Tells Congress "I’d dump the Israelis tomorrow" – Video




Ex CIA Michael Scheuer Tells Congress “I'd dump the Israelis tomorrow” Thoughts and opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect those of my own. However, I feel that Mr. Scheuer has some good points about how Israel is supported no matter what…. By: Jack Taylor,II

Fair Usage Law

March 25, 2015   Posted in: Michael Scheuer  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."